Judge tosses dems suit contesting using military funds to build wall

quote:

---

threw out dems suit

---

Good now build that wall.

quote:

---

Memories

And who is gonna pay for it?!


All together now...... Americans!!!!!

---

Mexico tariffs just paid for it but thanks for keeping up your narrative anyway.

Have you ever lived on the border?

quote:

---

Memories

And who is gonna pay for it?!


All together now...... Americans!!!!!

---

You freeloading liberals ain't never paid for something out of your own pocket in your sad, pathetic lives. Stop that fake whining bullshite

CAVEOT: The following is based upon several news articles from outlets on both sides of the aisle. I have not yet found and read the actual Order.

The decision seems to be based entirely upon standing and the fact that no damages have yet accrued to the House because no funds have been spent yet. As such, this judge says that the House lacks standing to challenge the Emergency Declaration in court.

This ruling seems to be in conflict with an earlier ruling from the same District (different judge) that DID find the House to have standing to challenge Obamacare. (Both judges were GOP appointments). That conflict likely means a speedy appeal.

One could argue that the cases are NOT inconsistent, because funds HAD been expended in the Obamacare case. Under that theory, Congress could simply re-file as soon as any National Emergency Act money is expended on the Wall.

A California court has already ruled that private citizens DO have standing re the Emergency Declaration, and this judge said that Congress can always file amicus briefs in that private litigation.

The ruling also seems to turn in part upon the fact that Congress has a political remedy which is not available to private litigants, which makes perfect sense given that this is a case seeking an injunction. Injunctions are generally allowed only when no other remedy is available.

All in all, the ruling makes sense.

Guess what I haven't heard in awhile; the Taco Bell "Run for the Border" commercial

quote:

---

So if the companies carrying these goods that are tarriffed dont pass the tarriffs along to the American consumer, who do you believe it will get passed on to?

---

If the tarriffs rise to a certain point, it will be cheaper to build them in the USA. Sorry, but I'm sick of paying for cheap goods that fall apart in months. I'd rather pay the price for American-made goods that last decades or longer.

quote:

---

quote:
A California court has already ruled that private citizens DO have standing re the Emergency Declaration



A ridiculous fricking ruling

---

Agreed!
The citizens do have legislative alternatives through their REPRESENTATION on their taxation. That is the whole point of the House being Representative of the People and Senate being Representative of the States (individual entities).

If citizens have standing to oppose, what about the citizens who support? Duh!!! Legislative Representation for both! Maybe private citizens should elect better Representatives!

quote:

---

And who is gonna pay for it?!


All together now...... Americans!!!!!

---

And why shouldn't we? We will be the ones to benefit from it will we not? Do you expect someone outside the U.S. to pay for our infrastructure such as highways because much of the products moved on those highways is foreign made and imported to the states?

When you give other people the right to say how something is regulated because they helped pay for it you give up a lot of your rights. I don't want to be indebted to anyone other than myself. If our government used that approach we wouldn't be in the pickle that we're now in with trade and whatnot. I guarantee you if the Messicans paid for the wall they would have a substantial say concerning our immigration scenario from our southern border. Undoubtedly you have no clue of what taking care of your own means.

quote:

---

Judge tosses dems

---

Fingers crossed