Of course. These people are supposed to recuse themselves when they have a conflict of interest. Clearly the lack of respect liberals have for the Rule of Law has infected the bench as well. The Trump administration should immediately appeal to vacate this decision.

Via Fox News Insider.

Federal Judge William Orrick III, who on Tuesday blocked President Trump’s order to withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities, reportedly bundled hundreds of thousands of dollars for President Barack Obama.

Orrick, of the Northern District of California, issued an injunction against the Trump administration after the city of San Francisco and county of Santa Clara sued over the president’s plan to withhold federal funds from municipalities that harbor illegal immigrants.

As FoxNews.com reported:

The ruling from U.S. District Judge William Orrick III in San Francisco said that Trump’s order targeted broad categories of federal funding for sanctuary governments, and that plaintiffs challenging the order were likely to succeed in proving it unconstitutional.

The decision will block the measure for now, while the federal lawsuit works its way through the courts.

The news comes on the heels of the Department of Justice threatening on Friday to cut off funding to eight so-called “sanctuary cities,” unless they were able to provide proof to the federal government that they weren’t looking the other way when it came to undocumented immigrants.
The same judge issued a restraining order in 2015 against the advocacy group responsible for undercover videos purporting to show Planned Parenthood employees plotting to sell baby organs.

At the time, The Federalist found that Orrick raised at least $200,000 for Obama and donated more than $30,000 to groups supporting him.

This section is for comments from tammybruce.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Tammy agrees with or endorses any particular comment just because she lets it stand.
1 Comment | Leave a comment
  1. Alain41 says:

    Haven’t read any discussion of Judge’s ruling but I’m guessing that it’s along the lines of conflating, not choosing to go along with a voluntary legality vs not following the law. Ie, as I recall, Obama admin. wanted to withhold all Medicaid funds from a State that did not voluntarily expand Medicaid eligibility but courts said you can’t punish a State complying with a law that just chooses to not follow voluntary option. Similar to discussing immigrants vs illegal and legal immigrants.
    Easy way to weaponize law is to be lazy/corrupt with definitions.

You must be logged in to post a comment.