Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    BREAKING: Supreme Court rules in favor of wall funding

    BREAKING: Supreme Court rules in favor of wall funding

    The majority said that the plaintiffs, assorted environmental groups, likely had no cause of action to bring the case.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/justices.aspx

    The Trump administration may immediately repurpose about $2.5 billion in Pentagon funds for the construction of a border wall, the Supreme Court ruled Friday afternoon.

    The vote was 5-to-4, with the more conservative justices prevailing. The majority said that the plaintiffs, assorted environmental groups, likely had no cause of action to bring the case. In other words, they were not legally entitled to sue.

    Justice Breyer said that he would have allowed the government to finalize contracts that depend on the funding but not yet begin construction. Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan indicated that they would have denied the administration any relief.

    The ruling effectively reverses the Ninth Circuit, which had blocked the administration from touching the funds on the grounds that Congress has consciously denied President Trump wall money.

    While Friday’s ruling isn’t technically on the merits, it is, in practice, a big win for Trump, since there will be no way to “unspend” the money once construction begins.

    The President will no doubt be enjoying the weekend:

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1154883345546928128

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments


    assorted environmental groups

    Defenders of the Green Blight (e.g. wind, solar complexes) and other ecological hazards.

    Section 4 – Republican government

    The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion

    Immigration is one thing. Immigration reform is quite another. Standing for the lives and civil rights of Americans is the basis of their legitimacy. How could they rule otherwise.


     
     0 
     
     4
    Morning Sunshine | July 27, 2019 at 9:02 am

    It seems to me that building a DEFENSive wall with the Dept. of DEFENSE budget is a perfect use of allocated DEFENSE funds. just me.


       
       0 
       
       2
      gospace in reply to Morning Sunshine. | July 27, 2019 at 12:46 pm

      Agree. However, I still think it should be called by it’s old name- The War Department. Easiest way to lose a war is to be on the defense all the time. Winning a war requires an effective offense.

    Winning.


     
     0 
     
     3
    2smartforlibs | July 27, 2019 at 1:24 pm

    Why was t his outcome ever in doubt? We are a nation of laws 1952 immigration and nationality act. TITLE 8 TITLE 10 all apply here. yet some social engineer on a bench thinks these laws don’t apply.


       
       0 
       
       0
      Milhouse in reply to 2smartforlibs. | July 28, 2019 at 1:44 am

      The Immigration and Nationality Act has nothing to do with it. This case is entirely about the president spending money Congress hasn’t appropriated.

      Nobody disputes that Congress controls spending, and the president can’t spend a penny on anything that Congress hasn’t given him any money for.

      And nobody disputes that Congress has refused to fund the wall. Therefore it would seem obvious that the plaintiffs should win, doesn’t it? EXCEPT.

      Except that Congress passed a law. It didn’t have to, but it chose to. It passed a law, a long time ago, that said if the president of the day declares an emergency he can take money that Congress has appropriated for military construction, and use it for different military construction, without having to first go to Congress for permission to make this change. He still can’t use any other money. But when Congress has already given him the money for building one thing, in an emergency he can use it to build another thing.

      And that’s why the plaintiffs lost. Their position is that the president can use the money for any military construction he likes, except the wall, because Congress’s refusal to fund the wall constitutes an implicit amendment to the national emergency law. They want to read that law as if it said “except a project Congress is actually against”. Six justices said they’re not really buying that argument.


     
     0 
     
     1
    Yamamma | July 27, 2019 at 4:16 pm

    Erc I’m with you. I never get tired of winning!!


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend