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: 2099
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!" "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!
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
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 5.
#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.
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.
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.
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. “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.”
#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. 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.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: misterwhite (#1)
I see no reason now to block the remaining requested funds.
#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.
#5. To: misterwhite (#3)
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.
Replies to Comment # 5.
v.
SIERRA CLUB, ET AL.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 5.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]