Patterico's Pontifications

6/3/2019

Headlines: Support for the Wall

Filed under: Court Decisions,Immigration — DRJ @ 5:30 pm



[Headlines from DRJ]

The Hill – Judge rejects House Democrats’ attempt to block Trump use of military funds for border wall:

A federal judge has ruled against congressional Democrats who sought to temporarily stop the president from using military funds for a border wall.

Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee, handed the president a needed victory after the White House suffered several losses in legal battles with Democrats in recent days.

McFadden ruled that House Democrats cannot go to court to block Trump from using military funds to build the border wall “because the Constitution grants the House no standing to litigate these claims.”

The judge held that the House might have standing to sue in some cases but it did not show it had standing here.

And The Hill: Texas 7-year-old raises $22,000 for construction of Trump’s border wall:

A 7-year-old from Texas who’s raised $22,000 for the construction of President Trump’s U.S.-Mexico border wall attended a ribbon-cutting ceremony for a section of the structure on private land.

Benton Stevens, whose hot chocolate and lemonade sales have helped fund the project, joined members of crowdfunding group “We Build The Wall” in Sunland Park, N.M., for the ceremony, KFOX reports.

That is a lot of money for a child’s stand, even in Texas.

— DRJ

12 Responses to “Headlines: Support for the Wall”

  1. There’s also this:

    However, a federal judge in California last week ruled to block the administration from using some of the military funds tapped under the national emergency declaration.

    So this won’t get settled until it goes to a Circuit Court or higher.

    Paul Montagu (ed733c) — 6/3/2019 @ 7:28 pm

  2. The standard for removal of judges is not “Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. It’s “not good Behavior”. Is a judge deciding cases as his political whim moves him good behavior? Talkin’ ’bout Gilliam, the California judge, who found that the Sierra Club had standing, as opposed to this judge who found that Congress did not have standing.

    nk (dbc370) — 6/3/2019 @ 7:47 pm

  3. Congress may kill Trump’s emergency declaration after all, since he has used it for those meshuggenah tariffs on Mexico. The GOP in Congress actually woke up and remembered they were for free trade and against tariffs.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/citing-mexico-tariffs-threat-lawmakers-say-n-american-trade-deal-is-in-peril/2019/06/03/73c4eaac-863c-11e9-a491-25df61c78dc4_story.html

    Congressional Republicans have begun discussing whether they may have to vote to block President Trump’s planned new tariffs on Mexico, potentially igniting a second standoff this year over Trump’s use of executive powers to circumvent Congress, people familiar with the talks said.

    The vote, which would be the GOP’s most dramatic act of defiance since Trump took office, could also have the effect of blocking billions of dollars in border wall funding that the president had announced in February when he declared a national emergency at the southern border, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the talks are private.

    Trump’s plans to impose tariffs on Mexico — with which the United States has a free-trade agreement — rely on the president’s declaration of a national emergency at the border. But the law gives Congress the right to override the national emergency determination by passing a resolution of disapproval.

    Kevin M (21ca15) — 6/3/2019 @ 8:04 pm

  4. As I recall from the travel ban case, the Ninth Circuit cases on standing are quite broad. The California-based courts were not troubled by standing then, probably because there are several grounds for standing that are not hard to meet. It would be nice to have some guidance on that from the Supreme Court. Maybe this will make that happen.

    DRJ (15874d) — 6/3/2019 @ 8:26 pm

  5. These are all good comments. Thank you.

    DRJ (15874d) — 6/3/2019 @ 8:27 pm

  6. Yeah, well, this group can have a ribbon cutting ceremony all they want. City and county regulators and officials have already shut down the project. This imaginary wall, even when built on private property, must conform to building codes. They didn’t submit or made mistakes on the necessary paperwork, and the project proposed violates the building code–by law, any wall or fence built cannot exceed eight feet in height. So there goes that.

    Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1) — 6/4/2019 @ 9:12 am

  7. Probably includes donations.

    Frank (90a91c) — 6/4/2019 @ 10:54 am

  8. six – change the law
    build the wall
    keep em out
    watch them
    scream & shout

    mg (8cbc69) — 6/4/2019 @ 12:46 pm

  9. @8 You really don’t know anything about building codes and permits, do you.

    Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1) — 6/4/2019 @ 4:24 pm

  10. “They didn’t submit or made mistakes on the necessary paperwork, and the project proposed violates the building code–by law, any wall or fence built cannot exceed eight feet in height. So there goes that.”
    Gawain’s Ghost (b25cd1) — 6/4/2019 @ 9:12 am

    Maybe by claiming asylum they can get around all this building code enforcement. Or, the jurisdiction could claim building code sanctuary status. There’s proven ways around these things.

    Munroe (8e4fdb) — 6/4/2019 @ 4:40 pm

  11. Just making fun – Gawain’s Ghost.
    Didn’t mean it as a personnel insult.
    I do know about codes and permits, I watch the city I live in break codes on their own buildings causing pipes to burst costing the tax payer hundreds of thousands of dollars.

    mg (8cbc69) — 6/4/2019 @ 4:42 pm

  12. Good catch, GG. Thank you. Sunland Park NM did have problems with the Wall but it has rescinded it’s cease and desist order. There still may be problems with the border or international rules/compacts/whatever.

    DRJ (15874d) — 6/4/2019 @ 5:30 pm


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0773 secs.