Show me where LW judicial activism is even mentioned in the constitution.
The constitutionists must be having tea too.
Or to imply that he is mentally deficient. That seems to be the talking point being frequently used in this discussion.
Nebraska has cited one law Trump has stated is the basis for diverting military construction that has a good legal chance of being shot down, since it’s highly unlikely saying a wall supports the armed forces is going to stand up.
Diverting money used for drug interdiction to build a wall in places the DEA and CBP have both said are not the primary points of entry for illegal drugs will be another.
And finally, his tacit admission that he “didn’t have to do this” and that he just wanted to build the wall faster is going to be juicy fodder for the contention that he is simply misusing the NEA to bypass the will of Congress in appropriatung what they apprpriated for the wall.
And I believe that Roberts and even Gorsuch will see it that way.
In my opinion, of course.
1 Like
It doesn’t which is why you’re wrong.
There’s only judges. It doesn’t care if they’re left wing or not. Each has the power granted them by the constitution.
If that were really the case, DEMs wouldn’t have gone off the deep end with Kavanaugh.
Oh, he’s very smart about some things. He knows the six things to say to keep almost all republicans in his back pocket.
I suppose these six illegal alien drug cartel members was also staged.
JWK
There is no surer way to weaken, subdue, demoralize and then conquer a prosperous and freedom loving people than by allowing and encouraging the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low-skilled, criminal and diseased populations of other countries to invade that country, and make the country’s existing citizens tax-slaves to support the economic needs of such invaders.
Man, how i wish the old board was available so i could bump threads started by constitutionalists. It would be hilarious.
In my opinion, DEMs are being played big time. This will play out in the courts, ensuring border security remains front and center for the 2020 election cycle. At the same time, wall construction will continue with uncontested funding.
Climate Change.
That’s where massive money will be diverted. It’s a global problem.
And of course it will be all Trump’s fault. 
Uncontested funding?
What news channel do you watch?
I don’t know about that last sentence. There could easily be an injunction before anything is done.
I think Trump supporters are being played. This is theatre to make it look like he’s doing something because he failed to make a deal as he promised.
The military is not a law enforcement agency.
They’re specifically forbidden from being one.
Going to be a really hard sell to classify drug cartel activity and illegal crossings as a military invasion, and so therefore the wall supports military activities.
1 Like
Ah! So win or lose, you think this is political fodder for the upcoming election.
Which is a fair observation…except for that nagging issue that public opinion is against a wall.
Trump made immigration an issue in 2018…he lost the House. Didn’t win the Senate, but more D seats than R seats were up.
In 2020, the House is again up, and this time there will be more R seats up for re-election in the Senate.
Lots can change between now and then…but so far, there’s no sign digging in on a wall is a winning issue for Trump nationally.
1 Like
It will be very funny to see you guys crying when those democratic presidents make their moves to combat climate change (or thousands of other pet projects).
I think this is the likely outcome. Kavanaugh will no doubt side with Trump, but I think Gorsuch won’t have it. After all, he took issues with Trump’s “so-called” judges comment, so it won’t be long before he receives the honorary title “so-called judge” himself."
It’d be hilarious to watch his own judges take him down on this issue considering how Trump sees loyalty and his sense of entitlement.
In Trump’s mind, Gorsuch owes him.
And? What does that have to do with what I wrote. NOTHING!
JWK
