Ah, ba-ba-ba-ba! Hillary Surrogate Childishly Cuts Off Conservative Critic of Sanctuary Cities
And People Were Worried About the Trump Administration Conducting Itself in Mature Manner?
And people have been worrying whether the Trump administration would conduct itself in a mature manner? . . . On CNN this morning, Christine Quinn—former NYC Council Speaker and a Hillary surrogate—used childish antics in an attempt to silence conservative radio talk show host Ben Ferguson on the subject of sanctuary cities.
At one point [1:46 in video], Quinn raised her hand and angrily yelled “ah, ba-ba-ba-ba!” to shut Ferguson down. It was the most churlish display by a political pundit this Insurrectionist can remember. Ferguson took it all in stride, smiling wryly through Quinn’s antics.
JOHN BERMAN: New York’s Mayor Bill de Blasio promised just moments ago on New Day to keep New York City a sanctuary city, but President-elect Donald Trump has promised stiff financial consequences for cities that do that. So can mayors realistically defy this order? I want to bring in our CNN commentators. Ben Ferguson is a conservative commentator and host of Ben Ferguson Show and Christine Quinn is former NYC Council Speaker, she was supportive of Hillary Clinton during the presidential campaign.
. . .
CHRISTINE QUINN: We’re allowed to do this. It’s not like we’re disregarding the federal government, they can do their job, but we don’t have to do it for them —
JOHN BERMAN: All right, Ben Ferguson, your turn [after Ferguson had complained about Quinn’s filibustering.]
QUINN: There you go!
. . .
BEN FERGUSON: First of all, you have an issue here with victims of people who commit crimes. And what she’s describing here is basically unrealistic. You cannot have a sanctuary city and also enforce the law at the same time. You are choosing to defy and say to the federal government, we are not going to enforce the laws. For her to say they don’t ask people about their status and somehow that’s compassionate. It’s not compassionate to those who are victims of crimes by people who are in those at sanctuary cities that have warrants out for their arrest, when they don’t do a background check when they catch somebody, or to see if they have warrants out when they catch somebody. The bigger issue here is this. We have federal laws that say that you are not supposed to be in this country illegally and if you come here illegally, then you are working and taking jobs away from American citizens. [Quinn can be seen shaking her head and laughing sarcastically.] So, these mayors that say, oh, I’m going to not do these things. I’m not going to turn over someone when we find out that they’re here illegally. They deserve to get their federal funds taken away from their city.
. . .
QUINN: In New York City if somebody gets rushed into an emergency room and they are bleeding, I do think it is wrong to not fix them, to help them physically.
FERGUSON: That’s not what I’m talking about —
QUINN: Ah, ba-ba-ba-ba!
FERGUSON: I agree with you!
QUINN: Two —
FERGUSON: I agree with you —
QUINN: Yeah, yeah. I let you go on and on and on. Two, we are not talking about violent criminals. When we —
FERGUSON: How do you know if you don’t check them?
QUINN: Hello?? What we’re talking —
FERGUSON: How do you know?
QUINN: Can you be quiet? We’re going to have to do this for four years, so calm yourself down and get a little manners! Two, Mr. Ferguson might not fully understand all of the dynamic and I think this is a complicated issue that is getting boiled down into rhetoric and will hurt people.
. . .
QUINN: John, I mean Ben, you’re right, Mr. Ferguson, is wrong about the funding issue. There’s clear court cases that say you cannot take away federal money not related to what is going on.
FERGUSON: Yes you can!
QUINN: There are solid court cases. You can do it on drunk driving and streets. There is not money relevant to this.
FERGUSON: That’s just not true!
BERMAN: Let’s hit the books, let’s go to the library, let’s check this out. We will continue this discussion very soon.
QUINN: Thank you.
BERMAN: Ben Ferguson, nice to introduce you two and look forward to the next four years.
QUINN: [laughs uproariously]
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The sanctuary cities are too addicted to federal money to be acting like the honcho.
These prog morons got metaphorically punched in the nose last week.
If they keep acting like this, it probably won’t be long before they start to get the real deal.
Lefty true colors revealed. Guess there’s not as much need now to cloak their root petty, infantile behavior in pseudo-intellectual double-speak.
Youze guys are forgetting some fundamentals…
1. sanctuary cities advocates are outlaws
2. they are brazen outlaws who’ve been open and candid about their outlawery
3. they’ve been getting away with it for decades
4. as Collectivists, they don’t care about your stinkin’ laws, and they can rationalize anything.
5) If you oppose them you’re a stinkin’ racist xenophobe
Sorry, Rags, but “sanctuary city” advocates are not outlaws. It is firmly established constitutional law in this country that the federal government may not commandeer state and city governments to enforce federal laws, and may not withhold funds in order to coerce them into doing so. That is why the feds were unable to force states or cities to enforce the Fugitive Slave laws, Prohibition, the Brady Act, or 0bamacare, and it’s why Trump can’t force them to enforce the immigration laws, not even by withholding money they would otherwise get. He can offer them new money in return for cooperation, but they don’t have to take the offer.
No but you can arrest them for ignoring those laws. Also, don’t cut funding because they are sanctuary cities, when you decide funding you just don’t count the number of illegals they are supporting in the equation of how much money they get.
No, you cannot arrest them, because they have every right to ignore those laws. The tenth amendment protects that right. And any reduction in funding from the previous level must be justified without reference to that refusal. You can cut the general level of funding for a particular program, to everyone who gets it; you can’t cut more from those who refuse to enforce a federal law than from those who agree. There are tons of cases against using funding as a weapon to punish people for exercising their constitutional rights.
What you propose, basing funding on the legal population only, and not counting people who shouldn’t be there in the first place, would probably work; but there are no good statistics to use for it, so it wouldn’t be very useful.
actually there are a couple that they did use funding against the states, when Carter wanted to reduce the highway speed limit to 55 US wide, they refused to give the highway funds they were due, actually one of the states said so what and the feds upped the punishment, second when they wanted the states to go to 21 for drinking they did something similar.
You are misremembering what happened. South Dakota v Dole upheld the funding cut only because it was not coercive. “Moreover, the relatively small financial inducement offered by Congress here — resulting from the State’s loss of only 5% of federal funds otherwise obtainable under certain highway grant programs — is not so coercive as to pass the point at which pressure turns into compulsion.”
Funding conditions also have to be directly related “to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs”. So even non-coercive funding conditions could only apply to programs that are related to the conditions imposed.
In that case you just use the highest number available from whatever source is deemed credible.
I am confused on where in the 10th Ammendment it says states and individuals can ignore federal law regarding immigration, when that is specifically a power given in Article I, Section VIII, Clause 4.
The tenth amendment says the states don’t work for the feds. They are not subservient to the feds, and can’t be commandeered to enforce federal law. Why the hell should they? If the feds want to make a law, let them enforce it their own damn selves.
How about this: Kathryn Steinle was murdered by a man wanted by Federal authorities for violent crimes, having been previously deported 5 times. The law enforcement officer who released this man, can he or she be charged with being an accessory to the crime? After all, the perpetrator did have a history of violence, was wanted so he could be deported again, and was a known danger to society. Had the perpetrator been in custody the murder would not have happened. If not penalizing the City of San Francisco, charge the individual who did the releasing.
Society needs to be able to protect itself from known dangers. The rights of the city should not supersede the citizens right to life. Liberty and the pursuit of happiness ain’t happening once one is dead.
No, he cannot, because he had no obligation to hold the person. He doesn’t work for the federal government, and the tenth amendment specifically bars the federal government from commandeering his services.
The fact that someone is wanted does not mean whoever sees that person must arrest him, or even call the police to do so. If you recognise a wanted person in the street you have every right to walk on and ignore him, and that SF cop had the same right.
Between NYC, Chicago, San Francisco, and New Orleans it seems a few examples are about to be made.
First of all, no municipalities should be getting money from the federal budget to start with. State and local taxes exist for a reason. Federal taxes should be much lower. If cities and states want to have higher taxes be my guest. I don’t have to live there. Second, states and municipalities can make laws more stringent than the federal gov’t, but they can’t make them less stringent. Sanctuary cities are wrong and so is state legalized marijuana.
The aftermath of Trump’s election has crystalized with abject clarity that contemporary Leftists display three predominant traits — fascist intolerance for dissenting views and the people who hold them, jackboot thuggishness and bullying antics directed at dissenters and general infantilism/immaturity and intellectual stuntedness.
Oooh! Oooh! Clear Court Cases! Yeah, that’ll fix it!
Funny stuff, there.
Obama has set the precedent; the President can do anything he f’n wants, and nobody can do anything but grouse about it.
The danger to the Dems is acute. As we saw during this long campaign, Trump is a phenomenally energetic man; Obama, on the other hand, was a lazy SOB, usually golfing, vacationing, partying, or fund-raising for the Dems, actually putting very little time or effort into his main job, the destruction of America as we know it (a.k.a. the “transformation of the country”). Anything Obama could do, Trump can do (or undo), magnified by some yuuuggggeee factor. And he’ll enjoy doing it. Some people like action, some like leisure. Some Presidents are Teddy Roosevelt; some, well, aren’t.
What can the Dems do? Rely on the Press to hound Trump? Won’t bother him in the least. Count on Congressional leadership to block him at every turn? Hahaha, Schumer (or, for that matter, McConnell) vs. Trump is not going to be a reprise of Henry Cabot Lodge vs. Wilson. Finally offer an intellectually coherent argument for the merits of Liberalism and Progressivism? An even bigger Hahaha for that one. All they can do is make loud baby noises … as we see here.
I think the Dems are realizing that they’ve blundered into a crisis bigger than anything they’ve faced since 1861—which was also a crisis of their own making—and they won’t fare well this time, either. Unfortunately for the country, they’ll probably survive, now as they did then. But they’ll fail in their efforts to turn the country into compost, now as they did then.
Notice she never actually articulates any of those supposed court cases.
She doesn’t have to. They’re well known. Prigg v PA, NY v USA, Printz v USA, and the latest is NFIB v Sibelius, just four years ago.
Prigg v PA, Irrelevant has nothing to do with cutting federal funds all it did was strike down a PA law and overturn the one conviction under that flawed law.
NY vs US Also Irrelevant has nothing to do with cutting funding for not complying with existing law.
“the States had to choose between conforming to federal regulations or taking title to the waste” Not the same thing.
Just because I don’t feel like wasting my time with your ignorance anymore the other 2 cases are just as irrelevant.
Are you thick or what? All four cases say that the states cannot be forced to work for the feds. Congress can make whatever laws it likes, but it can’t press the states into its service. And it can’t cut funding to force them to do so.
Oooh! Oooh! Clear Court Cases! Yeah, that’ll fix it!
Funny stuff, there.
Obama has set the precedent; the President can do anything he f’n wants, and nobody can do anything but grouse about it.
No, he can’t. One of those cases was against 0bama, and he lost. A unanimous court told him he could not withhold money that states would otherwise get, in order to compel them to enforce a federal law. And there was nothing 0bama could do about it. The funding had to continue, and the states did not have to enforce the law. The anti-commandeering doctrine is a fundamental freedom that states and their subdivisions have against the feds. And NYC has long experience with it, having successfully refused to enforce prohibition.
They want to be sanctuaries? Let them pay for the privilege.
Well TFR, the problem with that is they have to raise taxes on these do gooders. When the tax bill comes they move out to our areas eventually gain a majority of votes and repeat their stupidity all over again.
It’s not a privilege, it’s a constitutional right. It was already paid for in 1776.
Yea, just like that case that said Rick Perry couldn’t cut funding to that one prosecutors office because she refused to step down after being arrested for being drunker than cooter brown…….Oh, wait that’s right, it got thrown out on its ear.
(Yes, I realize it was just a way of keeping him out of the Presidential Race, but still.)
1) Local authorities don’t have tenth amendment rights against their states.
2) He wasn’t trying to punish her for not doing as he wanted, he just couldn’t trust her to use the money lawfully.
Dem surrogates, increasingly, embarrassingly:
“That’s what YOU are, but what am I?”
So Milhouse, sounds as if you have sorted all this out and there seems to be nothing that can be done to curtail the practice of sanctuary cities. That doesn’t bode well.
So states don’t need to follow the laws on marijuana either?
How did they manage the 55mph speed limit and 21-year-old drinking age?
Nothing can or should be done to curtail the practise of sanctuary cities. This is not a cause for concern. Nothing such cities do prevents the feds from enforcing immigration laws. They just have to do it themselves, which is their job. The feds were able to enforce prohibition without any help from states or cities such as NY.
Also, if a state government wants to, it can force cities to cooperate with the feds. Cities have no tenth amendment rights against their states.
I don’t know what you mean by states not following the laws on marijuana. If you mean not enforcing them, then that is correct. States do not have to enforce federal marijuana laws, as evidenced by the fact that so many states are now openly allowing marijuana use. The feds are still free to enforce their law if they like, but they can’t expect any help from the states or cities.
The speed limit and drinking age were achieved by linking a small percentage of highway funding to state cooperation. The amount was small enough that the Supreme Court said it wasn’t coercive, and highway funding is directly connected to these issues. The feds could not have cut any other kind of funding, and they could not have cut even the highway funding so drastically that it would leave the state with no choice but to comply.
Along those lines, do you suppose the federal government could withhold certain funding from sanctuary cities that is directly related to illegal immigrants and safety?
Such as the antiterrorism funding that is currently flowing to NYC?
There is no funding that’s directly related to illegal immigrants. And safety is not at all related to immigration. No court would recognise such a linkage. Beside which, even if it were directly related, the cut cannot be so big as to deprive the city of a meaningful choice. In South Dakota v Dole, the feds won only because the cut was small enough that the state could have chosen to take it.