Federal judge partially blocks Trump's $1 billion border wall plan

[mystery-ak]

Federal judge partially blocks Trump's $1 billion border wall plan
By Brooke Seipel and Rachel Frazin - 05/24/19 09:10 PM EDT

A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction on Friday, partially blocking President Trump's plan to fund a border wall with Mexico using money from the Defense Department.

California U.S. District Court Judge Haywood Gilliam, who was appointed by former President Obama, issued the order, which does not fully halt construction, but would limit additional border fencing to specific areas. It would also block the transfer of about $1 billion in Pentagon funds from various projects to pay for the construction of a wall.


Trump made an emergency declaration earlier this year to circumvent Congress and reallocate funding from the Defense Department to begin work on the wall.

more
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/445528-federal-judge-partially-blocks-funding-for-trumps-border-wall-report

[RetBobbyMI]

What does the NORTHERN District of California jurisdiction have to do with a wall between the US and Mexico?  Unless the border has shifted, this Obama appointed judge is way out of bounds.

[Sanguine]

What does the NORTHERN District of California jurisdiction have to do with a wall between the US and Mexico?  Unless the border has shifted, this Obama appointed judge is way out of bounds.

Sure seems like it.

[sneakypete]

California U.S. District Court Judge Haywood Gilliam, who was appointed by former President Obama,

THERE is a surprise,huh?

[sneakypete]

What does the NORTHERN District of California jurisdiction have to do with a wall between the US and Mexico?  Unless the border has shifted, this Obama appointed judge is way out of bounds.

@RetBobbyMI

It is a personal concern of his because he is afraid his fellow Dims won't get re-elected without the illegal alien vote. It's ALWAYS about power and money. ALWAYS.

[Cyber Liberty]

What does the NORTHERN District of California jurisdiction have to do with a wall between the US and Mexico?  Unless the border has shifted, this Obama appointed judge is way out of bounds.

The latest judicial craze is issuing nation-wide injunctions tbat have nothing to do with their own jurisdictions. Here we have an Obastard appointee in the 9th Circus.  IOW, a predictable decision.

[austingirl]

What does the NORTHERN District of California jurisdiction have to do with a wall between the US and Mexico?  Unless the border has shifted, this Obama appointed judge is way out of bounds.

This has to stop. 37 nationwide injunctions against Trump in two years and only 27 in the entire 20th century. One more indication of how far the government has perverted our founding principles.

[libertybele]

This has to stop. 37 nationwide injunctions against Trump in two years and only 27 in the entire 20th century. One more indication of how far the government has perverted our founding principles.

   Agreed. But WHO, is going to stop it??  These injunctions are coming from federal judges.  Federal judges are appointed and I believe they have lifetime appointments.  So, WHO is going to stop them??

[Cyber Liberty]

  Agreed. But WHO, is going to stop it??  These injunctions are coming from federal judges.  Federal judges are appointed and I believe they have lifetime appointments.  So, WHO is going to stop them??

It will require an Act of Congress to stop it, under Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 9:  "To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court"

Lower courts are created by Congress.

[Sanguine]

It will require an Act of Congress to stop it, under Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 9:  "To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court"

Lower courts are created by Congress.

[Free Vulcan]

What does the NORTHERN District of California jurisdiction have to do with a wall between the US and Mexico?  Unless the border has shifted, this Obama appointed judge is way out of bounds.

Sounds like a little judge shopping occurred before the trial.

[RetBobbyMI]

@RetBobbyMI

It is a personal concern of his because he is afraid his fellow Dims won't get re-elected without the illegal alien vote. It's ALWAYS about power and money. ALWAYS.

No jurisdiction.
No standing by plaintiff(s).
No injury by the supposed aggrieved plaintiff(s).
Personal Opinions of the judge is not authority to overturn actions of the executive branch.

[Cyber Liberty]

Sounds like a little judge shopping occurred before the trial.

It's a necessary part of the Lawfare dance.

[240B]

These Judges are ruling based solely on their own personal opinion, and their personal animus toward Trump.

All these various 'injunctions' have nothing whatsoever to do with 'Law'. They are all intended to harass and overrule Trump. That they keep getting away with it is unbelievable.

I'm still waiting for Trump to issue a proclamation that he has no intention of abiding by any national injunction issued by a 'local' judge somewhere. They are irrelevant to the issue. Screw um. Just say no. What are these Judges going to do if Trump tells them to their face to 'go to hell'?

[Fishrrman]

Cyber wrote:
"It will require an Act of Congress to stop it, under Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 9:  "To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court""

No.
Congress cannot "stop" rogue judges.
Congress will NEVER stop them.

It's up to the executive branch to stop it:
That is, the president.
He must go out on a limb, and call the lower courts out on the basis of a new "presidential doctrine".
And then take the heat from the Congress that will come.

The president must formulate a doctrine, and then lay it out with a major speech before the nation.
To wit:
That from this point forward, the executive branch will not honor nor will it enforce either opinions or orders from lower federal courts (including the trial court level and first level of appeal) that seek to establish national policy, or otherwise rule on the Constitutionality of existing laws.

Any trial-court level ruling (that seeks to do these things) must first be heard by an appellate court (federal circuit court of appeals). If that court affirms the trial court's ruling, such affirmation will STILL not merit national enforcement, but must be appealed upwards to the U.S. Supreme Court. The High Court can then choose whether to hear the case or reject same.

Call it "The Trump Doctrine" for lack of a better term.

The leftist/democrat-communists will howl and scream "impeachment".
This will be expected and part of the plan.
It will be up to the Senate at that point, but any Republican senator who would convict Trump for such a position would have hell to pay.

You wanna break the influence of rogue leftist judges at the trial court level?
Then... nothing else is gonna do it.

Act, or be acted upon.
The Trump Doctrine of the Federal Courts will become a cornerstone in the rebuilding and restoration of traditional governance in the USA...

[sneakypete]

Cyber wrote:
"It will require an Act of Congress to stop it, under Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 9:  "To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court""

No.
Congress cannot "stop" rogue judges.
Congress will NEVER stop them.

It's up to the executive branch to stop it:
That is, the president.
He must go out on a limb, and call the lower courts out on the basis of a new "presidential doctrine".
And then take the heat from the Congress that will come.

The president must formulate a doctrine, and then lay it out with a major speech before the nation.
To wit:
That from this point forward, the executive branch will not honor nor will it enforce either opinions or orders from lower federal courts (including the trial court level and first level of appeal) that seek to establish national policy, or otherwise rule on the Constitutionality of existing laws.

Any trial-court level ruling (that seeks to do these things) must first be heard by an appellate court (federal circuit court of appeals). If that court affirms the trial court's ruling, such affirmation will STILL not merit national enforcement, but must be appealed upwards to the U.S. Supreme Court. The High Court can then choose whether to hear the case or reject same.

Call it "The Trump Doctrine" for lack of a better term.

The leftist/democrat-communists will howl and scream "impeachment".
This will be expected and part of the plan.
It will be up to the Senate at that point, but any Republican senator who would convict Trump for such a position would have hell to pay.

You wanna break the influence of rogue leftist judges at the trial court level?
Then... nothing else is gonna do it.

Act, or be acted upon.
The Trump Doctrine of the Federal Courts will become a cornerstone in the rebuilding and restoration of traditional governance in the USA...

@Fishrrman

Everything you wrote