The Supreme Court rules to allow funding for Trump’s border wall

[Ucfmikes]

The Supreme Court was wise to side with the Trump administration Friday when it ruled that the president can use $2.5 billion in Defense Department funds for construction of a border wall to replace existing fencing in Arizona, California and New Mexico.

In a 5-4 ruling, the high court overturned an appeals court decision that had barred the administration from using the Defense Department funds while litigation seeking to stop the wall funding is challenged in the courts.

President Trump understands full well that the surge of illegal migration across our southern border is not only a humanitarian crisis, but also poses a danger to the security of the United States. As such, the Trump administration legitimately sought to use money from the Defense Department’s budget to secure the border and protect the American people.


#Winninglikecrazy
#TDSurge
#2020landslide
#AresilientPresident
#AmericaFirst

 

[Crazyhole]

This is a no-brainer, and yet I'm not surprised that 4 of the justices went against it.

 

[KnighttimeJoe]

I THOUGHT THEM DAMN MEXICANS WERE PAYIN’ 4 DA WALL?!?!?!

 

[Crazyhole]

I THOUGHT THEM DAMN MEXICANS WERE PAYIN’ 4 DA WALL?!?!?!

Maybe we should have just flooded into their country and tried overwhelming their system.

 

[Ucfmikes]

That Sh_thole country can’t even pay to drink their own beer

 

[beelit47]

I THOUGHT THEM DAMN MEXICANS WERE PAYIN’ 4 DA WALL?!?!?!

OrAnGe MaN bAd!!! TDS

 

[DaShuckster]

This is a no-brainer, and yet I'm not surprised that 4 of the justices went against it.

I agree with you that this was a no-brainer. A SC justice shouldn't be in a position to decide for a President what constitutes legitimate defense spending and what doesn't.

That said, I'm pretty sure the 4 justices who voted against the WH were concerned that the President was making an end-run around Congress (which, he, in fact, was). But that said, he could do so legitimately so it didn't matter.

Personally, if we're going to build more border walls (and can't get Mexico to play for them) then it makes sense to me that it SHOULD come from current defense spending.

 

[KnighttimeJoe]

OrAnGe MaN bAd!!! TDS

Far from it.

 

[Ucfmikes]

It’s sad that the POTUS can’t get anything done because the Democrats hate him, so he has to use extraordinary measures

Democrats don’t care about what’s best for the country. They can all go to hell for all I care.

 

[DaShuckster]

It’s sad that the POTUS can’t get anything done because the Democrats hate him, so he has to use extraordinary measures

This is a surprise to you??? Change the word 'Democrats' to 'Republicans' and you've described Obama's eight years in the WH.

 

[Ucfmikes]

This is a surprise to you??? Change the word 'Democrats' to 'Republicans' and you've described Obama's eight years in the WH.

You really think that it was THIS BAD?

 

[DaShuckster]

You really think that it was THIS BAD?

Haven't you guys pointed to the 'extraordinary measures' that Obama took when he issued an EO regarding the Dreamers? My God, you people had your panties all in a wad over that one!

Geez, why did that come about I wonder?

 

[UCFKnight85]

Haven't you guys pointed to the 'extraordinary measures' that Obama took when he issued an EO regarding the Dreamers? My God, you people had your panties all in a wad over that one!

Geez, why did that come about I wonder?

You mean when he assumed powers the Executive doesn't have to violate the separation of powers, and unilaterally re-write immigration law, simply because his far left base was demanding he do it, legality be damned?

 

[Crazyhole]

I agree with you that this was a no-brainer. A SC justice shouldn't be in a position to decide for a President what constitutes legitimate defense spending and what doesn't.

That said, I'm pretty sure the 4 justices who voted against the WH were concerned that the President was making an end-run around Congress (which, he, in fact, was). But that said, he could do so legitimately so it didn't matter.

Personally, if we're going to build more border walls (and can't get Mexico to play for them) then it makes sense to me that it SHOULD come from current defense spending.

This isn't an end around run on Congress. Congress allocates funds that the president uses for national defense but they don't dictate how those funds are spent. The president is the commander in chief and with that title comes the responsibility of determining how best to defend the country. He technically could use all of those funds to build warships or build airbases in any country that allows it. Or, he could use it to pay higher salaries to military personnel and nothing else. That is under his judgment and it's why using those funds to build or replace border fencing should have been a no-brainer for the court.

Obama's actions on immigration policy were unconstitutional because it is the job of Congress to dictate it. He usurped power that wasn't given to the office.

 

[beelit47]

This isn't an end around run on Congress. Congress allocates funds that the president uses for national defense but they don't dictate how those funds are spent. The president is the commander in chief and with that title comes the responsibility of determining how best to defend the country. He technically could use all of those funds to build warships or build airbases in any country that allows it. Or, he could use it to pay higher salaries to military personnel and nothing else. That is under his judgment and it's why using those funds to build or replace border fencing should have been a no-brainer for the court.

Obama's actions on immigration policy were unconstitutional because it is the job of Congress to dictate it. He usurped power that wasn't given to the office.

Stop being so factual. Shooks cant handle truth bombs. ie: see mueller hoax

 

[DaShuckster]

This isn't an end around run on Congress.

Read my post again, Crazy. I agreed with you that he could use defense funds.

I said the "end around run on Congress" was likely the rationale for the 'no' votes from 4 SC justices. If this wasn't an 'end around,' why did Trump seek support from Congress in the first place instead of simply reallocating funds within the DOC?

We're in agreement that he could legitimately do it. But let's be honest here, Trump did it this way because he couldn't get what he wanted from Congress. That's the epitome of an 'end around.'

 

[Crazyhole]

Read my post again, Crazy. I agreed with you that he could use defense funds.

I said the "end around run on Congress" was likely the rationale for the 'no' votes from 4 SC justices. If this wasn't an 'end around,' why did Trump seek support from Congress in the first place instead of simply reallocating funds within the DOC?

We're in agreement that he could legitimately do it. But let's be honest here, Trump did it this way because he couldn't get what he wanted from Congress. That's the epitome of an 'end around.'

He was asking for approval on a funding bill specifically for this project. When he didn't get it, he used the funds that were at his disposal and were constitutional. Why would 4 justices not be able to recognize this but the 2 of us can? (Hint: political ideology).

 

[DaShuckster]

Why would 4 justices not be able to recognize this but the 2 of us can?

Well I'll be damned.

Who woulda thought the two of us would make such kick-butt Supreme Court justices??!??!!

 

[Crazyhole]

Well I'll be damned.

Who woulda thought the two of us would make such kick-butt Supreme Court justices??!??!!

I would. You would be terrible at it. I would rule with the iron fist of Justice and impartiality, giving voice to the unheard and destroying all who seek to imprison the weak. You would reek of political biases and thin skin in a way never seen before.

 

[DaShuckster]

I would. You would be terrible at it. I would rule with the iron fist of Justice and impartiality, giving voice to the unheard and destroying all who seek to imprison the weak. You would reek of political biases and thin skin in a way never seen before.

Baloney. The Prez would have to name me Chief Justice to ride herd over your wild and crazy ass.

 

[UCFWayne]

I agree with you that this was a no-brainer. A SC justice shouldn't be in a position to decide for a President what constitutes legitimate defense spending and what doesn't.

That said, I'm pretty sure the 4 justices who voted against the WH were concerned that the President was making an end-run around Congress (which, he, in fact, was). But that said, he could do so legitimately so it didn't matter.

Personally, if we're going to build more border walls (and can't get Mexico to play for them) then it makes sense to me that it SHOULD come from current defense spending.

im honestly surprised you would be ok with this. i thought you hated all things trump. maybe hes starting to win you over.

 

[DaShuckster]

im honestly surprised you would be ok with this. i thought you hated all things trump. maybe hes starting to win you over.

Truthfully, defense money on border walls make a hell of a lot more sense than a lot of the military toys we spend money on. While we’re at it, let’s throw some defense money on more cyber-security.

National threats have evolved and so should our national security.

 

[sk8knight]

Truthfully, defense money on border walls make a hell of a lot more sense than a lot of the military toys we spend money on. While we’re at it, let’s throw some defense money on more cyber-security.

National threats have evolved and so should our national security.

Our national security improved immensely a little while ago once the Department of State got compliant.

 

[DaShuckster]

Our national security improved immensely a little while ago once the Department of State got compliant.

Now if we could only get the White House on board.

 

[UCFWayne]

Now if we could only get the White House on board.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/15/us/politics/trump-cyber-russia-grid.html

you are right, the white house should take it seriously...

 

[DaShuckster]

you are right, the white house should take it seriously...

Yes, they should. But Congress quietly stepped in and is transferring the security clearance process out of the WH in order to protect the nation.

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/07/co...white-house-and-transfers-it-to-the-pentagon/

 

[UCFWayne]

Yes, they should. But Congress quietly stepped in and is transferring the security clearance process out of the WH in order to protect the nation.

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/07/co...white-house-and-transfers-it-to-the-pentagon/

im fine with pentagon handling security stuff.

 

[DaShuckster]

im fine with pentagon handling security stuff.

It's probably the way it should have been all along.