Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Donald Trump's Plan to Use $3.6 Billion for Border Wall

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Source: Newsweek

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday advised a lower court to reconsider earlier decisions that blocked an estimated $3.6 billion from being used for construction of the U.S.-Mexico border wall championed by former President Donald Trump.

After taking office in January, President Joe Biden has sought to halt funding for border wall construction pushed by his predecessor. The Biden administration had argued that the Supreme Court did not need to weigh in on the case concerning border wall funding since the project was shuttered by the new administration.

But the Court's Monday ruling called for a reassessment of the case, given the new circumstances under which the project is being considered and with a different administration in the White House.

The Supreme Court returned the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit "with instructions to direct the District Court to vacate its judgments," the Supreme Court wrote in its Monday order.

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-donald-trumps-plan-to-use-dollar36-billion-for-border-wall/ar-AAP8323?ocid=DELLDHP&li=BBnbfcL

---

I agree. Isn't this a moot case? Talk about an activist court.

[PortTack]

1. Political hacks in robes!!

Why in the world do they feel entitled to weigh in??!!

[Fullduplexxx]

3. 2024

Another reason to expand the court. However this proves the dept of war can do without 3.6 mil . So take it for wic

[EndlessWire]

33. $3.6 Billion...n/t

[onenote]

10. Maybe because the Biden administration asked them to

The Court did EXACTLY what the Biden administration requested.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

39. Yes, sir...it is an expected. win for Biden, if you read after the headline, and conversant with law.

[Champp]

30. Yep

Republicans have perverted the Supremos their their whacko "concepts."

[Alexander Of Assyria]

40. Perhaps sir, but not because of this essentially consent judgment.

[Walleye]

2. What are they setting the stage to reinstall Trump in 2024?

That’s what it’s starting to sound like. Have we got the Supreme Court also feathering their nest

[onenote]

13. FFS. The Court did what the Biden administration asked it to do

The Newsweek headline mischaracterizes what the Court did.

[Walleye]

14. Oops I should've read that story a little closer

[elleng]

18. Thanks

[turbinetree]

4. This what is called the Federalist Society on and in sitting judgment....

[Tomconroy]

5. Yes. Newsweek's headline is very inaccurate.

They seem to be telling the 9th circuit that there is no longer an issue.

[onenote]

12. Correct. It is what the Biden administration requested

[Eliot Rosewater]

6. ANY article about SC must in the FIRST PARAGRAPH from now on say what the VOTE WAS

and how did the traitors vote and how did the patriots vote, makes it much easier to understand.

[onenote]

16. The court typically doesn't disclose votes on cert petitions

And in this case they did exactly what the Biden administration asked them to.

[Marthe48]

7. We need to moderate the SC

If it means adding justices to create a balance, okay. If it means impeaching the rabid right wing jurists who are unqualified and unable to set aside their personal beliefs and biasa, okay.

This ruling is just a sign post indicating how this session is going to go. And it isn't going to go well for liberal, let alone centrist Americans.

[onenote]

31. This ruling is not what you think

The Newsweek headline is BS

The decision gives the Biden administration exactly what it requested.

[brush]

8. What little has been built of trump's wall has failed.

What the hell is up with this sorry court? trump humping sycophants all...except of course the three with critical thinking skills of course.

That wall will never get built.

[onenote]

9. The Court did exactly what the Biden administration requested

The Newsweek headline grossly mischacterizes what the Court did.

From the table of contents to the administration’s brief:



TABLE OF CONTENTS
Significant developments have fundamentally
altered the underpinnings of this case ...........................2 The Court should grant certiorari, vacate the judgment below, and remand with instructions
that the district court’s judgments be vacated..............6

[mahatmakanejeeves]

17. "Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown."

The last time Newsweek traded hands, it fetched $1.

SPOILER ALERT

It's Chinatown - Chinatown (9/9) Movie CLIP (1974) HD
129,399 views Oct 10, 2011

Movieclips
54.4M subscribers

Chinatown movie clips: http://j.mp/15vKcwj
BUY THE MOVIE: http://amzn.to/upfytN
Don't miss the HOTTEST NEW TRAILERS: http://bit.ly/1u2y6pr

[asiliveandbreathe]

20. Please make this a thread of its own..

..thanks..

[stillcool]

29. thank you, thank you!

I love when I get set straight mere moments after taking in bullshit...barely enough time to touch a brain cell.

[PerceptionManagement]

15. Partisan hacks. the USSC is only for republican grievances

[onenote]

23. So why did they do what the Biden administration requested?

[Polybius]

19. Was the vote 5-4 or 6-3?

Article didn't say.

[onenote]

22. Votes on cert petitions rarely are disclosed.

The Court did exactly what the Biden administration wanted. My guess is that it was unanimous.

From the Biden administration brief:


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Significant developments have fundamentally
altered the underpinnings of this case ...........................2 The Court should grant certiorari, vacate the judgment below, and remand with instructions
that the district court’s judgments be vacated..............6

[Polybius]

24. Thanks, looks like the headline was BS

The press loves to stir the pot.

[onenote]

25. Yep. Very much so.

[stillcool]

26. Newsweek lives for clicks...

and it's sure getting them. They've been putting out an awful lot of questionable stories every day, but I guess when your pay is based on how many clicks your story gets, facts are optional.

[Ford_Prefect]

27. Talk about an "activist court" making and enacting policy from the bench...

[marie999]

28. If this holds can Biden do what ever he wants with the money

as long it has something to do with the wall like build housing into the wall?

[onenote]

37. It will hold and it means the money can be used for its original purpose

[leftyladyfrommo]

32. Does anyone even remember that a wall was being built?

That is so yesterday. And a lot of it fell over because the wind was over 36 mph. And then a hurricane knocked out another big section. It's in tatters.

[monkeyman1]

34. wasn't a lot of it just replacement of fence panels ?

[bucolic_frolic]

35. SCOTUS can't even be relied upon to enforce Congress' intent

Rule of law is all but dead.

[onenote]

36. For the umpeenth time: the Court did exactly what The Biden administration asked

[BigmanPigman]

38. The SCOTUS is not partisan...

says Justice Amy GOP Barrett.