Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So a little liberal judge in California can declare what a national emergency is for the entire United States?
Judge blocks Trump from using billions in military funds for border wall
A federal judge on Friday issued a ruling blocking the Trump administration from tapping billions of dollars in military funds to construct a wall on the United States's southern border.
U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam issued the permanent injunction in a California federal court, after initially ruling last month to temporarily halt the administration's use of military funds for the border wall.
How can this be happening after this:
Judge tosses House Dems' lawsuit over Trump's use of emergency military funds for border wall
Judge tosses House Dems' lawsuit over Trump's use of emergency military funds for border wall
Washington, D.C., district court Judge Trevor McFadden threw out House Democrats' lawsuit seeking an injunction against President Trump's emergency border wall funding reallocation, saying that the matter is fundamentally a political dispute and that the politicians lack standing to make a legal case.
Trump had declared a national emergency this past February over the humanitarian crisis at the southern border, following Congress' failure to fund his border wall legislatively. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and House Democrats then filed suit in April, charging that Trump was "stealing from appropriated funds” by moving $6.7 billion from other projects toward border wall construction.
Democrats argued that the White House had "flouted the fundamental separation-of-powers principles and usurped for itself legislative power specifically vested by the Constitution in Congress."
But, in his ruling, McFadden, a Trump appointee, suggested Democrats were trying to circumvent the political process.
"This case presents a close question about the appropriate role of the Judiciary in resolving disputes between the other two branches of the Federal Government. To be clear, the court does not imply that Congress may never sue the Executive to protect its powers," McFadden wrote in his opinion. "The Court declines to take sides in this fight between the House and the President."
McFadden's ruling contrasted with U.S. District Court Judge Haywood Gilliam’s injunction last week, which blocked the administration from using the reallocated funds for projects in specific areas in Texas and Arizona. Gilliam had been appointed by then-President Barack Obama.
How can this be happening after this:
Judge tosses House Dems' lawsuit over Trump's use of emergency military funds for border wall
Judge tosses House Dems' lawsuit over Trump's use of emergency military funds for border wall
Washington, D.C., district court Judge Trevor McFadden threw out House Democrats' lawsuit seeking an injunction against President Trump's emergency border wall funding reallocation, saying that the matter is fundamentally a political dispute and that the politicians lack standing to make a legal case.
Trump had declared a national emergency this past February over the humanitarian crisis at the southern border, following Congress' failure to fund his border wall legislatively. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and House Democrats then filed suit in April, charging that Trump was "stealing from appropriated funds” by moving $6.7 billion from other projects toward border wall construction.
Democrats argued that the White House had "flouted the fundamental separation-of-powers principles and usurped for itself legislative power specifically vested by the Constitution in Congress."
But, in his ruling, McFadden, a Trump appointee, suggested Democrats were trying to circumvent the political process.
"This case presents a close question about the appropriate role of the Judiciary in resolving disputes between the other two branches of the Federal Government. To be clear, the court does not imply that Congress may never sue the Executive to protect its powers," McFadden wrote in his opinion. "The Court declines to take sides in this fight between the House and the President."
McFadden's ruling contrasted with U.S. District Court Judge Haywood Gilliam’s injunction last week, which blocked the administration from using the reallocated funds for projects in specific areas in Texas and Arizona. Gilliam had been appointed by then-President Barack Obama.
Trump has the majority of the men agreeing with him
And much more majority of the military
Those 2 are the real power here
A 5 to 4 win of supremes against these majorities will not stand
They would charge the 5 supremes with treason and make it stick with their real power
How can this be happening after this:
Judge tosses House Dems' lawsuit over Trump's use of emergency military funds for border wall
Judge tosses House Dems' lawsuit over Trump's use of emergency military funds for border wall
Washington, D.C., district court Judge Trevor McFadden threw out House Democrats' lawsuit seeking an injunction against President Trump's emergency border wall funding reallocation, saying that the matter is fundamentally a political dispute and that the politicians lack standing to make a legal case.
Trump had declared a national emergency this past February over the humanitarian crisis at the southern border, following Congress' failure to fund his border wall legislatively. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and House Democrats then filed suit in April, charging that Trump was "stealing from appropriated funds” by moving $6.7 billion from other projects toward border wall construction.
Democrats argued that the White House had "flouted the fundamental separation-of-powers principles and usurped for itself legislative power specifically vested by the Constitution in Congress."
But, in his ruling, McFadden, a Trump appointee, suggested Democrats were trying to circumvent the political process.
"This case presents a close question about the appropriate role of the Judiciary in resolving disputes between the other two branches of the Federal Government. To be clear, the court does not imply that Congress may never sue the Executive to protect its powers," McFadden wrote in his opinion. "The Court declines to take sides in this fight between the House and the President."
McFadden's ruling contrasted with U.S. District Court Judge Haywood Gilliam’s injunction last week, which blocked the administration from using the reallocated funds for projects in specific areas in Texas and Arizona. Gilliam had been appointed by then-President Barack Obama.
Trump has the majority of the men agreeing with him
And much more majority of the military
Those 2 are the real power here
A 5 to 4 win of supremes against these majorities will not stand
They would charge the 5 supremes with treason and make it stick with their real power
Illegal aliens cost the taxpayers 130 billion each year.
Don't bother to post a link. You don't have one.
Yeah illegals don't use our ERs ...
So, your problem is that Illegals get free health care at ER's, yet, you are thoroughly disgusted that ACA forced you to pay a penalty or buy insurance, because you had no insurance, and now that you don't have to have insurance, OR pay a penalty, YOU will get free care at ERs.
Talk about hypocrisy, you win the prize.
I would be a hypocrite if I went to the ER and didn't pay, No?
For the millionth time I haven't been to a quack in like 40 years unless you count mandatory physicals for work that they pay for.
.
.
Just imagine if millions of Americans think like you....... Oh I’m tough. I don’t need health care insurance.
Then we don’t need health care insurance at all. Just run to ER.
So a little liberal judge in California can declare what a national emergency is for the entire United States?
Judge blocks Trump from using billions in military funds for border wall
A federal judge on Friday issued a ruling blocking the Trump administration from tapping billions of dollars in military funds to construct a wall on the United States's southern border.
U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam issued the permanent injunction in a California federal court, after initially ruling last month to temporarily halt the administration's use of military funds for the border wall.
It is against Federal Law for funds to be redirected without advise and consent of Congress. 45 cannot redirect funds designated for defense and use them another project.
Well for some bizarre reason, congress passed a law allowing a President to do just that with an emergency declaration, and congress can overturn the potus later on … but the senate has to agree. We could argue that the border is not an emergency as the law contemplates, but I wouldn't be betting on Roberts to bail out the idiot dems on this one.
Pot paints kettle black as your side has shredded the Constitution by ignoring the laws and inviting law breakers into this country.It's ironic how the so-called US Constitution-loving conservatives can simply discard their faux love for the constitution on a whim when it no longer suits them.
You see, it's the Congress that has the constitutional authority to appropriate money for spending. Once a bill is signed into law, no president or executive branch cabinet official has the constitutional authority to redirect that spending for another purpose.
Pot paints kettle black as your side has shredded the Constitution by ignoring the laws and inviting law breakers into this country.It's ironic how the so-called US Constitution-loving conservatives can simply discard their faux love for the constitution on a whim when it no longer suits them.
You see, it's the Congress that has the constitutional authority to appropriate money for spending. Once a bill is signed into law, no president or executive branch cabinet official has the constitutional authority to redirect that spending for another purpose.
And your post disregards the Executive powers under the Constitution of protecting our borders and this country. AND ENFORCING OUR LAWS.........You know the ones.......the ones you DISREGARD.
So you have 2 ISSUES which are within the Constitution................which one wins............Why it goes to the Supreme Court for a ruling.............To decide which one is correct............and what it allows.
Faux love for the constitution from the left...........LOL.......That's a joke.
So a little liberal judge in California can declare what a national emergency is for the entire United States?
Judge blocks Trump from using billions in military funds for border wall
A federal judge on Friday issued a ruling blocking the Trump administration from tapping billions of dollars in military funds to construct a wall on the United States's southern border.
U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam issued the permanent injunction in a California federal court, after initially ruling last month to temporarily halt the administration's use of military funds for the border wall.
It's ironic how the so-called US Constitution-loving conservatives can simply discard their faux love for the constitution on a whim when it no longer suits them.
You see, it's the Congress that has the constitutional authority to appropriate money for spending. Once a bill is signed into law, no president or executive branch cabinet official has the constitutional authority to redirect that spending for another purpose.
So a little liberal judge in California can declare what a national emergency is for the entire United States?
Judge blocks Trump from using billions in military funds for border wall
A federal judge on Friday issued a ruling blocking the Trump administration from tapping billions of dollars in military funds to construct a wall on the United States's southern border.
U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam issued the permanent injunction in a California federal court, after initially ruling last month to temporarily halt the administration's use of military funds for the border wall.
It's ironic how the so-called US Constitution-loving conservatives can simply discard their faux love for the constitution on a whim when it no longer suits them.
You see, it's the Congress that has the constitutional authority to appropriate money for spending. Once a bill is signed into law, no president or executive branch cabinet official has the constitutional authority to redirect that spending for another purpose.
The Paris Agreement was a product of the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris, where former President Obama met with world leaders to commit the U.S. to non-binding emission reduction targets. Under the agreement, Obama committed the U.S. to wholly improbable reduction goals of 26 to 28 percent by year 2025.
Through a litany of regulations stemming from the agreement, Obama essentially offered up the U.S. economy as a sacrificial lamb to further his own legacy. The agreement however would not just have hurt the country’s growth as a whole, but would have trickled down to low-and-middle income Americans. If the U.S.'s participation in the agreement had been allowed to move forward, energy costs would have skyrocketed, in turn raising the cost of utility bills for families and increasing the costs of consumer goods
So a little liberal judge in California can declare what a national emergency is for the entire United States?
Judge blocks Trump from using billions in military funds for border wall
A federal judge on Friday issued a ruling blocking the Trump administration from tapping billions of dollars in military funds to construct a wall on the United States's southern border.
U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam issued the permanent injunction in a California federal court, after initially ruling last month to temporarily halt the administration's use of military funds for the border wall.
It's ironic how the so-called US Constitution-loving conservatives can simply discard their faux love for the constitution on a whim when it no longer suits them.
You see, it's the Congress that has the constitutional authority to appropriate money for spending. Once a bill is signed into law, no president or executive branch cabinet official has the constitutional authority to redirect that spending for another purpose.
The Paris Agreement was a product of the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris, where former President Obama met with world leaders to commit the U.S. to non-binding emission reduction targets. Under the agreement, Obama committed the U.S. to wholly improbable reduction goals of 26 to 28 percent by year 2025.
Through a litany of regulations stemming from the agreement, Obama essentially offered up the U.S. economy as a sacrificial lamb to further his own legacy. The agreement however would not just have hurt the country’s growth as a whole, but would have trickled down to low-and-middle income Americans. If the U.S.'s participation in the agreement had been allowed to move forward, energy costs would have skyrocketed, in turn raising the cost of utility bills for families and increasing the costs of consumer goods
Increased consumers costs.....? Like Donny grifters tariffs?
So a little liberal judge in California can declare what a national emergency is for the entire United States?
Judge blocks Trump from using billions in military funds for border wall
A federal judge on Friday issued a ruling blocking the Trump administration from tapping billions of dollars in military funds to construct a wall on the United States's southern border.
U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam issued the permanent injunction in a California federal court, after initially ruling last month to temporarily halt the administration's use of military funds for the border wall.
It is against Federal Law for funds to be redirected without advise and consent of Congress. 45 cannot redirect funds designated for defense and use them another project.
Well for some bizarre reason, congress passed a law allowing a President to do just that with an emergency declaration, and congress can overturn the potus later on … but the senate has to agree. We could argue that the border is not an emergency as the law contemplates, but I wouldn't be betting on Roberts to bail out the idiot dems on this one.
The Judge ruled on the legality of what the 5-Deferment Draft Dodging Orange Shit Wit wanted to do. It is, under United States Constitution (You might have heard of it) against the law.
Also, MEXICO according the lying Shit Gibbon, is suppose to pay for the wall...NOT the U.S.
Nor has the so called "Emergency" Declaration legal. There is not clear and present danger.
So a little liberal judge in California can declare what a national emergency is for the entire United States?
Judge blocks Trump from using billions in military funds for border wall
A federal judge on Friday issued a ruling blocking the Trump administration from tapping billions of dollars in military funds to construct a wall on the United States's southern border.
U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam issued the permanent injunction in a California federal court, after initially ruling last month to temporarily halt the administration's use of military funds for the border wall.
It's ironic how the so-called US Constitution-loving conservatives can simply discard their faux love for the constitution on a whim when it no longer suits them.
You see, it's the Congress that has the constitutional authority to appropriate money for spending. Once a bill is signed into law, no president or executive branch cabinet official has the constitutional authority to redirect that spending for another purpose.
The Paris Agreement was a product of the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris, where former President Obama met with world leaders to commit the U.S. to non-binding emission reduction targets. Under the agreement, Obama committed the U.S. to wholly improbable reduction goals of 26 to 28 percent by year 2025.
Through a litany of regulations stemming from the agreement, Obama essentially offered up the U.S. economy as a sacrificial lamb to further his own legacy. The agreement however would not just have hurt the country’s growth as a whole, but would have trickled down to low-and-middle income Americans. If the U.S.'s participation in the agreement had been allowed to move forward, energy costs would have skyrocketed, in turn raising the cost of utility bills for families and increasing the costs of consumer goods
Increased consumers costs.....? Like Donny grifters tariffs?
Choice?
So a little liberal judge in California can declare what a national emergency is for the entire United States?
Judge blocks Trump from using billions in military funds for border wall
A federal judge on Friday issued a ruling blocking the Trump administration from tapping billions of dollars in military funds to construct a wall on the United States's southern border.
U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam issued the permanent injunction in a California federal court, after initially ruling last month to temporarily halt the administration's use of military funds for the border wall.
It's ironic how the so-called US Constitution-loving conservatives can simply discard their faux love for the constitution on a whim when it no longer suits them.
You see, it's the Congress that has the constitutional authority to appropriate money for spending. Once a bill is signed into law, no president or executive branch cabinet official has the constitutional authority to redirect that spending for another purpose.
The Paris Agreement was a product of the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris, where former President Obama met with world leaders to commit the U.S. to non-binding emission reduction targets. Under the agreement, Obama committed the U.S. to wholly improbable reduction goals of 26 to 28 percent by year 2025.
Through a litany of regulations stemming from the agreement, Obama essentially offered up the U.S. economy as a sacrificial lamb to further his own legacy. The agreement however would not just have hurt the country’s growth as a whole, but would have trickled down to low-and-middle income Americans. If the U.S.'s participation in the agreement had been allowed to move forward, energy costs would have skyrocketed, in turn raising the cost of utility bills for families and increasing the costs of consumer goods
Increased consumers costs.....? Like Donny grifters tariffs?
Choice?
A livable planet is a choice?
View attachment 269048So a little liberal judge in California can declare what a national emergency is for the entire United States?
Judge blocks Trump from using billions in military funds for border wall
A federal judge on Friday issued a ruling blocking the Trump administration from tapping billions of dollars in military funds to construct a wall on the United States's southern border.
U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam issued the permanent injunction in a California federal court, after initially ruling last month to temporarily halt the administration's use of military funds for the border wall.
It is against Federal Law for funds to be redirected without advise and consent of Congress. 45 cannot redirect funds designated for defense and use them another project.
Well for some bizarre reason, congress passed a law allowing a President to do just that with an emergency declaration, and congress can overturn the potus later on … but the senate has to agree. We could argue that the border is not an emergency as the law contemplates, but I wouldn't be betting on Roberts to bail out the idiot dems on this one.
The Judge ruled on the legality of what the 5-Deferment Draft Dodging Orange Shit Wit wanted to do. It is, under United States Constitution (You might have heard of it) against the law.
Also, MEXICO according the lying Shit Gibbon, is suppose to pay for the wall...NOT the U.S.
Nor has the so called "Emergency" Declaration legal. There is not clear and present danger.
It's ironic how the so-called US Constitution-loving conservatives can simply discard their faux love for the constitution on a whim when it no longer suits them.
You see, it's the Congress that has the constitutional authority to appropriate money for spending. Once a bill is signed into law, no president or executive branch cabinet official has the constitutional authority to redirect that spending for another purpose.
The Paris Agreement was a product of the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris, where former President Obama met with world leaders to commit the U.S. to non-binding emission reduction targets. Under the agreement, Obama committed the U.S. to wholly improbable reduction goals of 26 to 28 percent by year 2025.
Through a litany of regulations stemming from the agreement, Obama essentially offered up the U.S. economy as a sacrificial lamb to further his own legacy. The agreement however would not just have hurt the country’s growth as a whole, but would have trickled down to low-and-middle income Americans. If the U.S.'s participation in the agreement had been allowed to move forward, energy costs would have skyrocketed, in turn raising the cost of utility bills for families and increasing the costs of consumer goods
Increased consumers costs.....? Like Donny grifters tariffs?
Choice?
A livable planet is a choice?
Still want to exploit Chinese workers?
The Paris Agreement was a product of the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris, where former President Obama met with world leaders to commit the U.S. to non-binding emission reduction targets. Under the agreement, Obama committed the U.S. to wholly improbable reduction goals of 26 to 28 percent by year 2025.
Through a litany of regulations stemming from the agreement, Obama essentially offered up the U.S. economy as a sacrificial lamb to further his own legacy. The agreement however would not just have hurt the country’s growth as a whole, but would have trickled down to low-and-middle income Americans. If the U.S.'s participation in the agreement had been allowed to move forward, energy costs would have skyrocketed, in turn raising the cost of utility bills for families and increasing the costs of consumer goods
Increased consumers costs.....? Like Donny grifters tariffs?
Choice?
A livable planet is a choice?
Still want to exploit Chinese workers?
I don’t shop at Walmart.
View attachment 269048So a little liberal judge in California can declare what a national emergency is for the entire United States?
Judge blocks Trump from using billions in military funds for border wall
A federal judge on Friday issued a ruling blocking the Trump administration from tapping billions of dollars in military funds to construct a wall on the United States's southern border.
U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam issued the permanent injunction in a California federal court, after initially ruling last month to temporarily halt the administration's use of military funds for the border wall.
It is against Federal Law for funds to be redirected without advise and consent of Congress. 45 cannot redirect funds designated for defense and use them another project.
Well for some bizarre reason, congress passed a law allowing a President to do just that with an emergency declaration, and congress can overturn the potus later on … but the senate has to agree. We could argue that the border is not an emergency as the law contemplates, but I wouldn't be betting on Roberts to bail out the idiot dems on this one.
The Judge ruled on the legality of what the 5-Deferment Draft Dodging Orange Shit Wit wanted to do. It is, under United States Constitution (You might have heard of it) against the law.
Also, MEXICO according the lying Shit Gibbon, is suppose to pay for the wall...NOT the U.S.
Nor has the so called "Emergency" Declaration legal. There is not clear and present danger.
Her family requests that you stop using her for your political bullshit.
View attachment 269048It is against Federal Law for funds to be redirected without advise and consent of Congress. 45 cannot redirect funds designated for defense and use them another project.
Well for some bizarre reason, congress passed a law allowing a President to do just that with an emergency declaration, and congress can overturn the potus later on … but the senate has to agree. We could argue that the border is not an emergency as the law contemplates, but I wouldn't be betting on Roberts to bail out the idiot dems on this one.
The Judge ruled on the legality of what the 5-Deferment Draft Dodging Orange Shit Wit wanted to do. It is, under United States Constitution (You might have heard of it) against the law.
Also, MEXICO according the lying Shit Gibbon, is suppose to pay for the wall...NOT the U.S.
Nor has the so called "Emergency" Declaration legal. There is not clear and present danger.
Her family requests that you stop using her for your political bullshit.
She died from a rapist illegal killer Mexican
And you don't see a problem here?
Increased consumers costs.....? Like Donny grifters tariffs?
Choice?
A livable planet is a choice?
Still want to exploit Chinese workers?
I don’t shop at Walmart.
We know..we all know
View attachment 269052
View attachment 269048Well for some bizarre reason, congress passed a law allowing a President to do just that with an emergency declaration, and congress can overturn the potus later on … but the senate has to agree. We could argue that the border is not an emergency as the law contemplates, but I wouldn't be betting on Roberts to bail out the idiot dems on this one.
The Judge ruled on the legality of what the 5-Deferment Draft Dodging Orange Shit Wit wanted to do. It is, under United States Constitution (You might have heard of it) against the law.
Also, MEXICO according the lying Shit Gibbon, is suppose to pay for the wall...NOT the U.S.
Nor has the so called "Emergency" Declaration legal. There is not clear and present danger.
Her family requests that you stop using her for your political bullshit.
She died from a rapist illegal killer Mexican
And you don't see a problem here?
I saw the problem and I pointed it out.
