Last week a Federal Judge in California ruled that Donald Trump could not reallocate $2.5 billion in defense spending to build a wall on the Mexican border. The Judge also refused to stay the decision pending appeal so the Trump administration tried to get an emergency stay from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. I think we know how that went:
A divided federal appeals court panel has declined to remove a major roadblock to President Donald Trump’s plan to spend more than $8 billion for border wall construction despite Congress agreeing to give him only a fraction of that sum.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals voted, 2-1, to deny the Justice Department’s request for an emergency stay of a lower court judge’s injunction that blocked a budgetary maneuver the Trump administration sought to use to fund border projects in Arizona, New Mexico and California.
Two of the judges, Richard Clifton and Michelle Friedland, said in a 75-page order released Wednesday that the attempt to move Defense Department construction funds to the Department of Homeland Security appeared to be a violation of federal law and the Constitution’s delegation to Congress of the power to appropriate funds.
“The Constitution assigns to Congress the power of the purse. Under the Appropriations Clause, it is Congress that is to make decisions regarding how to spend taxpayer dollars,” Clifton and Friedland wrote. “Congress did not appropriate money to build the border barriers Defendants seek to build here. Congress presumably decided such construction at this time was not in the public interest. It is not for us to reach a different conclusion.”
This was a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruling on an emergency stay which would have allowed the President to reallocate the funds while the appeals process was ongoing, and not a ruling on whether or not the President can reallocate said funds, but I think it is a pretty clear indication of how the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is eventually going to rule in this case.
Donald Trump has made some inroads in transforming the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals but it looks like there is still work ahead…
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Citizenship question to be left off the 2020 census
It was a foregone conclusion after last week’s Supreme Court decision but it is now official, the 2020 census will not include a citizenship question. Here is more:
The feds said Tuesday that forms for the 2020 US Census would be printed without the citizenship question that Team Trump had insisted on — a short-term victory at least for those opposing the question.
A Justice Department lawyer said in a memo that the printer had been directed to start producing the forms without the citizenship question, which foes said was designed to intimidate illegal immigrants and other Latinos holding Green Cards from participating.
“We can confirm that the decision has been made to print the 2020 Decennial Census questionnaire without a citizenship question, and that the printer has been instructed to begin the printing process,” Kate Bailey wrote to the lawyers for plaintiffs challenging the question.
The Supreme Court decision was a strange one; the Court ruled that Donald Trump did have the authority to add the question to the census but stated the administration did not give a good enough reason why they wanted to do so. The Supreme Court then sent it back to the Commerce Department for a better explanation but with the time involved this effectively stopped the question from being added to the census.
It still looks to me as if John Roberts–much like he did when he ruled the Obamacare mandate was Constitutional–talked around in circles in order to rule against the Trump administration.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
The on-again, off-again nuclear talks with Kim Jong-un appear to be back on-again after Donald Trump became the first sitting United States President to enter into North Korea. Here is more:
On Sunday, President Donald Trump, South Korean President Moon Jae-in, and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un met and held talks at the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ).
At around 3:45 PM local time, North Korean leader Kim and President Trump met and shook hands at the military demarcation line (MDL), which is the line dividing the two Koreas.
President Trump then proceeded to cross over into North Korean territory, effectively becoming the first sitting U.S. President in history to have stepped foot in North Korea.
When President Trump crossed over into the North, North Korean leader Kim stated, “President Trump has just walked across the demarcation line. That has made him the first US President to visit our country. Actually just looking at this action, this is an expression of his willingness to eliminate all the unfortunate past and open a new future.”
President Trump has stated that he was “proud to step over the line” into North Korea. Kim Jong-un also added, “It’s a very courageous and determined act.”
This was a symbolic gesture before the two leaders sat down for talks in South Korea, where both men agreed to try to restart the stalled talks.
President Trump then held a private bilateral meeting in the Freedom House with DPRK leader Kim, which began with a press conference. Kim Jong-un stated, “This means that we can feel at ease and meet each other with positive mindsets.”
President Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jong-un talked for about 50 minutes at the DMZ
After parting, President Trump stated, “We just had a very, very good meeting with Chairman Kim and we’ve agreed that we’re going to designate a team, and the team will try and work out some deals, and again speed is not the object, we want to see if we can do a really comprehensive good deal.”
Kim Jong-un also added that he and Trump “have created a precedent where we can meet at any time we want without being restrained to venue and format.”
Once again we will have to wait and see if anything comes from this or if any real progress will be made this time but it has to be considered a step in the right direction. Unless of course you are a liberal because then you will see this as proof that Donald Trump likes to cozy up to dictators because he wants to be one.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Sunday, June 30th open thread: ‘One Step Closer’
“This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.” (Psalm 118:24 KJV)
Here is this week’s open thread. Please feel free to post links to interesting articles and to discuss whatever issues arise during the course of the day. Nothing is off-topic here.
You can subscribe to America’s Watchtower to receive email updates and you can also follow America’s Watchtower on Facebook and Twitter by clicking the links on the right.
Here is Linkin Park performing “One Step Closer” in 2007:
Federal Judge blocks Donald Trump from reallocating $2.5 billion in defense money for building the wall
Donald Trump’s plan to reallocate $2.5 billion in defense money to build the wall on the southern border has been making its way through the courts. Back in May a Judge partially blocked the plan by claiming there were certain areas along the border where the President could not use defense funding, and apparently last night a Federal Judge blocked the rest of the plan. Here is more:
A federal judge in California barred the Trump administration Friday night from reallocating $2.5 billion to construct border barriers.
U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam, an Obama appointee, expanded an earlier order and forbade the government from moving forward with specific border wall projects in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas. He also turned the previous order into a permanent injunction.
“Congress considered all of defendants’ proffered needs for border barrier construction, weighed the public interest in such construction against defendants’ request for taxpayer money, and struck what it considered to be the proper balance — in the public’s interest — by making available only $1.375 billion in funding, which was for certain border barrier construction not at issue here,” Gilliam’s order reads.
Elsewhere in his decision, Gilliam said government lawyers were advancing “an argument that the court should not enjoin conduct found to be unlawful because the ends justify the means. No case supports this principle.”
The Judge also refused to issue a stay pending the results of the upcoming appeal. This will now be headed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is usually a death knell for anything conservative. However Donald Trump has made it a priority to remake the 9th Circuit and slowly but surely he appears to be doing just that. Recently the 9th Circuit has made two decisions in the President’s favor and this could be a great test of how much progress he has made and how much more is needed.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Supreme Court rules against adding citizen question to the census, in favor of redistricting
It looks like there was a mixed bag coming from the Supreme Court today on two major rulings. The first ruling handed down was on adding a citizenship question to the census and John Roberts sided with the liberals in what will keep the question off the 2020 census.
Here is more:
The Supreme Court found Thursday that the Trump administration did not give an adequate reason for adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census, blocking the question for at least the time being.
The move is a surprise win for advocates who opposed the question’s addition, arguing it will lead to an inaccurate population count. The administration had argued the question was needed to enforce the Voting Rights Act (VRA).
The justices sent the issue back to the Commerce Department to provide another explanation.
Chief Justice John Roberts joined with the court’s liberal wing in delivering the court’s opinion.
Roberts wrote that “the decision to reinstate a citizenship question cannot be adequately explained in terms of DOJ’s [the Department of Justice’s] request for improved citizenship data to better enforce the VRA.”
“Several points, considered together, reveal a significant mismatch between the decision [Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross] made and the rationale he provided.”
Roberts pointed to evidence showing that Ross, whose department oversees the census, intended to include a citizenship question on the census “about a week into his tenure, but it contains no hint that he was considering VRA enforcement in connection with that project.”
However, the chief justice said that the decision to add the citizenship question was not “substantively invalid.”
“But agencies must pursue their goals reasonably,” Roberts said. “What was provided here was more of a distraction.”
What is odd about this decision from what I read in the last two paragraphs and what I have read elsewhere is that John Roberts is saying the President has the authority to add this question to the census but he did not like the reason the administration gave for adding the question therefor he kicked it back to the lower courts where it will not be adjudicated in time for the 2020 census.
There have been rumors John Roberts was compromised since he twisted and turned in the wind trying to justify his sudden change of heart on the Constitutionality of the Obamacare mandate and this is not going to help those rumors because it certainly looks like he did the same in order to keep a question he admitted was legitimate from the census.
Next up was the redistricting case where the Supreme Court ruled this was something which should be settled in the Congress and not in the courts. Here is more:
The Supreme Court says federal courts have no role to play in policing political districts drawn for partisan gain. The decision could embolden political line-drawing for partisan gain when state lawmakers undertake the next round of redistricting following the 2020 census.
The justices said by a 5-4 vote on Thursday that claims of partisan gerrymandering do not belong in federal court. The court’s conservative, Republican-appointed majority says that voters and elected officials should be the arbiters of what is a political dispute.
The court rejected challenges to Republican-drawn congressional districts in North Carolina and a Democratic district in Maryland.
The decision was a major blow to critics of the partisan manipulation of electoral maps that can result when one party controls redistricting.
Chief Justice John Roberts said for the majority that the districting plans “are highly partisan by any measure.” But he said courts are the wrong place to settle these disputes.
I think John Roberts got this one right, redistricting is always highly partisan and this belongs in the legislature, but the only time we seem to hear about it is when Democrats are whining because they are not in charge.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
It is not surprising that the hosts on The View took Iran’s side over Donald Trump, in fact it would have been surprising to see them on the side of the United States. But it was surprising to learn from Whoopi Goldberg today that there is talk of banning homosexuality in this country. Here is more:
Whoopi responded saying “let us not forget what is happening to gay people in this country”, shortly thereafter suggesting that there’s talk of making homosexuality illegal in the US.
If you are anything like me this is the first you have heard about the possibility of banning homosexuality in the United States, and the reason you have not heard anything about this is because it is simply not true. In fact it is a blatant lie and in reality the President is working to end criminalizing homosexuality across the globe.
Here is more on that:
The Trump administration is launching a global campaign to end the criminalization of homosexuality in dozens of nations where it’s still illegal to be gay, U.S. officials tell NBC News, a bid aimed in part at denouncing Iran over its human rights record.
“It is concerning that, in the 21st century, some 70 countries continue to have laws that criminalize LGBTI status or conduct,” said a U.S. official involved in organizing the event.
officials say it’s likely to include working with global organizations like the United Nations, the European Union and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, as well as other countries whose laws already allow for gay rights. Other U.S. embassies and diplomatic posts throughout Europe, including the U.S. Mission to the E.U., are involved, as is the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor.
But hey, let’s not let the facts get in the way of the narrative the left is trying to push, especially when you know your base is not going to check up on what you said. How ironic is it that The View took the side of a nation where it is illegal to be gay and then made the claim it was the United States where it might soon become illegal to be gay?
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
The conservative blogoshere is up in arms today because Neil Gorsuch sided with the liberal Supreme Court Justices in a gun violence case because the law was too “vague.” Here is more:
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled 5-4 that a federal law allowing for gun convictions relating to “a crime of violence” was too vague.
The case involved a pair of men who were convicted on several felony robbery charges, but were also convicted under another federal statute that required significant mandatory minimum sentences for a “crime of violence.”
“In our constitutional order, a vague law is no law at all,” Gorsuch wrote. “Only the people’s elected representatives in Congress have the power to write new federal criminal laws. And when Congress exercises that power, it has to write statutes that given ordinary people fair warning about what the law demands of them.”
“Vague laws transgress both of those constitutional requirements,” he added.
Gorsuch wrote that the law in question “provides no reliable way to determine which offenses qualify as crimes of violence and thus is unconstitutional.” And he said that if the justices were to side with the government in the case, “we would be effectively stepping outside our role as judges and writing a new law rather than applying the one Congress adopted.”
I have to be honest here, I have never heard of this law before but I can tell you this: if a gun law really is that vague then the law can be interpreted and abused by anti-gun prosecutors, and if that is the case than I have a hard time getting upset at this ruling. In fact I am more surprised that 4 liberal justices threw out a gun law…
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Sunday, June 23rd open thread: ‘Are Friends Electric?’
“This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.” (Psalm 118:24 KJV)
Here is this week’s open thread. Please feel free to post links to interesting articles and to discuss whatever issues arise during the course of the day. Nothing is off-topic here.
You can subscribe to America’s Watchtower to receive email updates and you can also follow America’s Watchtower on Facebook and Twitter by clicking the links on the right.
Here is Gary Numan performing the song that kicked off the synth-pop movement, “Are Friends Electric?” I am not sure what year this performance is from but it is fairly recent:
Video: Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer celebrate Donald Trump’s decision to retaliate against Iran
As we all know at this point, Donald Trump authorized a military strike on Iran after the rogue nation downed one of our drones only to call off the attack 10 minutes before it was scheduled to go off. The President met with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to discuss the situation and fill them in on his plans.
When leaving the meeting it was thought by all at that time that the United States was going to bomb strategic sites in Iran and Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer can be seen celebrating in the video below.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1142061166262398976
That is a strange reaction to have when you have just learned that your nation is going to bomb another nation, isn’t it? Even if you agree with the decision it is not a time for smiles and laughs, it is a somber occasion.
This reaction leads me to believe the person who tweeted above is 100% correct: Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are not celebrating the the fact that they thought the United States was going to bomb Iran, but rather they are glad that Donald Trump made the decision to bomb Iran. See the difference? They were celebrating the decision because they thought they were going to be able to use it against the President politically.
And if that is the case then these people are sick because they are putting their political futures ahead of what is best for the country and the lives of others.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
America's Watchtower 