Althouse: "The Supreme Court on Friday gave President Trump a victory in his fight for a wall along the Mexican border by allowing the administration to begin using $2.5 billion..."

July 26, 2019

"The Supreme Court on Friday gave President Trump a victory in his fight for a wall along the Mexican border by allowing the administration to begin using $2.5 billion..."

"... in Pentagon money for the construction. In a 5-to-4 ruling, the court overturned an appellate decision and said that the administration could tap the money while litigation over the matter proceeds.... While the order was only one paragraph long and unsigned, the Supreme Court said the groups challenging the administration did not appear to have a legal right to do so. That was an indication that the court’s conservative majority was likely to side with the administration in the end..."

The NYT reports.

At that link, the text of Trump's tweet: "Wow! Big VICTORY on the Wall. The United States Supreme Court overturns lower court injunction, allows Southern Border Wall to proceed. Big WIN for Border Security and the Rule of Law!”

63 comments:

WisRich said...: Nice. Good to see SCOTUS doesn't take the whole summer off.; 7/26/19, 7:35 PM
Anonymous said...: One more "lawless" Trump move that turns out not to be "lawless"! He even has the Ninth Circuit deciding in his favor, too.; 7/26/19, 7:37 PM
Big Mike said...: No, today was a big LOSS for the Rule of Law. The Nicholas Sandmann suit against the Washington Post was dismissed out of hand.; 7/26/19, 7:39 PM
rcocean said...: Can anyone point to a SINGLE instance where the liberal bloc - 4 justices - have voted with Trump on immigration. There's not a dime's difference between them and the Craziest Hawaiian judge or the 9th Circus. The don't seem to have a single Goddamn judicial principle except: "Will it help the left?".

Trump saved us from a Kagan/Ginsberg Court. Imagine Hillary putting 2 more "Wise Latinas" on the SCOTUS for a 6-3 Majority. Every time I think of that, I get angry at those fucking Never trumpers.; 7/26/19, 7:39 PM
Bob Boyd said...: How long until this decision is attributed to Trump's "court packing"?; 7/26/19, 7:42 PM
Fen said...: , the Supreme Court said the groups challenging the administration did not appear to have a legal right to do so. That was an indication that the court’s conservative majority was likely to side with the administration in the end..."

How does standing indicate the court would side with the administration?; 7/26/19, 7:44 PM
D 2 said...: Because of where I was working, I got to learn a land use sort of appeals matter that involved a complainant with no standing. (IANAL, but that's the term I think)

I was absolutely appalled to see the do-over allowance and extensions and crap provided to the time-waster in the case. Was quite a splash of cold water, and certainly taught me somewhat young-ish how certain parties in "authority" look past their roles, even when it was clear from the get go what was happening, even the complainant said nearly as much in the end.; 7/26/19, 7:44 PM
Fen said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/26/19, 7:45 PM
rehajm said...: That’s a lot of people for the House to impeach when they get back from summer vacation.; 7/26/19, 7:48 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: SUPREMES LET TRUMP PROCEED ON WALL PLANS AMID LEGAL FIGHT...

Leads to:

Supreme Court: Trump can use Pentagon funds for border wall
By JESSICA GRESKO
9 minutes ago

Via Drudge.

I think Matt Drudge misrepresenting the news is the news. Oughtn't the law protect us idiots from Matt Drudge's fake influence? He became very, very wealthy under Democratics' rule and they killed his underling so shouldn't he be suspicious from the start.

Wouldn/t you be, of yourself, given...

I mean Breitbart was murdered years ago. Like Seth Rich was too. And Drudge is an oldster now...

I just feel as though free speech should be murdered, as well as that Roosevelt Ammendment saying Trump can't do his service for 12 or 16 or 80+ years given what we know about cryogenics.; 7/26/19, 7:49 PM
rcocean said...: WHo the hell is "Farmer"?; 7/26/19, 7:50 PM
Gk1 said...: Liberal justices vote in lockstep like they always do. I wish one of them would surprise me once in a while.; 7/26/19, 7:51 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: "Every time I think of that, I get angry at those fucking Never trumpers."

Hey if emoting feels good do it, otherwise you got to get some offspring to gain influence.

Like the proggies have done via eugenics for centuries.; 7/26/19, 7:55 PM
Fen said...: Who the hell is "Farmer"?

He's the guy who wants to dump Trump because he isn't getting the border wall built.; 7/26/19, 7:56 PM
JackWayne said...: Trump trying to get the wall built by not using a pen and a phone. Anne Coulter hardest hit.; 7/26/19, 7:56 PM
Fen said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/26/19, 7:57 PM
Ann Althouse said...: @Stephanie Delmonico

I am deleting all your posts for reasons that I think you know. You can email if you think I am mistaken.; 7/26/19, 8:00 PM
dreams said...: Trump had a good week, he's a winner and when he wins, we all win. Trumps will win in a landslide in 2020.; 7/26/19, 8:01 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: No, today was a big LOSS for the Rule of Law. The Nicholas Sandmann suit against the Washington Post was dismissed out of hand.

7/26/19, 7:39 PM

The Rule of Law as you put it doesn't lose nearly as quickly as you presume, indeed one of the great faults of law is it's lack of ability to act in a reasonable time frame.

Look at Mark Steyn.

This septic tank of justice depends on the slow burn, on purpose. The design is everything, bigger than God to these people.; 7/26/19, 8:02 PM
Ann Althouse said...: If I am deleting all your posts, you should not continue to post. Email me if you're a good faith commenter and intend to participate in good faith. Continuing to comment now equals bad faith. Do not comment again.; 7/26/19, 8:02 PM
Stephanie Delmonico said...: Althouse, I have no clue how to email you. And I don't know the reason. Thanks for letting me know, though.; 7/26/19, 8:02 PM
Fen said...: D2: I got to learn a land use sort of appeals matter that involved a complainant with no standing.

Can you explain why a ruling based on a lack of standing would imply the court would rule against the complaintant even if they had standing?

That's what the article says, and although I know little about the law that makes no sense.; 7/26/19, 8:04 PM
Fen said...: I've deleted my responses to X so you don't have to bother.; 7/26/19, 8:08 PM
traditionalguy said...: The Border Wall is alive thanks to 45.; 7/26/19, 8:11 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: The Rule of Law is: I went to law school and deserve all the fruits of this or any society.

Society exists because I exist.

Pay me now motherfucker.

https://www.thepatentscam.com

The disgust factor is exheedingly, you've been forewarned. With that extra h.; 7/26/19, 8:13 PM
Stephanie Delmonico said...: I tried to email you via the link on the 'Who is' page but my mail client won't support it. I need an actual address. Feel free to send me an email. I never check my g-mail account, but if you do intend to try to contact me that way, just let me know.; 7/26/19, 8:14 PM
Stephanie Delmonico said...: Nevermind. Figured it out; 7/26/19, 8:16 PM
n.n said...: Border security, the rule of law, and civil rights. That said, another milestone to realizing emigration reform, and mitigating the progress of direct and collateral damage at both ends of the bridge and throughout.; 7/26/19, 8:19 PM
Yancey Ward said...: Well, this just means another group, different from this group, will now file for an injunction and get it granted by a district court judge. SCOTUS will then have to take an appeal for a stay, and then rule the same way again. Then a third group.......you get the picture, I am sure.; 7/26/19, 8:19 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: Not saying I did, but iffin' I did, use its and it's and it makes sense both ways, then I have done sometin'.; 7/26/19, 8:25 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: In my mind's voice, it made sense both ways, based on the reading of the character*.

(s).; 7/26/19, 8:26 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: I believe great tradition includes great Americans like Reba McEntire shitting on Southerly Lawyers and you ain't never gonna Jeff Session's prove me wrong traditionally:

[Verse 1]
He was on his way home from Candletop
Been two weeks gone and he thought he'd stop
At Web's and have him a drink 'fore he went home to her
Andy Wo-Lo said hello
He said, "Hi, what's new?"
And Wo said, "Sit down I got some bad news that's going to hurt"

[Verse 2]
Said, "I'm your best friend and you know that's right
But your young bride isn't home tonight
Since you've been gone she's been seeing that Amos boy, Seth"
Now he got mad and he saw red
Andy said, "Boy, don't you lose your head
Because to tell you the truth, I've been with her myself"

[Chorus 1]
That's the night that the lights went out in Georgia
That's the night that they hung an innocent man
Well, don't trust your soul to no backwoods Southern lawyer
'Cause the judge in the town's got bloodstains on his hands

[Verse 3]
Andy got scared and left the bar
Walking on home because he didn't live far - you see
Andy didn't have many friends and he just lost him one
Brother thought his wife must have left town
So he went home and finally found the only thing
Daddy had left him and that was a gun

[Verse 4]
He went off to Andy's house
Slipping through the backwoods quiet as a mouse
Came upon some tracks too small for Andy to make
He looked through the screen at the back porch door
And he saw Andy lying on the floor
In a puddle of blood and he started to shake

[Chorus 2]
The Georgia patrol was making their rounds
So he fired a shot just to flag them down
A big bellied sheriff grabbed his gun and said
"Why'd you do it?"

[Verse 5]
The judge said guilty on a make-believe trial
Slapped the sheriff on the back with a smile
Said supper's waiting at home and I got to get to it

[Chorus 1]
That's the night that the lights went out in Georgia
That's the night that they hung an innocent man
Well, don't trust your soul to no backwoods Southern lawyer
Because the judge in the town's got bloodstains on his hands

[Verse 6]
Well, they hung my brother before I could say
The tracks he saw while on his way
To Andy's house and back that night were mine
And his cheating wife had never left town
That's one body that'll never be found
You see little sister doesn't miss when she aims her gun

[Chorus 1]
That's the night that the lights went out in Georgia
That's the night that they hung an innocent man
Well, don't trust your soul to no backwoods Southern lawyer
Because the judge in the town's got bloodstains on his hands
That's the night that the lights went out in Georgia
That's the night that they hung an innocent man
Well, don't trust your soul to no backwoods Southern lawyer
Because the judge in the town's got bloodstains on his hands

https://genius.com/Reba-mcentire-the-night-the-lights-went-out-in-georgia-lyrics; 7/26/19, 8:36 PM
Michael K said...: Obama judges with delusions of Grandeur.; 7/26/19, 8:42 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: backwoods Southern lawyer

The oppoisite being a frontwoods Norther lawyer is absurd, indeed ridiculous, yet lawyers are literally almost uncapable of considering that there are both frontwoods Northern lawyers as well as frontowoods Northern non-lawyers.

It's, Trump, and even (sure I'll claim him for this instant) even Georgie Bush and Dick Cheney.

Romney is lawyerly enough we demand you take him, jurisprudence doctarate or not; 7/26/19, 8:47 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: Ultimately, the whole "Anorexic Male" or whatever is:

Hey men, correct us, because we know what we are relying on for inspiration is meaningless stupidity.

Men are busy making and laughing at real jokes, not defining why stupid shit is so stupid.

I told Althouse years ago though, and I remain correct, men do stupid stunts risking death (hey thanks Eval, and nice doc your son and Johhny Knox made too even! you fucking asshole extradanoire second to Stive Jobs I 'pose) and girls starve themselves, all to be desired, one of the worst things for progeny for a person to be, beyond early adulthood.; 7/26/19, 9:04 PM
Ronald J. Ward said...: I'm no legal guru by any stretch nor am I educated in that field but it seems to me that funds appropriated by the House to a specific designation should be used for that purpose. If that designated beneficiary comes to find a surplus, how is it their call, or the PUTUS call, to reallocate those tax dollars?; 7/26/19, 9:11 PM
Birkel said...: Well, Mr Ward, it's because Congress also told the military to do things like drug interdiction.
Congress has given its power to agencies all over the map, not just the military.

Now, if you want to argue that is a bad idea you will find no stronger agreement than with yours truly.
But you cannot ignore the last 80+ years of behavior the one time you don't get what you want.; 7/26/19, 9:15 PM
Ann Althouse said...: Email instructions are found by clicking Who is Althouse in the banner.; 7/26/19, 9:18 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: Come firewalk with me after saying FUCK YOU WIKIBITCH:

"Hail, Caesar! is a 2016 comedy film written, produced, edited, and directed by Joel and Ethan Coen. The film stars Josh Brolin, George Clooney, Alden Ehrenreich, Ralph Fiennes, Jonah Hill, Scarlett Johansson, Frances McDormand, Tilda Swinton, and Channing Tatum. It is a fictional story that follows the real-life fixer Eddie Mannix (Brolin) working in the Hollywood film industry in the 1950s, trying to discover what happened to a cast member who vanished during the filming of a biblical epic.

First talked about by the Coens in 2004, Hail, Caesar! was originally set to take place in the 1920s and to follow actors performing a play about ancient Rome. The Coens shelved the idea until late 2013. Principal photography began in November 2014 in Los Angeles, California.

The film premiered in Los Angeles on February 1, 2016, and was released in the United States on February 5, 2016. It grossed $63 million worldwide and received positive reviews. The film was chosen by National Board of Review as one of the top ten films of 2016[3] and it received nominations at the 89th Academy Awards and 70th British Academy Film Awards, both for production design."

BACK TO YOUR BUDDY GUILD NOW BUT NOT THE FIRST PART I AM PAID TO DO;

So it's quite obvious Rep. Nadler (D. NY) took his cue from the Coen's, Jews.

In the highly-anti Semite Hail Ceasar Wayne Knight was the actor chosen to spread the word. Be the fall guy. Take the hostage and then take the fall.

Wayne Knight. Fat. Nadler is fat too. ...

Those with a long, long memory, will remember the actor, Wayne Knight, as Newman, yes, yes indeed Newman, from the Seinfeld show.

What we need to remember is the mail service employees are our heros delivering every day, rain or shine, snow or hail, wind or hate.

Without the mail, we are nothing. There is nothing.

And Wayne Knight enabled all this. But the Coen's decided to cast him as the bad guy.

Why?; 7/26/19, 9:22 PM
Chris Lopes said...: @Guildofcannonballs
That song originally belonged to Vicki Lawrence.; 7/26/19, 9:24 PM
Ronald J. Ward said...: Birkel, that leaves open a great deal of interpretation. I suppose military is our likely biggest slush fund agency so quite a bit is fair. Maybe they will be called on for a blank check for a full scale military parade?

I'll not argue how bad this idea is but I would argue your knowledge of what I want or don't want, or the number of times.; 7/26/19, 9:29 PM
Bay Area Guy said...: Build the Wall!

Drain the Swamp!

Lock her up!

Smell the glove! (This is Spinal Tap!)

Wake Ruth up! (SCOTUS oral argument); 7/26/19, 9:30 PM
Ronald J. Ward said...: Chris Lopes, actually written by Bobby Russell, sang by Vicki Lawrence.; 7/26/19, 9:34 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: Law is lack of ability to act in a reasonable timeframe.; 7/26/19, 9:34 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: "The law is a ass" has a single problem: There is no "The" law; it always changes. That way they can always keep the boot where the boot ought always be kept.

How could anyone not of Harvard or Yale understand?

Be honest now.; 7/26/19, 9:41 PM
Birkel said...: You = one
One cannot...

It wasn't personal.; 7/26/19, 9:42 PM
D 2 said...: Fen: in my experience: I saw a person use the system to try to stop something that they didn't really have any right to try to stop. In that case, the "system" let the process drag on and on.
In this case: it appears the conclusion is the same (the people bringing the case didn't have a right/standing, in the courts opinion) and I was wondering, aloud, whether those in the "system" with authority could not see (perhaps quicker) that this type of thing is detrimental.

Those with a right need to be heard in court, and it serves no one to have the courts jammed by prolonging cases where the non-lawyers sitting in the same room can see where something is frivolous.

My comment had nothing to do with the article's assumption - that is, the point you made and posted at the same minute as I - which I understand and nod politely at. The paper is making an assumption about how the judges would have judged the case if only it had (legitimate) standing.
In some respect, the "news" story could have been why the case got this far in the system.; 7/26/19, 9:58 PM
Matt Sablan said...: I mean, if the House wanted to, they could do a better job of saying what gets spent where. But, since Congress, in general, lacks moral fortitude to make hard decisions, they left themselves open to this sort of manipulation of funds.; 7/26/19, 10:37 PM
Paul said...: MAGA!!! And tough nuts illegals and liberals.

Add to that the new treaty with Guatemala plus the screws put on Mexico forcing them to put a bunch of new guards on the border and, well, it's been a good week for America!; 7/26/19, 10:38 PM
narciso said...: Um apparently their ninth circus, say Morales cannot officially enter the deal till the Guatemalan Congress is on vacation; 7/27/19, 12:42 AM
Just asking questions (Jaq) said...: “Big WIN for Border Security and the Rule of Law!”

He’s not wrong.; 7/27/19, 6:07 AM
Just asking questions (Jaq) said...: “how is it their call, or the PUTUS call, to reallocate those tax dollars?”

People were asking that when Obama sent pallets of money to Iran, but nobody cared.; 7/27/19, 6:09 AM
Just asking questions (Jaq) said...: ““how is it their call, or the PUTUS call, to reallocate those tax dollars?”

If they struck it down on those grounds, the unallocated money on “dreamers” would have to stop immediately! this is the problem of giving POTUS powers when he is your guy, it comes back to haunt you.; 7/27/19, 6:27 AM
Robert Cook said...: "How long until this decision is attributed to Trump's 'court packing'?"

Isn't it?

I think taking money away from the military is a good thing. Unfortunately, given the grotesquely overbloated military budget, the sum involved is a pittance. Maybe Trump could use this new presidential power given to him by the Supreme Court--that is, the power of the purse, up to now considered the constitutional power solely of Congress--and take substantially more money away from the military to apply to things that will actually directly benefit Americans. Two examples for a start: refund the monies looted from the Social Security trust fund to pay for other shit, and beef up Medicare so that all seniors have completely paid for medical care, (or, better, but not likely, providing Medicare-for-all).; 7/27/19, 7:30 AM
Robert Cook said...: "People were asking that when Obama sent pallets of money to Iran, but nobody cared."

No one was asking that: That money was Iran's money to begin with.

"The deal did lift some sanctions, which lifted a freeze on Iran’s assets that were held largely in foreign, not U.S., banks. And, to be clear, the money that was unfrozen belonged to Iran. It had only been made inaccessible by sanctions aimed at crippling the country’s nuclear program."; 7/27/19, 7:35 AM
Robert Cook said...: "WHo the hell is 'Farmer'?"

He is, by far, the best and most valuable commenter contributing to this site.; 7/27/19, 7:50 AM
Trolls4Hire said...: The military has too much money already. There is nothing wrong with using their money for the Trump Wall. We’ll have it as a monument to the Trump Presidency for decades to come. People will come to lay flowers and pictures of Dear President and touch the wall reverently and prayerfully. Mark my words.; 7/27/19, 10:48 AM
Jim at said...: We’ll have it as a monument to the Trump Presidency for decades to come.

Good. We agree.
Now was that so difficult?; 7/27/19, 1:01 PM
Just asking questions (Jaq) said...: Now do the dreamers Robert.; 7/27/19, 1:03 PM
ken in tx said...: There is a law that gives the president emergency authority to reallocate federal funds. This is not a new power and it is not a violation of congressional power of the purse. Congress approved it.; 7/27/19, 4:51 PM
Robert Cook said...: "There is a law that gives the president emergency authority to reallocate federal funds. This is not a new power and it is not a violation of congressional power of the purse. Congress approved it."

Hmmm...the constitution doesn't provide for such "emergency authority." I think Congress approved an unconstitutional law.; 7/27/19, 4:57 PM
ken in tx said...: "Hmmm...the constitution doesn't provide for such "emergency authority." I think Congress approved an unconstitutional law."

Congress does stuff like this all the time. They delegate their authority to Dept. Secretaries and other fed officials routinely. They don't care about the constitution. When someone questioned the constitutionality of Obamacare, Nancy Pelosi asked, wide-eyed, "Are you kidding....are you kidding!"

When this law was passed, some in congress probably imagined a Democrat president taking money from the pentagon and using it to provide housing for the homeless.; 7/27/19, 5:12 PM
Robert Cook said...: "Congress does stuff like this all the time. They delegate their authority to Dept. Secretaries and other fed officials routinely."

Yes, I know. Like when they passed the AUMF, giving their constitutional authority (and responsibility) to declare war to the president for any war that can in any least way be construed as having the faintest attachment to the war on terror." (sic); 7/27/19, 6:07 PM