[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Newsmax Rises On Wave Of Resentment Toward Media — Especially Fox News

What No One Is Saying About The Lockdowns

CBC Journalist Brags About Ratting Out Worshippers at Church

Dr Mark McDonald talks about his patients and how fear is effecting our country. from The Front;ine Doctor's Summit

Episode 1203 Scott Adams: Biden's Foot, Data Anomalies, Opening Schools, Who Took the Utah Monolith?

“Pandemic is Over” – Former Pfizer Chief Science Officer Says “Second Wave” Faked On False-Positive COVID Tests

Johns Hopkins study explodes COVID death hoax; it’s re-labeling on a grand scale

A compilation of twenty alleged election 'facts' that don't pass the smell test

Arizona witness: Truck loads of ballots kept coming in for 10 days after elections officials thought they were done counting votes

Watch a Dominion Representative at Gwinnett County Election Central, responsible for tabulating ballots and certifying results, download data to a USB from the Election Management Server, plug it into a laptop, manipulate the data, then palm the USB.

Don’t Want to Eat Cows? Try “Ethical Cannibalism” Instead

Saudi Journalist In Message To Iran Following Normalization Agreements With Israel: Iran, Not Israel, Is The Enemy Of The Arabs, Destabilizes The Region

Down balloT ... proves --- DemocraTs cheaTed

Catch and Cook your own food (Trout Catch Clean Cook) - Ep 4

LIVE: Arizona State Legislature Holds Public Hearing on 2020 Election

I bought a voting machine....then I hacked it.

Episode 1201 Scott Adams: Watch Me Monetize My Dumbest Critics While Discussing Election Allegations

Trump Reportedly Planning To Announce 2024 Run During Biden’s Inauguration…

Candace Owens Challenges Facebook ‘Fact-Checker’ and Wins: ‘They Lied for Democrats’

“I’m Going to Use 125% of My Energy to Do It” – President Trump Vows to Reveal Massive Voter Fraud and Overturn Results in 2020 Election (VIDEO)

New: FBI requests files of people voting ‘in multiple states’

Update: Data Analyst Says Election Findings Could ‘Easily’ Overturn Results in Three States

Trump Says He’s ‘Ashamed’ to Have Endorsed Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp

BREAKING UPDATE: Judge Timothy Batten Issues Order to Freeze All Dominion Machines in Georgia!

Trump on Election Fraud: The DOJ and FBI Are ‘Missing in Action’

Situation Update - Nov. 27th - DoD vs. CIA firefight in Frankfurt as covert war against the deep state RAGES across the globe

The Second Amendment Does Not Grant Us The Right To Bear Arms

SCOTUS: Democrat Gov. Cuomo’s Coronavirus Restrictions on Houses of Worship Violate First Amendment Rights

Supreme Court Says New York Can't Limit Attendance In Houses of Worship Due To COVID

Kyle Rittenhouse FINALLY Released on $2 Million Cash Bond

Music Legends Van Morrison and Eric Clapton Team for Anti-Lockdown Anthem ‘Stand and Deliver’

Suit asks Supreme Court to take custody of all election materials for investigation

Conservatives Have Lots of Reasons to Be Thankful This Thanksgiving

The Tide May Be Turning [My Headline]

Texas, Louisiana Can Halt Medicaid Funding To Planned Parenthood, Appeals Court Rules

8 U.S. House Races Still Have Not Been Called. Republicans Lead All 8 Races.

And Now Some Happy News From The National Zoo

Trump supporter who gave $2.5m to fight election fraud wants money back

LIVE UPDATES: Trump insists Wisconsin, Pennsylvania election fights far from over

Pennsylvania high court rejects lawsuit challenging election

Supreme Court declines case of Louisiana pastor Tony Spell, who defied coronavirus orders

Suspected double-murderer who sparked Amber Alert is on bail for reckless homicide and 2 gun cases

Another Video Surface Where Dominion's CEO Eric Coomer Allegedly Explain To Elections Officials How To Alter Votes In The Dominion Voting Machines

As PA legislature files election challenge, Sen. Doug Mastriano shows incontrovertible evidence of massive voter fraud

BREAKING REPORT: Pennsylvania Judge Gives Rules That The 2020 Election Was Likely Unconstitutional In Pennsylvania, And That Could Give State Legislators Power To Choose Electors

While media exult in Pennsylvania federal appeals court loss for Trump lawyers, a big victory in state court halts certification of presidential vote: Don't Fall For The Psy-Ops!

Joe Biden gains votes in Wisconsin county after Trump-ordered recount

International News

General Information Thread

All They had were axes - hammers - pokers ... Americans are heavily armed wiTh over 400 million firearms - 12 Trillion rounds of ammuniTion --- of privaTe ciTizens.


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

The Establishments war on Donald Trump
See other The Establishments war on Donald Trump Articles

Title: Supreme Court Makes Major Ruling On Border Wall Funds [Trump wins]
Source: DailyWire
URL Source: https://www.dailywire.com/news/4996 ... or-ruling-border-ryan-saavedra
Published: Jul 26, 2019
Author: Ryan Saavedra
Post Date: 2019-07-27 02:32:16 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 675
Comments: 11

The United States Supreme Court ruled on Friday that President Donald Trump can use $2.5 billion in military funding to build the border wall along the U.S. southern border.

USA Today reports that the Supreme Court's "order temporarily settles just one of several skirmishes between the Trump administration and House Democrats, 'blue' states led by California, and environmental groups over border wall funds."

Trump responded to the news in a tweet, writing, "Wow! Big VICTORY on the Wall. The United States Supreme Court overturns lower court injunction, allows Southern Border Wall to proceed. Big WIN for Border Security and the Rule of Law!"
Wow! Big VICTORY on the Wall. The United States Supreme Court overturns lower court injunction, allows Southern Border Wall to proceed. Big WIN for Border Security and the Rule of Law! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2019

"The 30-foot steel bollard fencing will replace barriers that the Trump administration says are dilapidated and ineffective," Bloomberg continued. "Some of those existing barriers are designed only to prevent vehicles from crossing and don't stop pedestrians."

Axios added that the president "wants roughly $8 billion to build a wall on U.S.-Mexico border, $3.6 billion of which he plans to access with emergency powers."

The five conservative Supreme Court Justices ruled in favor of the Trump administration while the four liberal justices would not have allowed construction to start.

"The $2.5 billion had been shifted from various programs including personnel and recruiting, Minuteman III and air launch cruise missiles, E-3 aircraft upgrades and the Afghan security forces training fund," CNN reported. "The Pentagon said it was able to move that money due to uncovered cost savings as part of a process known as 'reprogramming.' The money was moved into a Defense Department counter-drug account that is authorized to spend money on the construction of border barriers."


Poster Comment:

OrangeMan bad. OrangeMan very very bad! (1 image)

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Tooconservative (#0)

As you're aware, the Trump administration had asked to redirect $6.7 billion.

"The administration’s ability to use the rest of the money President Donald Trump announced it was tapping in February — $3.6 billion intended for military construction projects, which required Trump to invoke a national emergency, and $600 million from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund — remains under litigation."

I see no reason now to block the remaining requested funds.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-07-27   10:04:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: misterwhite (#1)

I see no reason now to block the remaining requested funds.

I'm wondering if the Lefties will just run to some 0bama/Xlinton judge, maybe on the Ninth Circus, and try to overturn this yet again, at least until Monday.

I think half the judges on the Ninth are now Trump-appointed. So that court is getting its wings clipped as Trump replaces those judges.

At some point, these activist judges are going to try to defy the Supreme Court entirely, even after they have ruled on a case.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-07-27   10:13:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Tooconservative (#2)

I'm wondering if the Lefties will just run to some 0bama/Xlinton judge, maybe on the Ninth Circus, and try to overturn this yet again, at least until Monday.

I think that tactic only works before the USSC rules.

I agree with Trump -- a District Court's ruling should not go beyond the District. This bullshit of shopping for a federal judge and having their ruling apply to the entire U.S. has gotta stop.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-07-27   11:52:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: misterwhite (#3)

I agree with Trump -- a District Court's ruling should not go beyond the District. This bullshit of shopping for a federal judge and having their ruling apply to the entire U.S. has gotta stop.

I think Republican judges ought to start doing the same. Make it clear what a total farce this is. The libs would suddenly notice that district judges who are nothing but partisan hacks really should not behave as unelected dictators.

Only the Supremes should issue a nationwide injunction. And only with great caution. Recall Dred Scott.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-07-27   12:09:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: misterwhite (#3)

BTW, it seems the Supremes are clearing Trump to build 100 miles of new fence with redirected Pentagon funds in addition to improving old fences using the puny amount that Congress gave him for that. Anyway, that's my understanding.

U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco told the Supreme Court that the administration risked not being able to use the money at all if the order wasn’t lifted with enough time before the fiscal year ends Sept. 30.

“If the injunction remains in place, it may foreclose DOD’s ability to obligate the funds,” Francisco wrote. “If so, it may effectively operate as a final judgment.”

The solicitor general said the order “frustrates the government’s ability to stop the flow of drugs across the border in known drug smuggling corridors.”

The ACLU said allowing the spending now would damage the environment, “dramatically upend the status quo,” and let the administration “irretrievably commit taxpayer funds in contravention of Congress’s considered spending judgment.”

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-07-27   12:59:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Tooconservative, misterwhite (#5)

Cite as: 588 U. S. (2019)

Opinion of BREYER, J.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 19A60

DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL.
v.
SIERRA CLUB, ET AL.

ON APPLICATION FOR STAY

[July 26, 2019]

The application for stay presented to JUSTICE KAGAN and by her referred to the Court is granted. Among the reasons is that the Government has made a sufficient showing at this stage that the plaintiffs have no cause of action to ob­tain review of the Acting Secretary's compliance with Sec­tion 8005. 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 peti­tion for a writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall termi­nate when the Court enters its judgment.

JUSTICE GINSBURG, JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, and JUSTICE KAGAN would deny the application.

JUSTICE BREYER, concurring in part and dissenting in part from grant of stay.

To warrant this stay, the Government must show not just (1)a reasonable probability that the Court will grant certi­orari and (2) a fair prospect that the Court will reverse, but also (3) “‘a likelihood that irreparable harm will result from the denial of a stay.' ” Maryland v. King, 567 U. S. 1301, 1302 (2012) (ROBERTS, C. J., in chambers). This case raises novel and important questions about the ability of private parties to enforce Congress' appropriations power. I would express no other view now on the merits of those questions.

Before granting a stay, however, we must still assess the competing claims of harm and balance the equities. Barnes v. E-Systems, Inc. Group Hospital Medical & Surgical Ins. Plan, 501 U. S. 1301, 1305 (1991) (Scalia, J., in chambers). This Court may, and sometimes does, “tailor a stay so that it operates with respect to only ‘some portion of the proceed­ing.' ” Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project, 582 U. S. ___, ___ (2017) (per curiam) (slip op., at 10) (quot­ing Nken v. Holder, 556 U. S. 418, 428 (2009)). In my view, this is an appropriate case to do so.

If we grant the stay, the Government may begin construc­tion of a border barrier that would cause irreparable harm to the environment and to respondents, according to both respondents and the District Court. The Government's only response to this claim of irreparable harm is that, if re­spondents ultimately prevail, the border barrier may be taken down (with what funding, the Government does not say). But this is little comfort because it is not just the bar­rier, but the construction itself (and presumably its later destruction) that contributes to respondents' injury.

If we instead deny the stay, however, it is the Govern­ment that may be irreparably harmed. The Government has represented that, if it is unable to finalize the contracts by September 30, then the funds at issue will be returned to the Treasury and the injunction will have operated, in effect, as a final judgment. Respondents suggest a court could still award the Government relief after an appropria­tion lapses, though that proposition has yet to be endorsed by this Court.

But there is a straightforward way to avoid harm to both the Government and respondents while allowing the litiga­tion to proceed. Allowing the Government to finalize the contracts at issue, but not to begin construction, would al­leviate the most pressing harm claimed by the Government without risking irreparable harm to respondents. Respond­ents do not suggest that they will be harmed by finalization of the contracts alone, and there is reason to believe they would not be. See, e.g., 36 Opinion of Office of Legal Coun­sel 11 (2012) (noting that, because of the Anti-Deficiency Act, “the government [is] legally incapable of incurring a contractual obligation to pay more money than Congress had appropriated”), online at https://www.justice.gov/file/20596/download (as last visited July 26, 2019); see also Lei­ter v. United States, 271 U. S. 204, 206-207 (1926); Sutton v. United States, 256 U. S. 575, 580-581 (1921); Hooe v. United States, 218 U. S. 322, 332-334 (1910); Bradley v. United States, 98 U. S. 104, 116-117 (1878).

I can therefore find no justification for granting the stay in full, as the majority does. I would grant the Govern­ment's application to stay the injunction only to the extent that the injunction prevents the Government from finaliz­ing the contracts or taking other preparatory administra­tive action, but leave it in place insofar as it precludes the Government from disbursing those funds or beginning con­struction. I accordingly would grant the stay in part and deny it in part.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-07-27   14:51:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Tooconservative (#0)

Sure took a long time to get to an obvious decision.

It's just wrong for one remote loon out of 179 appeals-court judges to stop a national-policy decision.
Until we get the courts back to a Constitutional basis, I think the Executive Branch should start stonewalling them, saying "go ahead, try to enforce your ruling".

Hank Rearden  posted on  2019-07-27   14:57:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Hank Rearden, Tooconservative (#7)

It's just wrong for one remote loon out of 179 appeals-court judges to stop a national-policy decision. Until we get the courts back to a Constitutional basis, I think the Executive Branch should start stonewalling them, saying "go ahead, try to enforce your ruling".

I would prefer the Supreme Court to instruct the District Courts to stop issuing nationwide injunctions and restrict them to the district where they have jurisdiction.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-07-27   15:12:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Hank Rearden (#7)

Until we get the courts back to a Constitutional basis, I think the Executive Branch should start stonewalling them, saying "go ahead, try to enforce your ruling".

I think it would be better to only ignore the cases where some activists run to a Hawaiian judge or other Ninth Circus judge to get a nationwide injunction against Some Thing Orange Hitler Wants To Do. Start by ignoring the lone nut district judge. You have to take appeals courts a little more seriously.

I don't think lone judges should ever be allowed nationwide injunctions in a political dispute between the two parties. It should always be, at minimum, a 3-judge panel or larger. I didn't like it when we had a few lone judges that were talking about striking down 0bamacare. If you're going to do that, you should have a couple of other judges in your circuit who are will to agree and join your opinion.

I just don't like the idea of lone judges ordering the entire country around. It seems unsound.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-07-27   16:20:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: nolu chan (#8)

I would prefer the Supreme Court to instruct the District Courts to stop issuing nationwide injunctions and restrict them to the district where they have jurisdiction.

At the very least, they shouldn't issue nationwide injunctions from a lone judge, a real pet peeve for me.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-07-27   16:21:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: All (#0)

A bit more via HotGas:

The agreement offers a safe harbor in Guatemala for those who are determined to have legitimate asylum claims. Central Americans arriving in caravans at the U.S. southern border have overwhelmed the American system for those seeking asylum, most specifically Salvadorans and Hondurans. The new system should be in effect in August.
On a call with reporters Friday, McAleenan said the agreement with Guatemala would “be up and running in August,” after the two governments had completed several steps to ratify the deal. Under the agreement, Salvadorans and Hondurans would need to seek asylum in Guatemala, McAleenan said.

“If you have, say, a Honduran family coming across through Guatemala to the U.S. border, we want them to feel safe to make an asylum claim at the earliest possible point,” he said. “If they do instead, in the hands of smugglers, make the journey all the way to the U.S. border, [they would] be removable back to Guatemala.”

President Trump voiced support for such an agreement with Guatemala, as a previous attempt failed.
“We’ve long been working with Guatemala, and now we can do it the right way,” Trump said Friday. He claimed the agreement will put “coyotes and the smugglers out of business.”

He added: “These are bad people.”

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-07-27   18:57:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com