You are absolutely correct. It was the signal failure of Trump's presidency. But it's also water under the bridge now. My preferred solution, after failing to get congressional funding, would have involved moving the military to the border and having them construct defensive barriers as they have done in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. We can agree that Trump has made a mess of this problem, but that doesn't excuse a district court judge trying to take over the Executive Branch. His decision is based on questionable standing, it invades a clear presidential power to protect the borders and it is another absurd nationwide injunction.
BWAAA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I could cut and paste all day.
As others said, if it is questionable it should b e easy to appeal. The bigger issue is the shaky ground of the national emergency declaration. That is even opposed by some GOP members of Congress. If he cannot justify the declaration then the whole thing falls apart. Just because something is a serious issue does not necessarily mean it can support a declaration of emergency and reallocation of funds like you see in a devastating weather event.
Last I checked President's cannot do whatever they want. At some point their actions have to meet a due process test or it gets overturned. Started back in Marbury v. Madison which is almost 220 years old.
We're not talking generalities about a 200 year old case that was probably wrongly decided. If anything, it established the timeless principle that the judicial branch would always look to expand its powers at the expense of the Executive branch. We are talking about a President's exercise of his inherent power to protect the borders and explicit statutory authority to declare states of emergency. There is no provision in law or precedent for him to have to justify it to random district court judges. To suggest otherwise is to render the Executive Branch inferior to the Judicial Branch. In the past the federal courts, at least outside the renegade Ninth Circuit, recognized that prudential considerations if nothing else cautioned restraint in testing the limits of Executive Branch power. Without the assistance of both houses of congress, the Judicial Branch is powerless against a defiant President.
No branch is above the other, you skipped checks and balances in 5th grade. Misappropriating funds already legislated to other purposes goes against the Constitutional power of Congress to control the purse strings. Stop being butthurt that a district judge knows the Constitution better than the Executive Branch legal team or that you had 2 years of power to fix this and failed to do so (failed leadership). You keep crying over some federal district court judge but never bemoan the failed leadership or that the Act itself is unconstitutional. The Executive Branch is not inferior to the Judicial Branch, it is just inferior to the Constitution. If Obama, Clinton, Bush, Reagan did the same thing I would tell you the same answer. Oh by the way....why do you think Reagan's pals got into a shit storm in Iran Contra? Because Congress controls the purse strings.
Exactly. You want to put the Judicial Branch above the Executive. It's odd how liberals moan and obsess about "threats to our democracy" but in reality, they demand that we be ruled by an unelected federal judiciary. Obviously, it has been the only way for them to get their unpopular policies forced on an unwilling citizenry but at some point, we have to say enough.