Larry Posted June 3, 2019 Share Posted June 3, 2019 3 minutes ago, @SkinsGoldPants said: The girdle is going to earn a Purple Heart Or a Secret Service man is going to have to take a button. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 3, 2019 Share Posted June 3, 2019 Devastating and dangerous ruling by this likely corrupt judge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted June 3, 2019 Share Posted June 3, 2019 Woah woah woah. This judge is saying that the Federal Courts cannot intervene in arguments over statutory intent and interpretation on how the Executive is spending appropriations? This seems like the exact sphere for an "independent judiciary" to get involved. Executive branch: Congress gave me money for "X". I am now going to redefine "X" to mean "Y", therefore Congress gave me money for "Y". Legislative branch: Foul, you are spending your money on "Y", we intended the money to go to "X". Judiciary: It's not my job to interpret "Y" or "X". Your law should have prohibited Executive from spending money on "Y". I honestly think that diverting the wall funds might prevail on the merits.... but there's no way the Courts just say, "hands off". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 3, 2019 Share Posted June 3, 2019 Well, he's a strive constitutionalist, don't you know. And the constitution does not give the House of Representatives any day about federal appropriations. And its its their fault. They should have listed, on every single line item of the federal budget, a list of every thing that this line item CAN'T be diverted to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 3, 2019 Share Posted June 3, 2019 Didn't congress give him the authority he used ? one half of congress cannot challenge what both passed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 4, 2019 Share Posted June 4, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted June 4, 2019 Share Posted June 4, 2019 twa, This is a statutory debate over what the appropriations law allows. So if an Executive Official says, "I need to use the funds for strippers and beer -- this is for America's defense" the House can't challenge? Really? Did you read the opinion? He says, essentially that the House couldn't even challenge even if the money was for strippers and beer. That is ridiculous. There is a lot of leeway that judges provide to Executive agency, but they actually do the legwork of staturory interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted June 4, 2019 Share Posted June 4, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 4, 2019 Share Posted June 4, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isifhan Posted June 4, 2019 Share Posted June 4, 2019 1 hour ago, visionary said: Devastating and dangerous ruling by this likely corrupt judge. So then correct me if I'm wrong but the next time we have a Democrat in office and they decide to divert funds to say cover an emergency like Climate Change, Gun Control, Student Loan Debt - all is cool yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 4, 2019 Share Posted June 4, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 4, 2019 Share Posted June 4, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 4, 2019 Share Posted June 4, 2019 42 minutes ago, twa said: one half of congress cannot challenge what both passed 1). Neither of them approved spending this money on Trump's Wall. In fact, both of them passed, and Trump signed, appropriations allocating a specific amount for that project. 2). And this legal pronouncement is based on exactly which constitutional clause? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 4, 2019 Share Posted June 4, 2019 1 minute ago, Larry said: 1). Neither of them approved spending this money on Trump's Wall. In fact, both of them passed, and Trump signed, appropriations allocating a specific amount for that project. 2). And this legal pronouncement is based on exactly which constitutional clause? 1 They gave him the emergency powers to do so. 2 Since when has Congress been limited by the Constitution??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted June 4, 2019 Share Posted June 4, 2019 Working as an unpaid intern during my paralegal degree requirements, I was shocked to learn that the Executive branch writes the regulations for the public laws passed by Congress and enacted into law. This includes moving money around if they want, with the particular executive office. What's different is that Trump is moving money between executive offices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 4, 2019 Share Posted June 4, 2019 1 hour ago, twa said: 1 They gave him the emergency powers to do so. 2 Since when has Congress been limited by the Constitution??? 1). Gee, I wonder why the judge didn't rule that? 2). Running away from your claim to a different piece of nonsense? Who saw that coming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 4, 2019 Share Posted June 4, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 4, 2019 Share Posted June 4, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 4, 2019 Share Posted June 4, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 4, 2019 Share Posted June 4, 2019 8 hours ago, Larry said: 1). Gee, I wonder why the judge didn't rule that? why would he rule on a matter that is not questioned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted June 4, 2019 Share Posted June 4, 2019 This is the first time I've gone to Playboy for the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted June 4, 2019 Share Posted June 4, 2019 16 hours ago, twa said: Didn't congress give him the authority he used ? one half of congress cannot challenge what both passed This is dumb. So Congress has absolutely no recourse whatsoever if the executive branch decides to completely and ridiculously redefine something so they can funnel money inappropriately? The only way around this is for Congress to literally define every single thing that is allowed? A national security budget bill has to say "x dollars for y type of sensor"? That's insane. They allocate money for certain types of spending and there's a good faith understanding that the department that gets that money will use it in the intended way. I have to assume that if a Dem POTUS says "Climate change is a national emergency and so I'm moving money to x and y from the military budget" you'll just shrug your shoulders and say "Meh, Congress can't do anything about that"............right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted June 4, 2019 Share Posted June 4, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted June 4, 2019 Share Posted June 4, 2019 So help me understand the judges ruling about the re-allocating of funds. I don't know all the nuances of the law, or if there even are any nuances. If the law is clear cut then why would the judge not just rule according to the law? Is the law clear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 4, 2019 Share Posted June 4, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.