[SteveH]

is there a usa-mexico border fence construction mileage page yet?

[MadMax, the Grinning Reaper]

There are a few sane judges in d.c.. glad one had the balls to ask the right questions of the dems probably illegal or unconstitutional action.

[TexasGurl24]

Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Incumbent
Assumed office
October 31, 2017
Appointed by Donald Trump
Preceded by Richard J. Leon

[Jim Robinson]

Bump!

[elpadre]

a frivolous charge should be cause for monetary compensation from Pelosi.

[Innovative]

Good.

A sane judge who rules based on the law.

[Gene Eric]

Paul Ryan is a filthy, backstabbing scumbag.

[Oscar in Batangas]

Hey Nancy,

Maybe you ought to just go ahead and impeach the US Constitution

Isn’t that your end game anyway???

[Boomer]

Pelosi is nothing more than a dried up old spiteful bitch these days.

There was a time when I had a small measure of respect for her even though I loathed her ideology. Now I just see her as something nasty I need to scrape off the bottom of my shoe.

[Rockingham]

The issue is simple. Congress -- meaning both houses acting together legislatively -- can fashion and enforce a cutoff of funds for the previously approved border wall if that is what Congress votes for and it can secure the President's acquiescence or over-ride his veto. Unless and until that occurs though, the President may reallocate funds to build the wall by relying on other provisions of appropriations law.

In the current case, there is no action by Congress. Since the House acting alone cannot change the law, the House lacks the standing to appear in court and speak as if it has the authority of the entire Congress for its position. Therefore, the President may legally reallocate funds and build the wall -- and Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats leave with nothing.

For all the talk of the controversy as being between the President and Congress, it is really only between the House and the President, with the GOP controlled Senate on the President's side.

[Rockingham]

The issue is simple. Congress -- meaning both houses acting together legislatively -- can fashion and enforce a cutoff of funds for the previously approved border wall if that is what Congress votes for and it can secure the President's acquiescence or over-ride his veto. Unless and until that occurs though, the President may reallocate funds to build the wall by relying on other provisions of appropriations law.

In the current case, there is no action by Congress. Since the House acting alone cannot change the law, the House lacks the standing to appear in court and speak as if it has the authority of the entire Congress for its position. Therefore, the President may legally reallocate funds and build the wall -- and Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats leave with nothing.

For all the talk of the controversy as being between the President and Congress, it is really only between the House and the President, with the GOP controlled Senate on the President's side.

[blueplum]

1. no path in the Constitution for one branch to sue another for political reasons

2. Congress already has tools/mechanisms besides using courts

3. only one branch of Congress vs Admin - no standing

4. Congress has alternately denied and then allowed authority for Trump to move funds. Can’t act bi-polar.

[Maris Crane]

So, what’s the upshot?

Did he make a decision, or just have a brilliant argument?