You actually don't even need to wall off all of California - just some of the major cities in Southern California.

"I don't think that the Constitution gives the Judicial branch the authority to over-ride the President"

It absolutely shouldn't, but the only remedy is Impeachment, which has only happened to the Judiciary one time in history and certainly wouldn't happen in today's hyper-partisan atmosphere.

I actually had an idea about judicial activism: if a Federal Judge has X (I was thinking three) or more rulings in a given year overturned by the Supreme Court, that Judge's stature of being "in good behavior" is automatically revoked and the Judge must re-apply for approval by the Senate (under the same advise and consent rules). In this way, judges who repeatedly ruled based on partisanship would have to justify their positions before a Senate hearing in order to keep their jobs, and they'd have to persuade the Senate they were right to keep their jobs.

I say build a wall around California and let them float free of any help from the rest of us. Lets see how long they last. Maybe Venezuela can give them money and support them.

They are FEDERAL taxes and not the property of the state to begin with.

I lean toward states rights, too. But states do not have the right to interfere in the enforcement of federal laws. Immigration is handled under the federal umbrella as states do not have the right to make treaties with foreign nations AND because the Constitution puts immigration squarely within the purview of the Executive branch. Interestingly enough, I don't think that the Constitution gives the Judicial branch the authority to over-ride the President in this power, explicitly assigned to him.

obstruction of justice is a way of life in Washington dc

She should have been rounded up and arrested for aiding and abetting criminals. Pile up the charges 800 counts sounds about right.

The school of hard knocks and personal accountability is rarely so accommodating as progressives fantasize. I too would be very interested to put them in their own nation and watch as they learn that their own policies - lacking the backing of the producers who underpin it all - come crashing down around their heads in magnificent failure.

Completely agree ;^)
I wish the dumbbells running the cities would just secede and take their statist pals from DC with them.

In the case of immigration enforcement, however, this isn't a States rights issue. The Constitution specifically delegates immigration issues to Federal authorities and the States agreed to that when they ratified the Constitution. In other areas covered under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments I would agree.

I'm more in favor of states rights.
Let the mayor decide for Oakland as long as the Governor of CA agrees.
Let the governors of states decide what the states and cities will do on everything including freezing all federal taxes collected and starving DC bureaucrats.