Federal judge blocks billions in Pentagon
funding from paying for border wall
Washington Examiner,
by
Tim Pearce
Original Article
Posted By: Imright,
12/11/2019 4:37:02 AM
A federal judge has blocked President Trump from diverting Pentagon funds from various military projects toward building a wall on the United States's southern border.
Judge David Briones of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas issued the block in response to a lawsuit by El Paso County, Texas, and the Border Network for Human Rights."The President's emergency proclamation was a blatant attempt to grab power from Congress. Today's order affirms that the President is not a king and that our courts are willing to check him when he oversteps his bounds," Kristy Parker, an attorney for the litigants, said in a statement.Secretary of Defense Mark Esper approved
Reply 1 - Posted by:
Vesicant 12/11/2019 4:49:43 AM (No. 258597)
I think it's time to mess with Texas.
36 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
Proud Texan 12/11/2019 4:53:20 AM (No. 258600)
#1 I recommend you not mess with Texas. Not a good idea at all. Now that judge in the story, you can do whatever the heck you want to with him.
53 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
DCGIRL 12/11/2019 5:39:19 AM (No. 258610)
Let's guess. A Bill Clinton appointee.
27 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
anniebc 12/11/2019 5:39:55 AM (No. 258612)
Ignore the judge, affirm that he is also not a king, and demonstrate that the President is willing to check him for overstepping his bounds.
84 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
PChristopher 12/11/2019 6:49:58 AM (No. 258649)
He's made his ruling....let him enforce it.
49 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
ROLFNader 12/11/2019 6:58:49 AM (No. 258656)
I have to agree with the judge. It would make more sense and would be WAY less expensive if we just shot 'em the second they stepped across the border.
36 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
Rinktum 12/11/2019 7:02:25 AM (No. 258660)
Ever no
3 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
privateer 12/11/2019 7:14:16 AM (No. 258669)
OK, how about this: The President controls the Treasury Dept., which runs the IRS. We can check a box on our 1040 to divert some of our payment to election funding. SO...how about a check-off box to divert some of our tribute to go to building our southern defense border? Or, a box to DONATE to that end. But with a catch: if it is not spent in the next tax year, it must be refunded to the taxpayer with 6% interest.
31 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
Rinktum 12/11/2019 7:16:08 AM (No. 258672)
Pardon me. My fingers are not working that well and I hit the submit button by mistake.
Ever notice that any good thing for the country and a democrat is on hand to stop it. They never give thought that the American people elected this President to enact the agenda on which he was elected? It’s never about anyone else’s wants or needs but theirs. Democrats are just selfish toddlers who cannot abide being told no. I hope and pray that they hear the biggest “no” on election night in 2020 that they have ever heard. I am sick of their obstruction. The judiciary is out of control. When one branch of government sees itself as having more power than another, then we are going to have big problems. All these activist judges are doing is undermining the Republic. They are obstructing the Executive Branch from doing its Constitutional duties. National security is in the per view of the Executive Branch. This judge and others like him who do not understand the concept of three equal branches of government should be removed from the bench.
55 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
Bur Oak 12/11/2019 7:35:40 AM (No. 258687)
Way past time for Congress to reign in these lawless judges that think they are dictatorial rulers of the country.
35 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
jeffkinnh 12/11/2019 7:46:22 AM (No. 258695)
More judicial overreach to facilitate the "resistance". Soon there will be a hold placed on the activist judge's actions by a higher court that recognizes that Trump has the authority to do this and the ultimate resolution will be in his favor.
We need a new law that says that singular district judge actions regarding the executive branch (and perhaps the legislative branch) are AUTOMATICALLY stayed until passing joint or higher court review. Individual circuit judges should NOT have such broad national level power. Such a law would dissuade individual judges from taking such fruitless actions in what is ultimately only a show. Further, individual judges that continually issue such judgments, ultimately wasting everyone's time, should be sanctioned in some embarrassing manner, like having to get a cosignature on their decisions for a time.
31 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
Paperpuncher 12/11/2019 8:00:13 AM (No. 258704)
It will be appealed.
13 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
F15 Gork 12/11/2019 8:02:54 AM (No. 258706)
We don’t need no 3 branches of gubmint. All we need is unelected judges to rule us.
21 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
BarryNo 12/11/2019 8:08:17 AM (No. 258709)
Judge is outside his jurisdiction. He has no say in how money is spent, nor is he in military chain of command. He should be arrested for abuse of office.
30 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
iraengneer 12/11/2019 8:11:38 AM (No. 258714)
Worthless blatherskite judge. All true.
Appointed by the more worthless creep Clinton, so no surprise at the mutual worthlessness.
Appointment confirmed by VOICE VOTE in Senate. So further proof of bipartisan worthlessness.
FIRE this num!
FIRE both wings of the despicable Uni-party as well. There are persons stinking up the Senate even now who were complicit in that voice vote. Fire them, and the the pillory.
And PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE reign in these nitwits-in-black-robes if you love your country.
19 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
cor-vet 12/11/2019 8:15:20 AM (No. 258718)
As CiC, thePresident should tell thr judge that he will be stationing armed military on the Southern border with orders to stop all illegal invaders and their enablers with extreme predjuice!
19 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
Dodge Boy 12/11/2019 8:29:51 AM (No. 258735)
Require Briones to re-locate and live on the southern border with no government-funded personal security. Then we will see what you, Briones, regard as a power grab.
18 people like this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
golfer1 12/11/2019 8:35:46 AM (No. 258739)
As with other similar judges rulings, this will likely delay things a couple weeks or so. Or Trump could follow the "We Build the Wall" folks and just continue their wall building. :)
14 people like this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
Chuzzles 12/11/2019 8:45:57 AM (No. 258753)
Time to clean up Austin. The rot in that city is tainting the entire state. Austin is one of a couple of leftist nests of corruption, and it needs to be dealt with.Since the House is supposedly finished with their phony articles, I wish Trump would just ignore the illegal ruling and just keep on building. That judge needs to seriously explain themselves, and maybe feel the force of Federal action. Like having illegals bused into his neighborhood. Totally legal now thanks to Obama. You want diversity Judge? Her e it comes.
14 people like this.
Reply 20 - Posted by:
Chuzzles 12/11/2019 8:47:24 AM (No. 258755)
Sorry Texans, but you have allowed this stuff to go on for far too long. If you all can't or won't clean it up, time to mess with you. You are hurting the rest of us and need to stop that. Just saying.
13 people like this.
Reply 21 - Posted by:
Jethro bo 12/11/2019 9:10:25 AM (No. 258784)
The 5th Circuit is use to overturning this back robed demigod. The most recent invovling illegals was in Aug this year. This Clinton judge tried to say a deproted illegal of 4 times couldn't be deported a fifth time cause in 2013, the first deportation, the goobernment didn't give proper notice of deportation. It didn't take three 5th circuit judges long to overturn that nonsense. This El Paso legislator from the bench will be overturned on this one.
12 people like this.
Reply 22 - Posted by:
bpl40 12/11/2019 9:11:58 AM (No. 258787)
There is a bigger principle here. Can a lower Federal judge issue orders restraining the entire Executive branch in its worldwide operations? Time to test this with the SCOTUS.
25 people like this.
Reply 23 - Posted by:
little guy 12/11/2019 9:19:41 AM (No. 258791)
To paraphrase the great Andrew Jackson: "The judge has made his decision, now let him enforce it!"
Trump should start playing hard ball with these clowns and just ignore whatever a Federal judge says he must do. Just announce the separation of powers doesn't allow the courts or the House to micromanage the President so he should just do what he wants. WWOD? (What would Obama do? Executive order!) Hey --- what are they going to do to stop Trump? Impeach him?? Ha, ha.
15 people like this.
Reply 24 - Posted by:
seamusm 12/11/2019 9:31:12 AM (No. 258804)
While Congress does have the authority to limit judicial authority it never does and consequently this misbehavior remains a constant thorn in our sides. Not to the left of course, they learned long ago that the courts and bureaucracy are almost permanent ways to hold on to power - -even when out of office. The current problem is that our Chief Justice, John Roberts, is a coward. It is well within his authority to stop this judicial overreach where local judges issue dictates that affect the entire country.
17 people like this.
Reply 25 - Posted by:
udanja99 12/11/2019 9:45:20 AM (No. 258838)
PDT should ignore the judge. There is precedent - Smidgen ignored the judge’s ruling on ending the ban on deep water drilling after the Gulf oil spill in 2009. As far as I know, the ban is still in effect.
I try to alway fill up my car at a BP station because Smidgen screwed them so badly after the oil spill. Luckily, there are 2 stations within 2 miles of my house.
15 people like this.
Protections against trespass are as old as the Old Testament. They are most certainly a human right and most certainly predate and outrank any of those committing the act of trespassing.
9 people like this.
Another name for the naughty list. Does the judge have a NZ bolthole set up yet?
3 people like this.
Reply 28 - Posted by:
Firebase 12/11/2019 10:00:27 AM (No. 258870)
So democrats, how does this jibe with the House proclamation that President Trump is a danger to national security? Just letting anyone sneak across a border isn't risking our national security? Behold the mindset of this judge, while terrorist attacks are beginning, as we near Christmas and election 2020. It's more hypocrisy by democrats.
9 people like this.
Reply 29 - Posted by:
Enoch Powell 12/11/2019 10:00:59 AM (No. 258872)
This is the judicial overreach which we elected Trump to stop. I suppose this will wend it's way through the courts until it is overturned.
7 people like this.
Reply 30 - Posted by:
Salt5792 12/11/2019 10:17:39 AM (No. 258901)
Our country will be handicapped until we can get rid of these Clinton and Obama judges.
11 people like this.
Reply 31 - Posted by:
lana720 12/11/2019 10:55:14 AM (No. 258945)
El Paso County has more Mexicans than almost all of Mexico itself, yes, an exaggeration, but you get the picture.
A major highway bisects the border through and around most of El Paso proper. We drove it on the way to Fort Bliss. That some of those folks come over, work and go home to Mexico every day is not the problem, it’s the drug runners, cartels and other foreign nationals who have NO RIGHT to commit the felony of entering our country ILLEGALLY.
What is wrong with the county for bringing this suit in the first place? Bad advice from activist lawyers paid by the DNC?
6 people like this.
The Federal courts have no enforcement authority
granted by the Constitution, their opinions are just that,
opinions. If we ain't ready to make things change, then
we need to shut up.
11 people like this.
Reply 33 - Posted by:
bigfatslob 12/11/2019 12:16:45 PM (No. 259068)
I've always said that these judges who make these judgements have no power to enforce jack unless they arm themselves and come out blazing if you ignore them. Just do it Mr. President.
7 people like this.
Reply 34 - Posted by:
DVC 12/11/2019 12:39:39 PM (No. 259087)
OK, Trump is not a king, but he IS the President, and he is the one who gets to decide what an emergency is or is not. NOT some damned low level judge.
Not the judge's place to second guess a President calling an emergency. Clearly this is right in the Executive Branch's job description, and even more clearly, NOT in the Judicial branch's job description.
Try to enforce this, judge. You have no troops, no officers, maybe a bailiff with a 9mm. Send her out.
8 people like this.
Reply 35 - Posted by:
LC Chihuahua 12/11/2019 1:14:16 PM (No. 259114)
Eventually this all ends up in the Supreme Court. Each side will continually work to overturn the other. Will it ever end? Doubtful.
3 people like this.
Reply 36 - Posted by:
RedWhite&Blue2 12/11/2019 1:29:21 PM (No. 259132)
Was the judge Andrew napolitano?
Sounds like him...
F that jerk!
Build the WALL!
5 people like this.
Reply 37 - Posted by:
bighambone 12/11/2019 4:42:09 PM (No. 259298)
I believe that the executive decision to use national defense appropriated funds for certain national defense related projects along the borderline to build an effective borderline barrier, was made in conjunction with a national emergency declaration by the President. If a federal district judge, there are over 600 of them around the country, can issue a permanent injunction stopping an elected President’s national emergency declaration, it follows that politicized federal judges could take it upon themselves to stop all the President’s initiatives including efforts to stop the country from being overrun by what amounts to a silent invasion of illegal aliens and illicit drugs that he was elected to accomplish.
2 people like this.
Reply 38 - Posted by:
doctorfixit 12/14/2019 9:18:42 AM (No. 261903)
The federal judiciary is forcing US to commit national suicide.
Get rid of the federal judiciary.
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Imright"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)