Supreme Court rejects greens’ challenge to border wall law

This is an Admin / Moderator NO GO ZONE. You're on your own.

Moderator: Team

Post Reply
1989TransAm
Guru
Guru
Posts: 9377
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:43 pm
Location: Cypress, California

Supreme Court rejects greens’ challenge to border wall law

Post by 1989TransAm » Mon Dec 03, 2018 11:54 am

Good, now let's build the wall. :D By the way this was an unanimous decision. :D

"The Supreme Court refused Monday to hear a case arguing that a key law giving President Trump authority to build a border wall is unconstitutional.
The case was denied along with dozens of others in a list issued Monday, without explanation by the nine justices."

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-envir ... r-wall-law

mk e
Guru
Guru
Posts: 5354
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 3:19 pm
Location: Elverson, PA

Re: Supreme Court rejects greens’ challenge to border wall law

Post by mk e » Mon Dec 03, 2018 12:08 pm

This is the same law that allowed the border fence to be build so I not sure why anyone would try that path again and expect to win.
Mark
Mechanical Engineer

j-c-c
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4259
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:03 pm

Re: Supreme Court rejects greens’ challenge to border wall law

Post by j-c-c » Mon Dec 03, 2018 12:17 pm

"“Section 102’s waiver and jurisdiction-stripping provisions unconstitutionally consolidate the power to make, enforce, and review laws in the Executive branch,” they said in an August petition to the high court, arguing that only Congress has the power to change laws and it can’t delegate that power to the executive branch.

The Trump administration argued that the legal provision at issue is sufficiently specific to be allowable under the Constitution.

The 1996 and subsequent amendments to it give the Homeland Security secretary the power to waive any law — not just environmental ones — in order to facilitate building border infrastructure like fences and roads.

I see a position with argumentative merit. Obviously the SC has decided not to put their toe in the water.

1989TransAm
Guru
Guru
Posts: 9377
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:43 pm
Location: Cypress, California

Re: Supreme Court rejects greens’ challenge to border wall law

Post by 1989TransAm » Mon Dec 03, 2018 7:11 pm

j-c-c wrote:
Mon Dec 03, 2018 12:17 pm
"“Section 102’s waiver and jurisdiction-stripping provisions unconstitutionally consolidate the power to make, enforce, and review laws in the Executive branch,” they said in an August petition to the high court, arguing that only Congress has the power to change laws and it can’t delegate that power to the executive branch.

The Trump administration argued that the legal provision at issue is sufficiently specific to be allowable under the Constitution.

The 1996 and subsequent amendments to it give the Homeland Security secretary the power to waive any law — not just environmental ones — in order to facilitate building border infrastructure like fences and roads.

I see a position with argumentative merit. Obviously the SC has decided not to put their toe in the water.
9 zip on the ruling. :D

j-c-c
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4259
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:03 pm

Re: Supreme Court rejects greens’ challenge to border wall law

Post by j-c-c » Mon Dec 03, 2018 7:36 pm

1989TransAm wrote:
Mon Dec 03, 2018 7:11 pm
j-c-c wrote:
Mon Dec 03, 2018 12:17 pm
"“Section 102’s waiver and jurisdiction-stripping provisions unconstitutionally consolidate the power to make, enforce, and review laws in the Executive branch,” they said in an August petition to the high court, arguing that only Congress has the power to change laws and it can’t delegate that power to the executive branch.

The Trump administration argued that the legal provision at issue is sufficiently specific to be allowable under the Constitution.

The 1996 and subsequent amendments to it give the Homeland Security secretary the power to waive any law — not just environmental ones — in order to facilitate building border infrastructure like fences and roads.

I see a position with argumentative merit. Obviously the SC has decided not to put their toe in the water.
9 zip on the ruling. :D
I know finesse is not your thing, but they declined to hear the case, and offered no ruling. :roll:

1989TransAm
Guru
Guru
Posts: 9377
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:43 pm
Location: Cypress, California

Re: Supreme Court rejects greens’ challenge to border wall law

Post by 1989TransAm » Mon Dec 03, 2018 9:34 pm

j-c-c wrote:
Mon Dec 03, 2018 7:36 pm
1989TransAm wrote:
Mon Dec 03, 2018 7:11 pm
j-c-c wrote:
Mon Dec 03, 2018 12:17 pm
"“Section 102’s waiver and jurisdiction-stripping provisions unconstitutionally consolidate the power to make, enforce, and review laws in the Executive branch,” they said in an August petition to the high court, arguing that only Congress has the power to change laws and it can’t delegate that power to the executive branch.

The Trump administration argued that the legal provision at issue is sufficiently specific to be allowable under the Constitution.

The 1996 and subsequent amendments to it give the Homeland Security secretary the power to waive any law — not just environmental ones — in order to facilitate building border infrastructure like fences and roads.

I see a position with argumentative merit. Obviously the SC has decided not to put their toe in the water.
9 zip on the ruling. :D
I know finesse is not your thing, but they declined to hear the case, and offered no ruling. :roll:
9 zip on refusing to even hear the case. :D

86_regal
Pro
Pro
Posts: 306
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 12:02 pm

Re: Supreme Court rejects greens’ challenge to border wall law

Post by 86_regal » Mon Dec 03, 2018 10:20 pm

j-c-c wrote:
Mon Dec 03, 2018 12:17 pm
"“Section 102’s waiver and jurisdiction-stripping provisions unconstitutionally consolidate the power to make, enforce, and review laws in the Executive branch,” they said in an August petition to the high court, arguing that only Congress has the power to change laws and it can’t delegate that power to the executive branch.

The Trump administration argued that the legal provision at issue is sufficiently specific to be allowable under the Constitution.

The 1996 and subsequent amendments to it give the Homeland Security secretary the power to waive any law — not just environmental ones — in order to facilitate building border infrastructure like fences and roads.

I see a position with argumentative merit. Obviously the SC has decided not to put their toe in the water.
At the expense of sounding like something out of left field, It's pretty cut and dried. I know there are plenty who view the position of POTUS as possessing "Devine Rights" but it just ain't so...

The executive "executes" the administration/enforcement of law as created by the legislature. The executive cannot do "whatever it wants", it can only execute what it is LEGISLATIVELY allowed to "execute"

Another swing and a miss for SCOTUS, they didn't even take the f*cking bat off their shoulder on this one... :roll:

86_regal
Pro
Pro
Posts: 306
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 12:02 pm

Re: Supreme Court rejects greens’ challenge to border wall law

Post by 86_regal » Mon Dec 03, 2018 10:22 pm

j-c-c wrote:
Mon Dec 03, 2018 7:36 pm
1989TransAm wrote:
Mon Dec 03, 2018 7:11 pm
j-c-c wrote:
Mon Dec 03, 2018 12:17 pm
"“Section 102’s waiver and jurisdiction-stripping provisions unconstitutionally consolidate the power to make, enforce, and review laws in the Executive branch,” they said in an August petition to the high court, arguing that only Congress has the power to change laws and it can’t delegate that power to the executive branch.

The Trump administration argued that the legal provision at issue is sufficiently specific to be allowable under the Constitution.

The 1996 and subsequent amendments to it give the Homeland Security secretary the power to waive any law — not just environmental ones — in order to facilitate building border infrastructure like fences and roads.

I see a position with argumentative merit. Obviously the SC has decided not to put their toe in the water.
9 zip on the ruling. :D
I know finesse is not your thing, but they declined to hear the case, and offered no ruling. :roll:
Agreed.
Very sad, isn't it?

Post Reply