News that DEMOCRATS will decry
- Thread starter Legion
- Start date
Excellent, Legion.
Sweet. That'll cover a few paychecks!!
Of course she's a DEMOCRAT, Earl.
Must be friends w/Baltimore's JUST FORCED OUT mayor, Conyers' wife, the mayors of San Juan, St.Louis, Chicago, New Orleans, failed South Bend mayor Bootyplug etc., etc., ad nauseum.
When DEMS are in charge, corruption looms large.
Indeed. I wonder how soon JPP DEMOCRATS will claim Obama should get all the credit. Don't you?
Don't DEMOCRATS deny that illegals get welfare?
The Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed a new rule Friday to make people seeking housing assistance have to prove their legal status, in a move that could oust millions of illegal immigrants.
Secretary Ben Carson said the rule would bring policy into compliance with the law, which generally tries to restrict public benefits to citizens and legal residents. “There is an affordable housing crisis in this country, and we need to make certain our scarce public resources help those who are legally entitled to it,” Carson said.
The new rules require applicants to have their information run through the federal database which is used to weed illegal immigrants out of other public benefit programs.
Families already in public housing would have to be checked.
DEMOCRATS were incensed, calling the move an “attack” and warning of a rise in homelessness in illegal immigrant families.
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/may/10/hud-proposes-ban-illegal-immigrants-public-housing/
The Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed a new rule Friday to make people seeking housing assistance have to prove their legal status, in a move that could oust millions of illegal immigrants.
Secretary Ben Carson said the rule would bring policy into compliance with the law, which generally tries to restrict public benefits to citizens and legal residents. “There is an affordable housing crisis in this country, and we need to make certain our scarce public resources help those who are legally entitled to it,” Carson said.
The new rules require applicants to have their information run through the federal database which is used to weed illegal immigrants out of other public benefit programs.
Families already in public housing would have to be checked.
DEMOCRATS were incensed, calling the move an “attack” and warning of a rise in homelessness in illegal immigrant families.
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/may/10/hud-proposes-ban-illegal-immigrants-public-housing/
Compliance with the LAW??!! Gasp!! Surely not!!!
Don't DEMOCRATS deny that illegals get welfare?
Every day....they then play Leftist Word Dance, and try to pretend that ONLY ADC (or whatever it's called nowadays) counts as "welfare".
The $billions in taxpayer-funded freebies under other alphabet soup names they get, "don't count", in Leftgoofythink.
No other way to sell leftism...
Indeed they do deny that illegals get welfare.
Washington Examiner:
“Census confirms: 63 percent of ‘non-citizens’ on welfare, 4.6 million households
Washington Examiner.com
Democrats lie...often.
Indeed there is not, is there?
They do, don't they, Earl?
THEY LOVE LITTLE CHILDREN
An event for children presented by drag performers has been canceled after receiving backlash from the public.
Performance group Glitter Hole, a "DIY drag collective", were scheduled to deliver a story telling event for children aged between 3 and 7.
The event, which said it would provide "families with glamorous, positive, and unabashedly queer role models", was due to take place as part of a summer series at a public library on June 26.
The drag group, who said they have performed the children's event three times before with an "entirely positive" response, said they were disappointed to hear of the cancellation.
"It is with a heavy heart that I have to announce that our upcoming Drag Story Time event has been canceled," a spokesperson for Glitter Hole said.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/drag-story-time-event-for-children-cancelled-at-dublin-library-after-backlash-38015705.html
President Trump is moving to stop lower courts from being able to issue wide-ranging injunctions in a move that could dramatically limit the authority of judges.
The plan comes as desperate DEMOCRATS opposed to Trump have been able to get several of his policies, including those seeking to limit immigration, put on hold by nationwide order issued by activist lower courts in battles that were eventually decided by the Supreme Court.
Pursuing an end to nationwide injunctions would mark the latest achievement by President Trump in reshaping the federal courts after getting two Supreme Court justices confirmed and more than 100 of his judicial picks installed.
Legal experts oppose nationwide injunctions. They argue that judges’ rulings blocking policies should apply only to those behind the legal challenge and that courts are overstepping their bounds by issuing wide-ranging injunctions.
Samuel Bray, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame who has been vocal in his opposition to national injunctions, said such sweeping orders “take the courts outside of their constitutional role.”
He argued that district courts were designed to rule on matters involving specific parties and not an entire nation. And if individuals in a lawsuit want the order applied nationally, Bray said, they could always file a class-action lawsuit to do so.
“Everybody in the class will win or lose together,” Bray said. And he noted that if one party loses its case for a national injunction before one judge “someone else can take another bite at the apple in another court.”
Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan, said policies that are challenged in court deserve to undergo a “robust” review in the courts and should not simply be put on ice by the ruling of a single judge.
“What I struggle with is why anyone would support handing to judges the authority to put a halt to important government programs just because they happen to get their knickers in a twist about a particular case,” Bagley said.
DEMOCRATS and the Obama administration, opposed national injunctions when they were issued in response to some of the former president’s policies, such as ObamaCare and the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/443211-trump-seeks-to-limit-judges-powers-on-injunctions-after-legal
The plan comes as desperate DEMOCRATS opposed to Trump have been able to get several of his policies, including those seeking to limit immigration, put on hold by nationwide order issued by activist lower courts in battles that were eventually decided by the Supreme Court.
Pursuing an end to nationwide injunctions would mark the latest achievement by President Trump in reshaping the federal courts after getting two Supreme Court justices confirmed and more than 100 of his judicial picks installed.
Legal experts oppose nationwide injunctions. They argue that judges’ rulings blocking policies should apply only to those behind the legal challenge and that courts are overstepping their bounds by issuing wide-ranging injunctions.
Samuel Bray, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame who has been vocal in his opposition to national injunctions, said such sweeping orders “take the courts outside of their constitutional role.”
He argued that district courts were designed to rule on matters involving specific parties and not an entire nation. And if individuals in a lawsuit want the order applied nationally, Bray said, they could always file a class-action lawsuit to do so.
“Everybody in the class will win or lose together,” Bray said. And he noted that if one party loses its case for a national injunction before one judge “someone else can take another bite at the apple in another court.”
Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan, said policies that are challenged in court deserve to undergo a “robust” review in the courts and should not simply be put on ice by the ruling of a single judge.
“What I struggle with is why anyone would support handing to judges the authority to put a halt to important government programs just because they happen to get their knickers in a twist about a particular case,” Bagley said.
DEMOCRATS and the Obama administration, opposed national injunctions when they were issued in response to some of the former president’s policies, such as ObamaCare and the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/443211-trump-seeks-to-limit-judges-powers-on-injunctions-after-legal