- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 7/26/19 at 6:21 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
Hawaiian judge will still try to overturn.
they should immediately be removed from the bench if they do...
Posted on 7/26/19 at 6:36 pm to WPBTiger
Does anyone have a link to the actual SCOTUS written opinion as of yet?
There was never any real question in any objective mind that certain military funds COULD be used for the construction of border barriers. That question is not even particularly interesting, even if some Leftist district judge ruled otherwise.
The interesting questions turn upon the “emergency“ funds, whether an executive declaration of “emergency“ under the NEA is subject to judicial review, and exactly WHAT TYPE of construction is allowed under the NEA.
Does anyone know if these issues are addressed in this opinion?
EDIT
I have always found it interesting to watch the downvotes roll in when someone simply asks for more information in the middle of a premature,Trump-centric circle jerk. I suppose that it is simply too difficult for the celebrants to hold off on releasing that excitement until the moment is right.
There was never any real question in any objective mind that certain military funds COULD be used for the construction of border barriers. That question is not even particularly interesting, even if some Leftist district judge ruled otherwise.
The interesting questions turn upon the “emergency“ funds, whether an executive declaration of “emergency“ under the NEA is subject to judicial review, and exactly WHAT TYPE of construction is allowed under the NEA.
Does anyone know if these issues are addressed in this opinion?
EDIT
I have always found it interesting to watch the downvotes roll in when someone simply asks for more information in the middle of a premature,Trump-centric circle jerk. I suppose that it is simply too difficult for the celebrants to hold off on releasing that excitement until the moment is right.
This post was edited on 7/26/19 at 7:10 pm
Posted on 7/26/19 at 6:39 pm to WPBTiger
And I was not going to drink in celebration tonight. 
This post was edited on 7/26/19 at 7:40 pm
Posted on 7/26/19 at 6:45 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
The interesting questions turn upon the “emergency“ funds, whether an executive declaration of “emergency“ under the NEA is subject to judicial review, and exactly WHAT TYPE of construction is allowed under the NEA.
The NEA does not specify what constitutes a "national emergency" so as to justify judicial review, President Obama declared tons of national emergencies relating to international stuff that barely affected America at all. Considering what happens on OUR OWN BORDER, I'm pretty sure this passes the smell test demonstrably.
Posted on 7/26/19 at 6:55 pm to ThePTExperience1969
quote:perhaps… None of which answers the question that I asked
The NEA does not specify what constitutes a "national emergency" so as to justify judicial review, President Obama declared tons of national emergencies relating to international stuff that barely affected America at all. Considering what happens on OUR OWN BORDER, I'm pretty sure this passes the smell test demonstrably.
Again, does anyone know whether this opinion actually addresses these questions?
Does anyone have a link to the written opinion?
Thus far, this thread seems to contain a great deal of celebration about a ruling that no one knows anything about. It reminds me of last summer, when the board was declaring world-altering victory as a result of the ministerial rescheduling of a temporary injunction hearing.
EDIT
quote:So, this may be nothing more than a ruling that the Sierra Club lacks standing.
The statement suggested that the five justices in the majority agreed with the Trump administration’s arguments that the groups who obtained the injunction, the Sierra Club and the Southern Border Communities Coalition, lacked a valid legal mechanism to enforce the budget rider Trump officials were allegedly violating. That may not rule out the possibility that others who have sued over the same policy, including 20 states and the House of Representatives, might have stronger claims. The states’ suit was essentially set aside due to the injunction granted to the private groups.
This post was edited on 7/26/19 at 7:02 pm
Posted on 7/26/19 at 7:00 pm to AggieHank86
Nancy melting
quote:
Nancy Pelosi
?Verified account @SpeakerPelosi
This evening’s Supreme Court ruling allowing @realDonaldTrump to steal military funds to spend on a wasteful, ineffective border wall rejected by Congress is deeply flawed. Our Founders designed a democracy governed by the people — not a monarchy.
Posted on 7/26/19 at 7:02 pm to WPBTiger
What a horrible week for the Dems. Lol
Posted on 7/26/19 at 7:06 pm to WPBTiger
So is the 9th circuit going to over rule the SCOTUS?
Posted on 7/26/19 at 7:09 pm to Contra
That crooked bitch thinks she’s a person worth listening to?
Posted on 7/26/19 at 7:10 pm to WPBTiger
9th life and Mr Cartard just squeezed their soy lattes so hard reading this
Posted on 7/26/19 at 7:15 pm to WPBTiger
Great news!
Posted on 7/26/19 at 7:16 pm to WPBTiger
frick the Satanists
Posted on 7/26/19 at 7:18 pm to WPBTiger
TEAR DOWN THE WALL.............
.....at Nancy Pelosi's Cali estate and use the bricks* to make the wall on the southern border 2 feet higher!
* Further, make captured illegals bring the bricks from NoCal to Mexico on their way out!!!
.....at Nancy Pelosi's Cali estate and use the bricks* to make the wall on the southern border 2 feet higher!
* Further, make captured illegals bring the bricks from NoCal to Mexico on their way out!!!
This post was edited on 7/26/19 at 7:19 pm
Posted on 7/26/19 at 7:23 pm to Scruffy
quote:
And the communists lose again
fifty
Posted on 7/26/19 at 7:30 pm to AggieHank86
Most of the downvotes are because we just don’t fricking like you.
So cheer up!
So cheer up!
Posted on 7/26/19 at 7:30 pm to AggieHank86
Posted on 7/26/19 at 8:09 pm to cajunandy
quote:thx
Here is a link to the USSC Order.
quote:So, it looks increasingly likely that this ruling turned entirely upon the standing of the Sierra Club, and that litigation will continue vis-à-vis litigants with more substantive standing claims.
This case raises novel and important questions about the ability of private parties to enforce Congress’ appropriations power.
This post was edited on 7/26/19 at 8:23 pm
Posted on 7/26/19 at 8:31 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
that litigation will continue vis-à-vis litigants with more substantive standing claims.
Which should be immediately shut down WITH PREJUDICE upon filing, the POTUS is CONSTITUTIONALLY and STATUTORILY empowered to DO THIS. There is no standing when the US Code and Constitution emphatically forecloses on stuff like this. Any judge who entertains lawsuits against the Constitution and US Code should be automatically impeached.
This post was edited on 7/26/19 at 8:33 pm
Posted on 7/26/19 at 8:33 pm to dovehunter
quote:
This is great news if true and a confirmation that there is again common sense at our highest court.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News