Trump administration violated the law again

How can you support “law and order” when the guy you’re supporting doesn’t care about the law?

Why couldn’t he just have Mexico pay for the wall like he promised. :roll_eyes:

1 Like

The supreme court has already ruled that they can.


Two companion cases, both decided today:

California, et al v Trump, et al.

Sierra Club, et al v Trump, et al.

In both cases the Opinion was by Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas, joined by Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw and the dissent was by Judge Daniel P. Collins.

Not really. The Supreme Court has ruled that the President isn’t authorized to use the power of the purse from Clinton v. New York City back in 1998.

“The majority judges, Sidney Thomas and Kim McLane Wardlaw, were nominated to the court by Bill Clinton, while Collins was a Trump nominee.”

And people still pretend the judicial branch isn’t as political as any other.


That argument, of course, is a double bladed sword.

i support the Judgement of the panel majority. The power of the purse is a critical legislative check on the executive branch and it cannot be allowed to be undermined.

If Trump cannot get an appropriation through Congress for the wall, that should be the end of it.

The courts were also correct to stop the line item veto.

Congress has already given away far too much power to the executive. The power of the purse is exclusively theirs and they should be vigorously defending it, not giving it away.

In this case, if any political behavior was shown it was by Collins.

And yes, I heartily acknowledge that left wing Judges engage in liberal activism, but conservatives are far from immune from activism of their own.


And when Biden is sworn in as POTUS I will bet you dollars to dog nuts that one of the first things he will do is stop building the wall.


Hell, I’d be willing to bet that at the urging of the marxists / socialists who have
infiltrated the government, that Biden will be tearing existing walls down.

1 Like

I will take that bet because it won’t happen.

1 Like

I remember that line item veto law. It was passed by the Republican majority in Congress and wasn’t to take effect until after the 1996 election. They were thinking (hoping!) Clinton wouldn’t win.

Then after the first time he used it every single one of his vetoes were overridden by Congress. It was one of the biggest displays of bipartisan cooperation ever.

They have already ruled in this case about 18 months ago and said the president was acting within the law. That’s when construction went into overdrive.

It was promptly shot down by the courts as unconstitutional.

Trump wants a line-item veto. One problem: it’s unconstitutional.  - Vox.

My understanding is that the SC ruling was much narrower. They stayed a lower court’s freeze on the funds pending a ruling on the case.

Now there is a ruling in the case and the ruling is that the Funds can not be used for the wall. It will take an intervention to unfreeze the funds again if/when/while the ruling is appealed.

No, they went far beyond that which greenlighted the ramped up construction.

I think this was the case.

Well my goodness.

1 Like

It was just a stay.

The District Court’s June 28, 2019 order granting a permanent injunction is stayed pending disposition of the Government’s appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of the Government’s petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the peti- tion for a writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall termi- nate when the Court enters its judgment.

Language might indicate the underlying sentiments, but it was not a ruling on the merits, just a stay on the block of the funds use while the case was heard in the lower court.

I nearly peed my pants laughing as a CNN Journoweenie was on the border decrying that these new barriers are so effective it was going to “force migrants” to have to detour into more dangerous territory and lengthen their trips into the US.

:rofl: :smiley: :rofl:

1 Like

The Devil is in the details.

In an unsigned order, justices said they ruled in favor of the administration partly because “the Government has made a sufficient showing at this stage that the plaintiffs have no cause of action to obtain review” of the administration’s compliance with the federal statute invoked to divert the military funds.

The Supreme Court’s previous ruling was not based on the merits of the case, but on procedural issues, namely the plaintiff’s in that case not sufficiently showing harm to themselves to get Article III standing.

They still can’t prove any harm to US citizens over this.

1 Like

Notice that it wasn’t for personal gain…his motivation was for the betterment of the country? That’s why I support him but I’m also glad that the court ruled this way. I want this door shut for all future administrations!