"Standing" and The Wall

[DGS49]

Seventeen (or some other number) of States are going to SUE!!!!!!!

The ACLU is going to SUE!!!!!!

Uncountable local localities are going to SUE!!!!

All are meaningless, wasteful, time-consuming nonsense.

None of the aforementioned entities has "standing" to sue.

Standing is a legal capacity that is based on vested interests that have been assaulted in some way. If your father is killed by a negligent FedEx driver, you can sue FedEx. It it's your best friend who got killed, sorry, you have no standing to sue.

None of these states have any vested interest that is impaired by Trump's declaration of a "national emergency" or his decision to move funds to his [our] Wall on the border. Nor does the ACLU. Nor does any property owner. Nor does any taxpayer. Nor does any municipality, even if the wall were to be build right down the main street of the town. (the protections afforded by Eminent Domain rules are sufficient).

In fact, the only entity that has a protectable interest is the Congress, so it is conceivable that some Democrat in Congress could sue and the case wouldn't immediately be thrown out of court. S/he would ultimately lose, but at least s/he would have standing.

Note that all of these lawsuits are going to be brought in Leftist U.S. District Courts (Sorry, Justice Roberts, it is what it is), and some of them may get through to the Circuit Court of Appeals, but it's all bullshit.

Now to the substance. Congress has given the President broad powers to declare a national emergency, and in fact very few of such declarations have been what a normal person would consider an "emergency." The President is not proposing to spend any money that has not already been provided by Congress; he is merely re-directing certain funds in a manner that is perfectly fine with the Department of Defense. And defense of the southern border is "national defense" whether you like it or not.

The current rate of crossings is not relevant to this discussion. What is relevant is that every time there is a revolution, or an uprising, or any kind of a catastrophe or disaster south of our border, it spawns another group of migrants who seek to come here in contravention of our laws. These sections of wall will make it more difficult for those people in the future to get across. Which is sufficient justification to build these sections of the Wall.

As with the "Muslim ban" that was not a Muslim ban, the President will ultimately win this battle, because he is right in what he is doing, and it is legal, constitutional, and appropriate.

How long will it take the public to recognize how phony it is when the Leftists in government, the media, and academe scream and wail at EVERYTHING this President does, with no regard for anything.

 

[Toronado3800]

Seventeen (or some other number) of States are going to SUE!!!!!!!

The ACLU is going to SUE!!!!!!

Uncountable local localities are going to SUE!!!!

All are meaningless, wasteful, time-consuming nonsense.

None of the aforementioned entities has "standing" to sue.

Standing is a legal capacity that is based on vested interests that have been assaulted in some way. If your father is killed by a negligent FedEx driver, you can sue FedEx. It it's your best friend who got killed, sorry, you have no standing to sue.

None of these states have any vested interest that is impaired by Trump's declaration of a "national emergency" or his decision to move funds to his [our] Wall on the border. Nor does the ACLU. Nor does any property owner. Nor does any taxpayer. Nor does any municipality, even if the wall were to be build right down the main street of the town. (the protections afforded by Eminent Domain rules are sufficient).

In fact, the only entity that has a protectable interest is the Congress, so it is conceivable that some Democrat in Congress could sue and the case wouldn't immediately be thrown out of court. S/he would ultimately lose, but at least s/he would have standing.

Note that all of these lawsuits are going to be brought in Leftist U.S. District Courts (Sorry, Justice Roberts, it is what it is), and some of them may get through to the Circuit Court of Appeals, but it's all bullshit.

Now to the substance. Congress has given the President broad powers to declare a national emergency, and in fact very few of such declarations have been what a normal person would consider an "emergency." The President is not proposing to spend any money that has not already been provided by Congress; he is merely re-directing certain funds in a manner that is perfectly fine with the Department of Defense. And defense of the southern border is "national defense" whether you like it or not.

The current rate of crossings is not relevant to this discussion. What is relevant is that every time there is a revolution, or an uprising, or any kind of a catastrophe or disaster south of our border, it spawns another group of migrants who seek to come here in contravention of our laws. These sections of wall will make it more difficult for those people in the future to get across. Which is sufficient justification to build these sections of the Wall.

As with the "Muslim ban" that was not a Muslim ban, the President will ultimately win this battle, because he is right in what he is doing, and it is legal, constitutional, and appropriate.

How long will it take the public to recognize how phony it is when the Leftists in government, the media, and academe scream and wail at EVERYTHING this President does, with no regard for anything.

The lawsuits may or may not stop the wall.

I think your use of left bs right here is incorrect though and speaks of some mindwashing which has made you a party cheerleader. Wall = big government. Emergency = big governemnt. Strong dictator = big government.

 

[Maxdeath]

Very well stated and correct. Those suing are not hoping to win, they have no chance. They are hoping to delay long enough to hope for a change in presidents which they hope will either outright decline to build any barrier or will be more malleable.

 

[MisterBeale]

THANK YOU!

When I first heard that the ACLU was suing, I was puzzled as hell.

I thought, "What the hell is their standing? How are they harmed?"

OTOH, I do think some of the parties you have mentioned that don't have standing, might. . .

IOW, TAXPAYERS.

Could this be considered a class action suit affair against the tax payers? I do not know, I am no lawyer. . . .


But then, I can't imagine the SCOTUS really justifying that, if it did, that would set a precedent for taxpayer suing to end wars.

 

[Maxdeath]

Seventeen (or some other number) of States are going to SUE!!!!!!!

The ACLU is going to SUE!!!!!!

Uncountable local localities are going to SUE!!!!

All are meaningless, wasteful, time-consuming nonsense.

None of the aforementioned entities has "standing" to sue.

Standing is a legal capacity that is based on vested interests that have been assaulted in some way. If your father is killed by a negligent FedEx driver, you can sue FedEx. It it's your best friend who got killed, sorry, you have no standing to sue.

None of these states have any vested interest that is impaired by Trump's declaration of a "national emergency" or his decision to move funds to his [our] Wall on the border. Nor does the ACLU. Nor does any property owner. Nor does any taxpayer. Nor does any municipality, even if the wall were to be build right down the main street of the town. (the protections afforded by Eminent Domain rules are sufficient).

In fact, the only entity that has a protectable interest is the Congress, so it is conceivable that some Democrat in Congress could sue and the case wouldn't immediately be thrown out of court. S/he would ultimately lose, but at least s/he would have standing.

Note that all of these lawsuits are going to be brought in Leftist U.S. District Courts (Sorry, Justice Roberts, it is what it is), and some of them may get through to the Circuit Court of Appeals, but it's all bullshit.

Now to the substance. Congress has given the President broad powers to declare a national emergency, and in fact very few of such declarations have been what a normal person would consider an "emergency." The President is not proposing to spend any money that has not already been provided by Congress; he is merely re-directing certain funds in a manner that is perfectly fine with the Department of Defense. And defense of the southern border is "national defense" whether you like it or not.

The current rate of crossings is not relevant to this discussion. What is relevant is that every time there is a revolution, or an uprising, or any kind of a catastrophe or disaster south of our border, it spawns another group of migrants who seek to come here in contravention of our laws. These sections of wall will make it more difficult for those people in the future to get across. Which is sufficient justification to build these sections of the Wall.

As with the "Muslim ban" that was not a Muslim ban, the President will ultimately win this battle, because he is right in what he is doing, and it is legal, constitutional, and appropriate.

How long will it take the public to recognize how phony it is when the Leftists in government, the media, and academe scream and wail at EVERYTHING this President does, with no regard for anything.

The lawsuits may or may not stop the wall.

I think your use of left bs right here is incorrect though and speaks of some mindwashing which has made you a party cheerleader. Wall = big government. Emergency = big governemnt. Strong dictator = big government.

Yet we had how many cheerleaders for the last fellow in the White House when he declared how many national emergencies?

 

[DGS49]

The real parallel with the last fellow was when he begged Congress to "make a provision" for those who were brought illegally to this country by their parents when they were small children (the so-called, "Dreamers"). After saying repeatedly that he did NOT have the power to protect these unfortunates, he did it anyway. Not legal. Not Constitutional. An assault on the sovereignty of the United States. From the Left.....the sound of crickets chirping.

Now we have a President who in the face of similar Congressional intransigence, does something that is legal, Constitutional, and appropriate.

And they rave as though their hair were on fire. As though they gave a shit about the law and the Constitution.

It is maddening.

 

[mudwhistle]

THANK YOU!

When I first heard that the ACLU was suing, I was puzzled as hell.

I thought, "What the hell is their standing? How are they harmed?"

OTOH, I do think some of the parties you have mentioned that don't have standing, might. . .

IOW, TAXPAYERS.

Could this be considered a class action suit affair against the tax payers? I do not know, I am no lawyer. . . .


But then, I can't imagine the SCOTUS really justifying that, if it did, that would set a precedent for taxpayer suing to end wars.

Democrats are suing because a wall damages their chances of winning elections in the future. It also takes drug-trafficking kick-backs in the form of cash out of their pockets. Not to mention puts a damper on their attempts to kill off old folks with communicable diseases that illegals carry.

 

[MisterBeale]

THANK YOU!

When I first heard that the ACLU was suing, I was puzzled as hell.

I thought, "What the hell is their standing? How are they harmed?"

OTOH, I do think some of the parties you have mentioned that don't have standing, might. . .

IOW, TAXPAYERS.

Could this be considered a class action suit affair against the tax payers? I do not know, I am no lawyer. . . .


But then, I can't imagine the SCOTUS really justifying that, if it did, that would set a precedent for taxpayer suing to end wars.

Democrats are suing because a wall damages their chances of winning elections in the future. It also takes drug-trafficking kick-backs in the form of cash out of their pockets. Not to mention puts a damper on their attempts to kill off old folks with communicable diseases that illegals carry.

We were talking about WHY they were suing. There are lots of reasons why.

Hell, neo-cons and elites are suing because it would reduce their supply of black market labor.

There are plenty of folks that are against it for all sorts of reasons.

That isn't the point. None of these reasons are necessarily admissible in court though. You can't exactly call as a witness;

Your honor, for my next witness, I would like to call El Chappo;

"Is it true that this so called 'WALL,' would make it significantly more difficult to smuggle heroin laced with fentanyl, thus depriving Americans of their drugs and the CIA of illicit funding?"

~Si

"There you have it your Honor, the State rests"

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Seventeen (or some other number) of States are going to SUE!!!!!!!

The ACLU is going to SUE!!!!!!

Uncountable local localities are going to SUE!!!!

All are meaningless, wasteful, time-consuming nonsense.

None of the aforementioned entities has "standing" to sue.

Standing is a legal capacity that is based on vested interests that have been assaulted in some way. If your father is killed by a negligent FedEx driver, you can sue FedEx. It it's your best friend who got killed, sorry, you have no standing to sue.

None of these states have any vested interest that is impaired by Trump's declaration of a "national emergency" or his decision to move funds to his [our] Wall on the border. Nor does the ACLU. Nor does any property owner. Nor does any taxpayer. Nor does any municipality, even if the wall were to be build right down the main street of the town. (the protections afforded by Eminent Domain rules are sufficient).

In fact, the only entity that has a protectable interest is the Congress, so it is conceivable that some Democrat in Congress could sue and the case wouldn't immediately be thrown out of court. S/he would ultimately lose, but at least s/he would have standing.

Note that all of these lawsuits are going to be brought in Leftist U.S. District Courts (Sorry, Justice Roberts, it is what it is), and some of them may get through to the Circuit Court of Appeals, but it's all bullshit.

Now to the substance. Congress has given the President broad powers to declare a national emergency, and in fact very few of such declarations have been what a normal person would consider an "emergency." The President is not proposing to spend any money that has not already been provided by Congress; he is merely re-directing certain funds in a manner that is perfectly fine with the Department of Defense. And defense of the southern border is "national defense" whether you like it or not.

The current rate of crossings is not relevant to this discussion. What is relevant is that every time there is a revolution, or an uprising, or any kind of a catastrophe or disaster south of our border, it spawns another group of migrants who seek to come here in contravention of our laws. These sections of wall will make it more difficult for those people in the future to get across. Which is sufficient justification to build these sections of the Wall.

As with the "Muslim ban" that was not a Muslim ban, the President will ultimately win this battle, because he is right in what he is doing, and it is legal, constitutional, and appropriate.

How long will it take the public to recognize how phony it is when the Leftists in government, the media, and academe scream and wail at EVERYTHING this President does, with no regard for anything.

Do you realize that the left is NOT the president's worst critics? And, which do you think is more important: the original intent of the Constitution OR those who rigged the system whereby the public has NO say over rule by Executive fiat?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The real parallel with the last fellow was when he begged Congress to "make a provision" for those who were brought illegally to this country by their parents when they were small children (the so-called, "Dreamers"). After saying repeatedly that he did NOT have the power to protect these unfortunates, he did it anyway. Not legal. Not Constitutional. An assault on the sovereignty of the United States. From the Left.....the sound of crickets chirping.

Now we have a President who in the face of similar Congressional intransigence, does something that is legal, Constitutional, and appropriate.

And they rave as though their hair were on fire. As though they gave a shit about the law and the Constitution.

It is maddening.

Do YOU support the Constitution when its provisions do not favor you OR do you accept whatever law, ruling, or interpretation benefits you?