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.
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.
Upshot: SCOTUS hands Trump a major victory in beginning construction of the border wall. There will soon be facts on the ground that will be difficult to erase.
— Steven Mazie (@stevenmazie) July 26, 2019
Yep. By a 5–4 decision along ideological lines, SCOTUS has allowed construction on Trump’s border wall to begin. https://t.co/hNnzdlASDo https://t.co/iVEMiFa1UO
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) July 26, 2019
The President will no doubt be enjoying the weekend:
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
The Ninth was clearly wrong. Really, they were grasping at straws. This decision shouldn’t have even been close. We need Trump to appoint another judge or 3 to SCOTUS, so that we don’t have to constantly be worried that Roberts or Gorsuch will throw an easy case the wrong way the way Kennedy used to.
Gorsuch?! Why are you worried about him?
Yes – Roberts is the one who does not reliably follow what the constitution means and what words mean on their face. Gorsuch seems to follow the constitution and seems to rule as if words mean what they mean.
I’m at the airport as I type this, sitting under a CNN speaker listening to them freak out over this. I’d rather be waterboarded.
Wish the Amazon links still worked so I could direct you to a nifty gadget called the TV-B-Gone Universal Keychain. Poke a button and it flashes the “Shut off” signal for 209 different TV models. That’s all it does.
Amazon still has it for sale, just search for it. Nice to have in an airport.
On a related note, we build the wall, Inc., is having a symposium this weekend at Sunland Park, New Mexico. Steve Bannon, Kris Kobach, Brian Kolfage, are all there plus a few dozen other well-known folks to discuss immigration problems and media problems (Like Google, YouTube, and Twitter, D platforming and shadow banning conservatives).
They will be live streaming tomorrow, Saturday. You can find them on YouTube as the user name we build the wall.
I’ve been listening and it’s been very edifying.
Also the Covington Catholic lawsuit was tossed by a judge appointed by Carter.
Yep. By a 5–4 decision along ideological lines, SCOTUS has allowed construction on Trump’s border wall to begin.
By a 5-4 decision, IAW with the actual words of the Constitution and laws, SCOTUS has allowed construction on the UNITED STATES border wall along the Mexican border to begin. 4 SC justices kept their ideological blinders on.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Erc I’m with you. I never get tired of winning!!