This Is -- Again, As In 2018-19 -- A Time For Choosing: Which Side Of History's Line Will You Fall On?

I do not want the Cheetolini's stupid graphic to be the top of my narrative for even one more instant.

No -- I want the readership to reflect on the humility (and majesty) of Dr. King's narrative, from the Birmingham jail, in 1963 -- this Sunday morning. I've quoted the most salient parts -- in view of last night's threats against the law-abiding people of the City of Big Shoulders -- in my masthead, above at the bottom of this post. [I believe that is Bull Connor in the photo I've altered and used (as commentary), but I've layered the image with a CGI lens-flare, as I cannot be certain -- and I do not wish to unduly embarrass the likely still-living grandchildren of whomever that Jim Crow South police officer is, in the Getty-sourced photo.]

So today, I also want to re-run the Seventh Circuit analysis that holds Chicago (and many other cities) are absolutely on solid grounds, in enforcing their sanctuary city ordinances (or "Welcoming Ordinance", as ours in known here -- another of my backgrounders, here). So, this was my column from late 2018, reposted:

[Original Dateline: Late 2018] Today's appelate ruling in the Second Circuit only means that -- eventually -- the case will have to go to the Supremes. . . long after Trump is voted out of office.

That is so, because the Illinois federal courts had, in early 2018, enjoined his lawless notion -- and the Seventh Circuit has affirmed that nationwide injunction. Nothing in New York changes that. So he remains. . . hamstrung. Here's a re-print of my report, on that day, from April of 2018:

Just as we said he would, he lost -- at trial. and now on appeal. Chucklehead.

I note the 7^th Circuit's opinion for the very severe language used -- language unseen in several decades (since Nixon was in that office, at least). Three able federal appellate judges, both republicans and democrats, have penned a 47 page opinion that characterizes Mr. Trump's administration as evincing "a disturbing disregard for the separation of powers. . ." Not a good look, here 45/47:

. . . .In considering on appeal the likelihood of success on the merits, it is necessary to focus narrowly on the dispositive question and to avoid the invitation of the parties to weigh in on broader policy considerations. For instance, the Attorney General repeatedly characterizes the issue as whether localities can be allowed to thwart federal law enforcement.

That is a red herring. First, nothing in this case involves any affirmative interference with federal law enforcement at all, nor is there any interference whatsoever with federal immigration authorities. The only conduct at issue here is the refusal of the local law enforcement to aid in civil immigration enforcement through informing the federal authorities when persons are in their custody and providing access to those persons at the local law enforcement facility. Some localities might choose to cooperate with federal immigration efforts, and others may see such cooperation as impeding the community relationships necessary to identify and solve crimes.

The choice as to how to devote law enforcement resources -- including whether or not to use such resources to aid in federal immigration efforts—would traditionally be one left to state and local authorities. . . .

In fact, throughout the briefs in this case, the Attorney General is incredulous that localities receiving federal funds can complain about conditions attached to the distribution of those funds. But that repeated mantra evinces a disturbing disregard for the separation of powers. The power of the purse does not belong to the Executive Branch. It rests in the Legislative Branch. . . .

As the Supreme Court has repeatedly held, “’Congress. . . does not alter the fundamental details of a regulatory scheme in vague terms or ancillary provisions -- it does not, one might say, hide elephants in mouseholes.’” Gonzales, 546 U.S. at 267, quoting Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., 531 U.S. 457, 468 (2001). . . .

Indeed. Forty Seven 45 is -- as I said he would be, repeatedly -- a loser, again. Sleep well, all you of good will, and good cheer. . . and yes, here in 2025 -- I am committing: if Trump rolls into Chicago -- I personally will be in the streets, escorting people to the nearest Catholic church. I have a heat map, for every neighborhood, and know the quickest car routes -- mostly through alleys -- to the churches. My spacious, well appointed (with very highly tinted back seat windows!) hybrid Lexus SUV will come in quite handy (in electric mode, it runs completely silently!), should Trump/Noem be so stupid as to even try it.



And, of course, I will also serve as these passengers' pro bono lawyer, as well.

Onward, resolutely.

नमस्ते