Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Takket

(23,802 posts) Sat Jul 27, 2019, 06:40 PM Jul 2019

does the SCOTUS wall funding decision mean...........

That an "emergency" declaration to allocate funds requires NOTHING more than the President's declaring it is an emergency? Even if the president himself/herself says it is not an emergency?

7 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

does the SCOTUS wall funding decision mean........... (Original Post) Takket Jul 2019 OP

it wasnt decided on the merits. it was rejected for lack of standing. mopinko Jul 2019 #1

Beats the hell out of me. old guy Jul 2019 #2

No. It was purely a procedural ruling StarfishSaver Jul 2019 #3

It was not a ruling on the merits. The ruling is based on lack of standing of the plaintiffs to sue. Shrike47 Jul 2019 #4

Anything this court decides 5-4 is illegitimate. STOLEN SEAT! Va Lefty Jul 2019 #5

trump will eventually lose in the courts... Joe941 Jul 2019 #6

No. former9thward Jul 2019 #7

mopinko

(73,930 posts)

1. it wasnt decided on the merits. it was rejected for lack of standing.

Reply to Takket (Original post)

Sat Jul 27, 2019, 06:45 PM

Jul 2019

old guy

(3,299 posts)

2. Beats the hell out of me.

Reply to Takket (Original post)

Sat Jul 27, 2019, 06:47 PM

Jul 2019

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)

3. No. It was purely a procedural ruling

Reply to Takket (Original post)

Sat Jul 27, 2019, 06:48 PM

Jul 2019

The court allowed the work to continue while the case proceeds on its merits.

But it does suggest that the Court will eventually rule in Trump's favor.

Shrike47

(6,913 posts)

4. It was not a ruling on the merits. The ruling is based on lack of standing of the plaintiffs to sue.

Reply to Takket (Original post)

Sat Jul 27, 2019, 06:48 PM

Jul 2019

Basically, the lower court issued a ruling that the work could not proceed during litigation. The SC said it could proceed because the defendants were likely to prevail on their lack of standing argument.

Va Lefty

(6,252 posts)

5. Anything this court decides 5-4 is illegitimate. STOLEN SEAT!

Reply to Takket (Original post)

Sat Jul 27, 2019, 07:00 PM

Jul 2019

Joe941

(2,848 posts)

6. trump will eventually lose in the courts...

Reply to Takket (Original post)

Sat Jul 27, 2019, 07:00 PM

Jul 2019

This decision wasn't based on merits.

former9thward

(33,424 posts)

7. No.

Reply to Joe941 (Reply #6)

Sat Jul 27, 2019, 07:11 PM

Jul 2019

The court would not have allowed the work to proceed if they thought Trump would lose. They think he will win.

Reply to this discussion

Kick in to the DU tip jar?

This week we're running a special pop-up mini fund drive. From Monday through Friday we're going ad-free for all registered members, and we're asking you to kick in to the DU tip jar to support the site and keep us financially healthy.

As a bonus, making a contribution will allow you to leave kudos for another DU member, and at the end of the week we'll recognize the DUers who you think make this community great.