Its official, the supreme court is officially politicized

[ivwshane]

The constitution clearly states that power of the purse is vested in Congress. Congress passed a law that forbid the president from not spending money that was already appropriated and it was upheld by the supreme court.

So now we have the supreme court, along party lines, dismissing an injunction that prevented the president from diverting already appropriated (to something different) funds and has allowed him to continue spending the money for the wall while the case is in litigation.

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/26/7457...wall-move-forward-but-legal-fight-still-looms

Apparently they ruled that the parties suing didn't have a just cause. So why isn't Congress suing?

 

[senseamp]

Democratsthe fence about packing the courts, pay close attention.

 

[Maxima1]

You must be mistaken. Very fine people.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/26/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-kavanaugh-gorsuch/index.html

Ruth Bader Ginsburg defends Kavanaugh, Gorsuch as 'very decent and very smart'

 

[Atreus21]

The constitution clearly states that power of the purse is vested in Congress. Congress passed a law that forbid the president from not spending money that was already appropriated and it was upheld by the supreme court.

So now we have the supreme court, along party lines, dismissing an injunction that prevented the president from diverting already appropriated (to something different) funds and has allowed him to continue spending the money for the wall while the case is in litigation.

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/26/7457...wall-move-forward-but-legal-fight-still-looms

Apparently they ruled that the parties suing didn't have a just cause. So why isn't Congress suing?

They ruled the parties didnt have standing. They didnt rule on whether or not Trump's use of the money was lawful.

I suppose whoever does have standing will sue.

 

[ivwshane]

They ruled the parties didnt have standing. They didnt rule on whether or not Trump's use of the money was lawful.

I suppose whoever does have standing will sue.

It doesn't matter what their reasoning was, the result is a clear violation of the constitution.

 

[umbrella39]

Democracy has been destroyed in year 2019. Voting them out isn't going to be enough... I'm happy federal executions are back on the books. Be careful what you wish for Traitors...

 

[Indus]

I really think 2020 will end up in Scotus bush v gore again

 

[K1052]

Mexico* will pay for the wall.






*In this case "Mexico" being the US DOD funded entirely by you the taxpayer via a process that flies in the face of our foundational separation of powers.

 

[TheVrolok]

I really think 2020 will end up in Scotus bush v gore again

Nah, just another EC victory with massive popular vote loss.

 

[sportage]

What I want to know is....
When he gets his dang wall, and then it fails to stop one single illegal and fails to reduct the mass immigration to the US, then how will Trump spin it?
Will Trump simply lie and claim IT'S A GREAT WALL STOPPING MILLIONS?
Or, will Trump claim WE NEED A BIGGER WALL. GIVE ME MORE MONEY?

In the end this is all a huge waste of time and money. Because we all know that some future president will come along and TEAR DOWN THAT WALL. Just as they did in Germany.
America is no Nazi Germany, and some future president will once again make THE WALL a campaign focus.
Especially when proven that THE WALL had zero effect on illegal immigration. And indeed was a total waste of time.
And wasting stuff is what Donald Trump is all about.

 

[darkswordsman17]

I really think 2020 will end up in Scotus bush v gore again

It'll be worse.

 

[tweaker2]

Trump wants that wall like a spoiled brat screaming his lungs out and flailing on the floor in an aisle of a toy store. Instead of having the parents control this miscreant, they not only let him carry on with his runt rant, they cheer him on because they notice that it's irritating the shit out of the other customers in the store and beam with false pride over it all while hiding the shame and guilt they feel over being such lousy parents.

And holy shit the police come in, buy the toy that the brat was having a hissy fit over and hand it to the kid to shut him up.

This is the Trump Dictatorship in all of its glory where he has all of his ducks in Justice, Senate and the Courts lined up in a row.

And yes, it could have been worse if not for Trump constantly shooting holes in his feet and tweets.

Then stop to think how worse things could be if there was no investigation into Trump's efforts to hide his crimes.

 

[SlowSpyder]

This thread reads like a giant tantrum.

 

[ch33zw1z]

This thread reads like a giant tantrum.

When's Mexico's check for the wall showing up there slow?

 

[Moonbeam]

It doesn't matter what their reasoning was, the result is a clear violation of the constitution.

You are talking about justice not law. Law is a means to strive for justice, not a guarantee. But without law you can't even strive for justice and what you are saying is that law doesn't matter, that people who do not have legal standing to present a case that is just should get justice anyway. But the whole point of striving for justice is to do that justly, and how can you do that if you abandon the law as it stands? I think you are emotional rather than rational, not that I think that's always a bad thing. But here, I do. The hope that justice can be done still remains.

God save me from making a ultimate justice call that rationalizes away justice of means. That is what Trump did because he's a titanically arrogant prick.

 

[Moonbeam]

When's Mexico's check for the wall showing up there slow?

I don't think he can feel shame because he can't allow into consciousness the rage he felt as a child to the guardians who shamed him back them. The price of resistance is death of one's real self to survive physically, a bargain none of us could resist.

 

[JEDIYoda]

At face value this is an interesting thing! But truth be told if you look at all the decisions the Supreme court has ruled upon I am not so sure it has really been politicized as much as people feel it has when it rules against somebodys opinion! How much of what Trump wants to do that has been put before the Supreme Court was ruled in Trumps favor??
As long as Justices are people and not robots I think we will weather this bump in the road!!

 

[umbrella39]

More lies and broken promises from THE RIGHT who continue to eat up bullshit, deception, diversion, and LIES like Kobayashi and shit out their Hatred for America as long as some libtard cries... Build the fucking wall, make sure it's high enough and big enough to contain the treasonous Americans who have sold out our Democracy and Constitution to the Russians...

Fusillade gonna make a big comeback just in time!!!

 

[ivwshane]

This thread reads like a giant tantrum.

That's because everything triggers you.

 

[JEDIYoda]

n/m

 

[JEDIYoda]

This thread reads like a giant tantrum.

TRIGGERED!!!

 

[ivwshane]

At face value this is an interesting thing! But truth be told if you look at all the decisions the Supreme court has ruled upon I am not so sure it has really been politicized as much as people feel it has when it rules against somebodys opinion! How much of what Trump wants to do that has been put before the Supreme Court was ruled in Trumps favor??
As long as Justices are people and not robots I think we will weather this bump in the road!!

When SCOTUS crosses that imaginary line you believe is bright red with sirens, it will be too late. Fascism doesn't happen in an instant, it happens little by little, as things get continuously normalized. Hell, the court has been slowly politicized since scalia and the federalist society has been picking supreme court nominations ever since.

 

[brandonbull]

Nah, just another EC victory with massive popular vote loss.

Back to the popular vote stuff again?

 

[TheVrolok]

Back to the popular vote stuff again?

lol schmuck. Make a compelling argument for why a "flyover country" vote should count more than an "urban" vote.

 

[Thump553]

This was a ruling on a motion for an injunction. Technically the Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the case, they just said (by a 5-4 party line majority) that the injunction will be denied and Trump will be allowed to continue to loot the DOD while the case is being tried in the lower court.

The law on injunctions is pretty slanted against granting them generally, but I'm still very surprised it wasn't granted here. Trump is relying on extremely weak constitutional grounds here and I can't imagine any honest Justices ruling in his favor in the final determination of the case.

It will be interesting to read the actual opinions here.