Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Judge throws out dimocrat lawsuit over using military funds to build the wall
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="dennishoddy" data-source="post: 3239970" data-attributes="member: 5412"><p>Washington, D.C., district court Judge Trevor McFadden threw out <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-files-suit-against-trump-administration-over-emergency-declaration" target="_blank">House Democrats' lawsuit</a> 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.</p><p></p><p>Trump had <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-eyes-8b-border-wall-funding-emergency-declaration" target="_blank">declared a national emergency</a> 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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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."</p><p></p><p>But, in <a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/judge-rules-house-doesnt-have-standing-border-lawsuit" target="_blank">his ruling</a><a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6128249/House-v-Mnuchin-opinion.pdf" target="_blank">,</a> McFadden, a Trump appointee, suggested Democrats were trying to circumvent the political process.</p><p></p><p>"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 <a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6128249/House-v-Mnuchin-opinion.pdf" target="_blank">wrote in his opinion</a>. "The Court declines to take sides in this fight between the House and the President."</p><p></p><p>McFadden's ruling contrasted with <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judge-temporarily-blocks-trumps-border-wall-construction-plans" target="_blank">U.S. District Court Judge Haywood Gilliam’s injunction last week</a>, 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.</p><p></p><p>McFadden began by focusing on two guiding Supreme Court cases he called "lodestars"-- the 2015 case Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, and the 1997 case Raines v. Byrd.</p><p></p><p><a href="http://video.foxnews.com/v/6042966187001" target="_blank"><img src="https://media2.foxnews.com/BrightCove/694940094001/2019/05/31/694940094001_6042959072001_6042966187001-vs.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></a></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><strong><a href="http://video.foxnews.com/v/6042966187001" target="_blank">Raw video: Over a thousand migrants caught crossing border near El Paso, Texas</a></strong></span></p><p>Border Patrol has picked up the migrants caught on this tape.</p><p></p><p>"Read together, Raines and Arizona State Legislature create a spectrum of sorts," McFadden wrote. "On one end, individual legislators lack standing to allege a generalized harm to Congress’s Article I power. On the other end, both chambers of a state legislature do have standing to challenge a nullification of their legislative authority brought about through a referendum."</p><p></p><p>But, McFadden quickly distinguished the Arizona State Legislature case, which found institutional standing for legislators only in a limited instance. The Arizona case, the judge noted, "does not touch or concern the question whether Congress has standing to bring a suit against the President," and the Supreme Court has found there was "no federal analogue to Arizona’s initiative power."</p><p></p><p>Democrats' dispute was more similar to the one in the Raines case, McFadden wrote. Under the framework and factors considered in Raines -- including how similar matters have been handled historically, and the availability of other remedies besides litigation -- McFadden ruled that House Democrats lacked standing.</p><p></p><p>Concerning past historical practice, the Trump administration argued in its brief that when Congress was concerned about "unauthorized Executive Branch spending in the aftermath of World War I, it responded not by threatening litigation, but by creating the General Accounting Office." The judge cited that argument approvingly in his opinion, calling it "persuasive."</p><p></p><p>Examples of hotly debated political questions being resolved without involving the courts, McFadden continued, "abound" throughout history.</p><p></p><p>For example, McFadden wrote, in 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt "fired an official from his Senate-confirmed position at the Federal Trade Commission. ...The President removed the official without providing a reason. ... The Senate likely had a 'strong[] claim of diminution of' its Advice and Consent power. ... Yet the Senate made no effort to challenge this action in court."</p><p></p><p><a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judge-house-dems-lawsuit-trump-emergency-military-funds-border-wall" target="_blank">https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judge-house-dems-lawsuit-trump-emergency-military-funds-border-wall</a></p><p>Additionally, McFadden said Democrats retained constitutional legislative options with which to remedy their objections about the president's purported misuse of the Appropriations Clause. Under Supreme Court precedent in the Raines case, McFadden asserted, the existence of those additional options suggested Democrats lacked standing.</p><p></p><p>McFadden noted in particular that Democrats retained the power to modify or even repeal the appropriations law if they wanted to "exempt future appropriations" from the Trump administration's reach.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="dennishoddy, post: 3239970, member: 5412"] Washington, D.C., district court Judge Trevor McFadden threw out [URL='https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-files-suit-against-trump-administration-over-emergency-declaration']House Democrats' lawsuit[/URL] 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 [URL='https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-eyes-8b-border-wall-funding-emergency-declaration']declared a national emergency[/URL] 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 [URL='https://www.lawfareblog.com/judge-rules-house-doesnt-have-standing-border-lawsuit']his ruling[/URL][URL='https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6128249/House-v-Mnuchin-opinion.pdf'],[/URL] 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 [URL='https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6128249/House-v-Mnuchin-opinion.pdf']wrote in his opinion[/URL]. "The Court declines to take sides in this fight between the House and the President." McFadden's ruling contrasted with [URL='https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judge-temporarily-blocks-trumps-border-wall-construction-plans']U.S. District Court Judge Haywood Gilliam’s injunction last week[/URL], 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. McFadden began by focusing on two guiding Supreme Court cases he called "lodestars"-- the 2015 case Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, and the 1997 case Raines v. Byrd. [URL='http://video.foxnews.com/v/6042966187001'][IMG]https://media2.foxnews.com/BrightCove/694940094001/2019/05/31/694940094001_6042959072001_6042966187001-vs.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [SIZE=3][B][URL='http://video.foxnews.com/v/6042966187001']Raw video: Over a thousand migrants caught crossing border near El Paso, Texas[/URL][/B][/SIZE] Border Patrol has picked up the migrants caught on this tape. "Read together, Raines and Arizona State Legislature create a spectrum of sorts," McFadden wrote. "On one end, individual legislators lack standing to allege a generalized harm to Congress’s Article I power. On the other end, both chambers of a state legislature do have standing to challenge a nullification of their legislative authority brought about through a referendum." But, McFadden quickly distinguished the Arizona State Legislature case, which found institutional standing for legislators only in a limited instance. The Arizona case, the judge noted, "does not touch or concern the question whether Congress has standing to bring a suit against the President," and the Supreme Court has found there was "no federal analogue to Arizona’s initiative power." Democrats' dispute was more similar to the one in the Raines case, McFadden wrote. Under the framework and factors considered in Raines -- including how similar matters have been handled historically, and the availability of other remedies besides litigation -- McFadden ruled that House Democrats lacked standing. Concerning past historical practice, the Trump administration argued in its brief that when Congress was concerned about "unauthorized Executive Branch spending in the aftermath of World War I, it responded not by threatening litigation, but by creating the General Accounting Office." The judge cited that argument approvingly in his opinion, calling it "persuasive." Examples of hotly debated political questions being resolved without involving the courts, McFadden continued, "abound" throughout history. For example, McFadden wrote, in 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt "fired an official from his Senate-confirmed position at the Federal Trade Commission. ...The President removed the official without providing a reason. ... The Senate likely had a 'strong[] claim of diminution of' its Advice and Consent power. ... Yet the Senate made no effort to challenge this action in court." [URL]https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judge-house-dems-lawsuit-trump-emergency-military-funds-border-wall[/URL] Additionally, McFadden said Democrats retained constitutional legislative options with which to remedy their objections about the president's purported misuse of the Appropriations Clause. Under Supreme Court precedent in the Raines case, McFadden asserted, the existence of those additional options suggested Democrats lacked standing. McFadden noted in particular that Democrats retained the power to modify or even repeal the appropriations law if they wanted to "exempt future appropriations" from the Trump administration's reach. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Judge throws out dimocrat lawsuit over using military funds to build the wall
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom