So you are OK if a a congressionally pass budgeted item for infrastructure has the funds diverted by a Demcorat President to fund Planned Parenthood facilities right? Even if it is unconstitutional, those judges should mind their own business. After all why concern yourself with precedent . You cannot just see things one way just because the result does not bother you.
The democrat judges have been following results-based "jurisprudence" for decades, so no it doesn't bother me at all. The choices here are pretty stark. We can continue to pretend that the system is not corrupt and rigged and just accept anything some nutcase little tyrant in a black robe spews out or we can start taking our country back again. As far as I am aware, no court has ever blocked the President's diversion of funds under a declaration of emergency and there have been scores of them over the years. Suddenly because it's Trump and the issue is stopping the democrats from flooding our country with illegals, the law changes and a single district judge has breathtaking authority to rule over the entire Executive Branch. The presidents who led our country through most of our existence would have scoffed at that concept and the judge who pushed it would be lucky if that's all they did.
Trump had 2 years of a GOP Congress and could have gotten Congress to pass a bill legally obligating funds for the purpose of his Wall. He failed miserably so misappropriating funds is his second choice. Why are you blaming a judge for finding this action was unconstitutional rather than blaming Congress for failing to Act when they had 100% power for 2 years and Trump for trying to pull an end around. How is this never the fault of the GOP Congress and Trump but all the blame falls on a judge issuing an order in a lawsuit.
"California, for example, insists it has standing due to the loss of federal drug interdiction, counter-narcotic, and law enforcement funding caused by the Trump administration's diversion of funding. Colorado, by contrast, asserts that by virtue of being home to many military bases, such as the Air Force Academy, the use of funding for a southern border wall diverts funds for necessary maintenance and repairs to its military bases, and harms Colorado and its economy. When the Trump administration brings its motion to dismiss, the court must consider as a preliminary matter whether these injuries meet the constitutional requirement of standing. In a sense, every decision of every administration has at least an indirect effect on the states. That does not mean that every decision by the federal government is subject to challenge by the states."
"A 2014 case in which House Republicans sued the Obama administrationover payouts to insurers under the Affordable Care Act could serve as precedent. In that case, a federal judge granted standing to House Republicans, because they argued that the Obama administration was using funds to pay insurer subsidies that were not approved by Congress. This time around, Democrats could argue that the Trump administration is using funds that were not authorized by Congress for its wall."
Can't pick and choose. Don't cooperate with ICE, shit happens. I believe those are Federal installations, so tough nuggies for you.
The question is only on whether they have standing. But it seems you are saying it is ok to take funding away from law enforcement fighting the drug trade? I thought we had to take care of the men in blue. Still NOT ONE WORD of criticism for the GOP Congress that had 2 years with power to get it done. But a judge hearing a federal case is the problem huh.
Trump has lawyers. Why aren't they telling him this? The notion that a district court judge can issue a nation-wide injunction against a presidential act is absurd! I read somewhere that there have been "more injunctions issued against Trump than the last 40 presidential administrations COMBINED!" Is nobody connecting the dots? Doesn't this have to stop somewhere?
I don't mind these leftist Anti-Americans issuing opinions. I just think that injuctions should as a matter of course, be stayed until the appeals process is complete. There is no way that The Framers intended for a judge in Massachusetts, or anywhere else, to have more power than the president
We're connecting the dots alright, Trump's a criminal asshole who has no respect for our system of laws. The most disappointing thing of all is the number of authoritarian-loving bootlickers who'd side with a single man over the entire Justice system.