Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

It is just my opinion, but with the latest ruling out of Chicago one has to think about these judges... who side are they on? They certainly have little, if any concern for American citizen's safety, well being or welfare. It is time to examine each judge to ensure their competency to sit on the bench. Perhaps ascertaining their knowledge base of our Constitution.

Here is the ruling on Chicago as a sanctuary city. Police are barred from "granting ICE officials access to individuals in Chicago police custody, except when they’re wanted on a criminal warrant or have a serious criminal conviction. Police also cannot allow ICE agents to use their facilities for investigations, and on-duty officers are not allowed to respond to ICE inquiries or communicate with ICE officials about a person's custody status or release."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-fed-judge-trump-sanctuary-city-20180727-story.html

Chicago has a reputation as one of America's most violent cities. 2016 was the worst year for homicides in nearly two decades in the Windy City with 762 murders, 3,550 shooting incidents and 4,331 shooting victims. On average, 12 people are shot in Chicago every single day and it experienced more murders than New York and Los Angeles combined last year. The number of homicides in Chicago since 2001 also eclipsed U.S. war dead in Iraq and Afghanistan in late 2016.

Perhaps it should be a sanctuary city, put a wall around it.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Only in liberal utopia would this make sense. Criminal lives matter, citizens not so much.

Loki Loc: Georgia

Perhaps it should be a looney bin. The wall is needed to keep them in. The mayor, just like his buddy Obama, are both part of the Chicago political machine.

Mike Easterday

Chicago is nothing but a ghetto! You can't find 3 decent people in the whole city. I have met people from there. Eventually they proved me right.

son of witless

Poor Al Capone. If only Chicago had shown him the same courtesy they are showing illegals, the Feds probably would have never gotten him on Tax Evasion. A G-Man is a G-Man.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

Huh, Democrats and Republicans get exactly what they wanted, and you complain about it? The entire Judicial system is just as political as the other two branches, indeed, may be even more partisan than the other branches. Who can tell where partisan bullcrap, and ideology leaves off and the Constitution picks up? Every Judge appointed to any bench, all say that the law and ONLY the law influences their rulings - but we know that's a load of doodoo.

Why the fervor for the GOP to fill the Supreme Court? Why the heartburn by Democrats over it? Why the crowing by the Trump administration, over how many Federal Judges they've installed? You know the answer to all of those questions, because the answer is the same for all of them; Having your "people" on the bench, all but guarantees rulings favorable to your party and or ideological viewpoint.

We allowed the Law to become another partisan weapon. That's right, WE allowed that....because we only protest when the OTHER side fills a bench.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

major, question; When's the last time you wondered which way one of the liberal SCOTUS'S would rule?

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

What difference does that make? Both sides are wrong 99% of the time and courts are not where politics should be played.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

The difference is that the bias by liberals is much more evident. Which side when it doesn’t like the majority of Americans vote on a matter always goes to the courts?

old marine Loc: America home of the brave

This decision was made by a federal district judge, but President Trump can appeal it to the SCOTUS for their final ruling or overturn the regional ruling.

Loki Loc: Georgia

Liberals have more of a tendency to wing it. They make it up as they go, attempting to usurp the job of Congress by legislating from the bench. So you have a Senate that only approves judges in political lockstep with whichever party controls the Senate, for a lifetime appointment. This is why I support term limits of ten years tops for all the Federal Judiciary, including the SCOTUS.

old marine Loc: America home of the brave

I don't agree with lifetime appointments either. Congress is elected for six year terms to keep half on hand to teach the newly elected ones ones what their duties are carried out.

Maybe judges should be vetted and appointed the same way.

tactful Loc: just North of the District of LMAO

I resemble that remark.

Absolutely Not true having been born and raised there. Like every where else there are good and bad places, it was not always that way or the crime capital of the country! Not by a long shot however having been back a few times I can honestly say it's not the same place I remember.
It was a great music city to grow up in though but I no longer have the friends I had growing up there,most now live in the burbs.

old marine Loc: America home of the brave

It is not the city that is evil it's the criminals that control the city that are evil.

You said most of the friends you grew up with did the same thing you did, they moved out of the city controlled by evil people.

Loki Loc: Georgia

Actually, incumbents are re-elected at a rate of 97% in the Senate, and nearly that high in the House. It is almost impossible to unseat an incumbent Senator. This is why I support repeal of the 17th Amendment; until 1913 there was no such thing as a Senator staying in office for 30 or 40 years, because no state legislature, (who chose the Senators prior to the ratification of the 17th) would stand for it.