They weren't denying them access to public schools. They were denying them access to a white public school. You Rats have always been about standing in the school house doorways.
You're parroting the exact same arguments the old Southern Rat racists used when the Feds tried to enforce Federal law.
Hardly shocking, you come off like a bigoted dumbfuck in most of your posts here. Good to see you drop the mask.
Straw man ass fucker! No one is stopping fat boy from enforcing federal law. That’s why he lost his legal challenge. Why won’t he appeal to scotus GayBob? Southern schools lost the legal argument every time, just like you and trump.
Not surprised a “a man of truth and integrity” like you has to hide behind civil rights era black kids to defend your ignorance.
You should be on really solid legal standing then, right?
Tell us again how sanctuary laws are illegal, and unconstitutional? You’ve lost every step of the way so far but I’m sure you have a good argument. It’s like Orval Faubus all over again! Except you can’t win the argument in policy or law.
You should be on really solid legal standing then, right?
Tell us again how sanctuary laws are illegal, and unconstitutional? You’ve lost every step of the way so far but I’m sure you have a good argument. It’s like Orval Faubus all over again! Except you can’t win the argument in policy or law.
You had one District Court judge rule against the Administration. Every step of the way!!!!
You should be on really solid legal standing then, right?
Tell us again how sanctuary laws are illegal, and unconstitutional? You’ve lost every step of the way so far but I’m sure you have a good argument. It’s like Orval Faubus all over again! Except you can’t win the argument in policy or law.
You had one District Court judge rule against the Administration. Every step of the way!!!!
What a dumbfuck
You’ll win next time! Except there isn’t going to be a next time. Why won’t fat boy appeal? The district order stands. It’s like bull Connor? Is that your argument? You should win easily then right?
You should be on really solid legal standing then, right?
Tell us again how sanctuary laws are illegal, and unconstitutional? You’ve lost every step of the way so far but I’m sure you have a good argument. It’s like Orval Faubus all over again! Except you can’t win the argument in policy or law.
You had one District Court judge rule against the Administration. Every step of the way!!!!
What a dumbfuck
You’ll win next time! Except there isn’t going to be a next time. Why won’t fat boy appeal? The district order stands. It’s like bull Connor? Is that your argument? You should win easily then right?
Fact: he couldn’t have his clergyman in the room because he was not a Christian.
No because he wasn't a state employee. Do you think lying helps your case O'Keefed?
If we're actually trying to get to the point, maybe it ought to include a discussion of why a Christian clergyman is a state employee.
No, it's not a constitutional crisis. But it's a fair question/point to raise.
What the guy did, and false allegations of people supporting him on anything other than the one raised, appears to be someone fucking straw man ass.
O'Keefed has a long, history of squirting tears over child killers who are facing the death penalty. And for all I know the clergyman could have been a prison guard who was also a pastor.
You should be on really solid legal standing then, right?
Tell us again how sanctuary laws are illegal, and unconstitutional? You’ve lost every step of the way so far but I’m sure you have a good argument. It’s like Orval Faubus all over again! Except you can’t win the argument in policy or law.
You had one District Court judge rule against the Administration. Every step of the way!!!!
What a dumbfuck
You’ll win next time! Except there isn’t going to be a next time. Why won’t fat boy appeal? The district order stands. It’s like bull Connor? Is that your argument? You should win easily then right?
California doesn’t enforce or pay for federal immigration law. It’s not our responsibility. Fat boy is always free to take legal action. He won’t, because just like you, he’s a giant fucking pussy and will lose.
You should be on really solid legal standing then, right?
Tell us again how sanctuary laws are illegal, and unconstitutional? You’ve lost every step of the way so far but I’m sure you have a good argument. It’s like Orval Faubus all over again! Except you can’t win the argument in policy or law.
You had one District Court judge rule against the Administration. Every step of the way!!!!
What a dumbfuck
You’ll win next time! Except there isn’t going to be a next time. Why won’t fat boy appeal? The district order stands. It’s like bull Connor? Is that your argument? You should win easily then right?
California doesn’t enforce or pay for federal immigration law. It’s not our responsibility. Fat boy is always free to take legal action. He won’t, because just like you, he’s a giant fucking pussy and will lose.
My grievances? Is this just like your bullshit about how I was supposedly offering financial advise? You just string words together whether the make any sense or not don't ya dumbfuck.
The fact that you parroting George Wallace isn't one of my "grievances" dumbfuck. And why is it that you can never back up that twat of mouth of yours? According to you I'm such a fucking pussy yet you're the one who is always running and hiding like a Kunt when you're asked a question.
You should be on really solid legal standing then, right?
Tell us again how sanctuary laws are illegal, and unconstitutional? You’ve lost every step of the way so far but I’m sure you have a good argument. It’s like Orval Faubus all over again! Except you can’t win the argument in policy or law.
You had one District Court judge rule against the Administration. Every step of the way!!!!
What a dumbfuck
You’ll win next time! Except there isn’t going to be a next time. Why won’t fat boy appeal? The district order stands. It’s like bull Connor? Is that your argument? You should win easily then right?
California doesn’t enforce or pay for federal immigration law. It’s not our responsibility. Fat boy is always free to take legal action. He won’t, because just like you, he’s a giant fucking pussy and will lose.
My grievances? Is this just like your bullshit about how I was supposedly offering financial advise? You just string words together whether the make any sense or not don't ya dumbfuck.
The fact that you parroting George Wallace isn't one of my "grievances" dumbfuck. And why is it that you can never back up that twat of mouth of yours? According to you I'm such a fucking pussy yet you're the one who is always running and hiding like a Kunt when you're asked a question.
One question.
Why won’t trump appeal his sanctuary law court losses?
Answer the question GayBob! You are not going to run and hide like a giant fucking trumptastic pussy are you?
Feds should make and enforce federal law. Immigration is entirely a federal responsibility. California DOJ, DAs, sheriffs and cops enforce local laws. The state does not have an immigration policy nor does it defy federal law.
Fat boy is supposed to enforce federal law. He won’t get one local jail cell or cop for his idiocy. It’s called federalism.
Have you trumptards stopped to consider why fat boy hasnt appealed his sanctuary law court losses?
I believe this was the exact same argument that was used by the people who wanted to keep the "coloreds" out of their kids' schools.
Exact same argument? To an imbecile.
Denying access to public schools is unconstitutional.
Telling trump to fuck off and enforce, staff and pay for his own MAGAtry is not unconstitutional. It’s not illegal. Immigration is not California’s responsibly you retard and we won’t pay a dime or lift a finger while trump is in office to promote this shitshow.
Why won’t fat boy appeal his sanctuary law court losses GayBob? Why won’t you answer the question?
Why because they get federal money for the schools?
You should be on really solid legal standing then, right?
Tell us again how sanctuary laws are illegal, and unconstitutional? You’ve lost every step of the way so far but I’m sure you have a good argument. It’s like Orval Faubus all over again! Except you can’t win the argument in policy or law.
You had one District Court judge rule against the Administration. Every step of the way!!!!
What a dumbfuck
You’ll win next time! Except there isn’t going to be a next time. Why won’t fat boy appeal? The district order stands. It’s like bull Connor? Is that your argument? You should win easily then right?
California doesn’t enforce or pay for federal immigration law. It’s not our responsibility. Fat boy is always free to take legal action. He won’t, because just like you, he’s a giant fucking pussy and will lose.
Here's hoping that an illegal wanted by the feds does the dirty to you!
Fact: he couldn’t have his clergyman in the room because he was not a Christian.
No because he wasn't a state employee. Do you think lying helps your case O'Keefed?
If we're actually trying to get to the point, maybe it ought to include a discussion of why a Christian clergyman is a state employee.
No, it's not a constitutional crisis. But it's a fair question/point to raise.
What the guy did, and false allegations of people supporting him on anything other than the one raised, appears to be someone fucking straw man ass.
O'Keefed has a long, history of squirting tears over child killers who are facing the death penalty. And for all I know the clergyman could have been a prison guard who was also a pastor.
Fair enough.
Keeping religion out of the state's hands, event the religions we like (perhaps especially the ones we like), still seems like a very good arrangement.
I know, I know, there are these little historical inconsistencies, like In God We Trust, invoking prayer at Congressional events, the Pledge, etc. But we ought not to use those isolated inconsistencies as a rationale for tossing out the entire approach. If you're a Christian, especially so now that the House at least is starting to diversify a bit more than usual.
If the guy had an option to have a non-denominational pastor in the room, I suppose that's one thing.
I'm not a big proponent of the death penalty, because our system, and we, are imperfect and we make mistakes. That one is hard to take back.
Fact: he couldn’t have his clergyman in the room because he was not a Christian.
No because he wasn't a state employee. Do you think lying helps your case O'Keefed?
If we're actually trying to get to the point, maybe it ought to include a discussion of why a Christian clergyman is a state employee.
No, it's not a constitutional crisis. But it's a fair question/point to raise.
What the guy did, and false allegations of people supporting him on anything other than the one raised, appears to be someone fucking straw man ass.
O'Keefed has a long, history of squirting tears over child killers who are facing the death penalty. And for all I know the clergyman could have been a prison guard who was also a pastor.
Fair enough.
Keeping religion out of the state's hands, event the religions we like (perhaps especially the ones we like), still seems like a very good arrangement.
I know, I know, there are these little historical inconsistencies, like In God We Trust, invoking prayer at Congressional events, the Pledge, etc. But we ought not to use those isolated inconsistencies as a rationale for tossing out the entire approach. If you're a Christian, especially so now that the House at least is starting to diversify a bit more than usual.
If the guy had an option to have a non-denominational pastor in the room, I suppose that's one thing.
I'm not a big proponent of the death penalty, because our system, and we, are imperfect and we make mistakes. That one is hard to take back.
Please to be pointing out where it says "seperation of church and state" in the constitution?
Fact: he couldn’t have his clergyman in the room because he was not a Christian.
No because he wasn't a state employee. Do you think lying helps your case O'Keefed?
If we're actually trying to get to the point, maybe it ought to include a discussion of why a Christian clergyman is a state employee.
No, it's not a constitutional crisis. But it's a fair question/point to raise.
What the guy did, and false allegations of people supporting him on anything other than the one raised, appears to be someone fucking straw man ass.
O'Keefed has a long, history of squirting tears over child killers who are facing the death penalty. And for all I know the clergyman could have been a prison guard who was also a pastor.
Fair enough.
Keeping religion out of the state's hands, event the religions we like (perhaps especially the ones we like), still seems like a very good arrangement.
I know, I know, there are these little historical inconsistencies, like In God We Trust, invoking prayer at Congressional events, the Pledge, etc. But we ought not to use those isolated inconsistencies as a rationale for tossing out the entire approach. If you're a Christian, especially so now that the House at least is starting to diversify a bit more than usual.
If the guy had an option to have a non-denominational pastor in the room, I suppose that's one thing.
I'm not a big proponent of the death penalty, because our system, and we, are imperfect and we make mistakes. That one is hard to take back.
Please to be pointing out where it says "seperation of church and state" in the constitution?
Fact: he couldn’t have his clergyman in the room because he was not a Christian.
No because he wasn't a state employee. Do you think lying helps your case O'Keefed?
If we're actually trying to get to the point, maybe it ought to include a discussion of why a Christian clergyman is a state employee.
No, it's not a constitutional crisis. But it's a fair question/point to raise.
What the guy did, and false allegations of people supporting him on anything other than the one raised, appears to be someone fucking straw man ass.
O'Keefed has a long, history of squirting tears over child killers who are facing the death penalty. And for all I know the clergyman could have been a prison guard who was also a pastor.
Fair enough.
Keeping religion out of the state's hands, event the religions we like (perhaps especially the ones we like), still seems like a very good arrangement.
I know, I know, there are these little historical inconsistencies, like In God We Trust, invoking prayer at Congressional events, the Pledge, etc. But we ought not to use those isolated inconsistencies as a rationale for tossing out the entire approach. If you're a Christian, especially so now that the House at least is starting to diversify a bit more than usual.
If the guy had an option to have a non-denominational pastor in the room, I suppose that's one thing.
I'm not a big proponent of the death penalty, because our system, and we, are imperfect and we make mistakes. That one is hard to take back.
Please to be pointing out where it says "seperation of church and state" in the constitution?
Fact: he couldn’t have his clergyman in the room because he was not a Christian.
No because he wasn't a state employee. Do you think lying helps your case O'Keefed?
If we're actually trying to get to the point, maybe it ought to include a discussion of why a Christian clergyman is a state employee.
No, it's not a constitutional crisis. But it's a fair question/point to raise.
What the guy did, and false allegations of people supporting him on anything other than the one raised, appears to be someone fucking straw man ass.
O'Keefed has a long, history of squirting tears over child killers who are facing the death penalty. And for all I know the clergyman could have been a prison guard who was also a pastor.
Fair enough.
Keeping religion out of the state's hands, event the religions we like (perhaps especially the ones we like), still seems like a very good arrangement.
I know, I know, there are these little historical inconsistencies, like In God We Trust, invoking prayer at Congressional events, the Pledge, etc. But we ought not to use those isolated inconsistencies as a rationale for tossing out the entire approach. If you're a Christian, especially so now that the House at least is starting to diversify a bit more than usual.
If the guy had an option to have a non-denominational pastor in the room, I suppose that's one thing.
I'm not a big proponent of the death penalty, because our system, and we, are imperfect and we make mistakes. That one is hard to take back.
Please to be pointing out where it says "seperation of church and state" in the constitution?
Comments
No one is stopping fat boy from enforcing federal law. That’s why he lost his legal challenge. Why won’t he appeal to scotus GayBob? Southern schools lost the legal argument every time, just like you and trump.
Not surprised a “a man of truth and integrity” like you has to hide behind civil rights era black kids to defend your ignorance.
Tell us again how sanctuary laws are illegal, and unconstitutional? You’ve lost every step of the way so far but I’m sure you have a good argument. It’s like Orval Faubus all over again! Except you can’t win the argument in policy or law.
What a dumbfuck
No, it's not a constitutional crisis. But it's a fair question/point to raise.
What the guy did, and false allegations of people supporting him on anything other than the one raised, appears to be someone fucking straw man ass.
George Wallace lives, and he is still a Rat.
California doesn’t enforce or pay for federal immigration law. It’s not our responsibility. Fat boy is always free to take legal action. He won’t, because just like you, he’s a giant fucking pussy and will lose.
The fact that you parroting George Wallace isn't one of my "grievances" dumbfuck. And why is it that you can never back up that twat of mouth of yours? According to you I'm such a fucking pussy yet you're the one who is always running and hiding like a Kunt when you're asked a question.
Why won’t trump appeal his sanctuary law court losses?
Answer the question GayBob! You are not going to run and hide like a giant fucking trumptastic pussy are you?
Keeping religion out of the state's hands, event the religions we like (perhaps especially the ones we like), still seems like a very good arrangement.
I know, I know, there are these little historical inconsistencies, like In God We Trust, invoking prayer at Congressional events, the Pledge, etc. But we ought not to use those isolated inconsistencies as a rationale for tossing out the entire approach. If you're a Christian, especially so now that the House at least is starting to diversify a bit more than usual.
If the guy had an option to have a non-denominational pastor in the room, I suppose that's one thing.
I'm not a big proponent of the death penalty, because our system, and we, are imperfect and we make mistakes. That one is hard to take back.
We are and have been a Christian nation.