Judge appears skeptical of Trump stance in case challenging his emergency declaration for wall funds

Dec 2015
12,062
7,312
In Your Heart!
#1
Judge appears skeptical of Trump stance in case challenging his emergency declaration for wall funds
The administration put together a plan for spending about $6 billion dollars, mostly from the Pentagon budget.
By Pete Williams

"WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump's declaration of a national emergency to divert billions of dollars from the Pentagon for a border wall faced its first courtroom test on Friday."
"Federal District Court Judge Haywood Gilliam in Oakland, Calif., seemed skeptical as Justice Department attorneys defended the president's action. The judge directed his most pointed questions at government lawyers, but he did not announce a ruling at the end of a nearly three-hour hearing."
"The challengers also said that under a law the president invoked in his emergency declaration, the money from the Pentagon can be used only to support activities of the military. "There is no emergency requiring the use of the armed forces along the U.S.-Mexico border," the ACLU said in its court filings."









#############################################################################
As I've said before, should any judge on a higher appeal by the Administration rule in favor of Trump and his emergency declaration that would immediately set up an important precedent that any future Democratic president can also do the same thus, they can also put forth the Democratic agenda that way with less trouble.
 

Rasselas

Former Staff
Feb 2010
70,019
46,138
USA
#3
Federal District Court Judge Haywood Gilliam

On September 8, 2014, President Obama nominated Gilliam to serve as a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, to the seat vacated by Judge Claudia Ann Wilken, who took senior status in December 2014.

Oh-oh. An Obama judge (quoting DJT).
:cool:
It's the Trump ad hominem.
 
Likes: the bull59
May 2012
68,016
13,516
By the wall
#4
Judge appears skeptical of Trump stance in case challenging his emergency declaration for wall funds
The administration put together a plan for spending about $6 billion dollars, mostly from the Pentagon budget.
By Pete Williams














#############################################################################
As I've said before, should any judge on a higher appeal by the Administration rule in favor of Trump and his emergency declaration that would immediately set up an important precedent that any future Democratic president can also do the same thus, they can also put forth the Democratic agenda that way with less trouble.
The right to defend our borders falls directly under the military expenditure of funds.

There is nothing a court can do to overturn this.

It's a done deal.

But you are right on one point.

A future democratic president can do the same thing but remember that it has to do with the defense of our nation if you want to pillage the funds allocated to them.

So you couldn't do it for healthcare or something like that.

You have to give it to Trump, he found a way to get the money that is perfectly legit and didn't require congress.

A rather brilliant move by him politically.

The big thing here is that he is setting a precedent for future presidents to work outside of the norm. You can consider that a good thing or a bad thing but its now going to be a thing.
 
Likes: WolfHulk

Rasselas

Former Staff
Feb 2010
70,019
46,138
USA
#5
Your argument hinges on the idea that once funds are appropriated to a particular agency, the president can spend it on whatever he likes within that agency, so long as he views the problem as an emergency. That's a lot of power you want to give the president.
 
Likes: Friday13

Singularity

Former Staff
Oct 2009
32,281
26,167
Kansas
#6
Your argument hinges on the idea that once funds are appropriated to a particular agency, the president can spend it on whatever he likes within that agency, so long as he views the problem as an emergency. That's a lot of power you want to give the president.
It is 100 percent a cynical estimation that Trump will either win re-election or that conservative judges will permit Trump to do this while restraining a Democratic successor.
 
Likes: OldGaffer
May 2019
2,274
2,498
midwest
#7
The right to defend our borders falls directly under the military expenditure of funds.

There is nothing a court can do to overturn this.

It's a done deal.

But you are right on one point.

A future democratic president can do the same thing but remember that it has to do with the defense of our nation if you want to pillage the funds allocated to them.

So you couldn't do it for healthcare or something like that.

You have to give it to Trump, he found a way to get the money that is perfectly legit and didn't require congress.

A rather brilliant move by him politically.

The big thing here is that he is setting a precedent for future presidents to work outside of the norm. You can consider that a good thing or a bad thing but its now going to be a thing.
The funds 1st must be specifically approved. I thought trump followers knew OUR Constitution? Bolding above and below - my emphasis.
:cool:


“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 9, clause 7
Power of the Purse | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives
 
Nov 2018
6,057
1,863
Bel Air, MD
#8
This judge, an Obama appointed judge, is like all of the other Obama appointed judge, who will never rule in favor of Trump. They are the resistance, who go against anything Trump tries to do to protect American citizens.
 
May 2019
2,274
2,498
midwest
#9
This judge, an Obama appointed judge, is like all of the other Obama appointed judge, who will never rule in favor of Trump. They are the resistance, who go against anything Trump tries to do to protect American citizens.
“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. The independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”

Chief Justice John Roberts, November 21, 2018
:cool:
 
Likes: boontito