Author Topic: Checks and Balances  (Read 34810 times)

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63786
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Checks and Balances
« Reply #100 on: November 25, 2019, 03:21:52 PM »
Former White House counsel Don McGahn must obey subpoena to testify before Congress, judge rules
The same question about White House immunity — this one related to the impeachment inquiry — is pending before another judge in Washington.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/former-white-house-counsel-don-mcgahn-must-obey-subpoena-testify-n1090566

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63786
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Checks and Balances
« Reply #101 on: December 03, 2019, 04:17:03 PM »
Trump loses appeal to block Deutsche Bank, Capital One from handing over his financial records to Congress
Trump sued the banks to stop them from complying with subpoenas seeking the information.
Dec. 3, 2019
By Allan Smith
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-loses-appeal-block-banks-handing-over-his-financial-records-n1094831?cid=sm_npd_ms_fb_ma&fbclid=IwAR2WRTUpZZVLLmrN5KhPEsEC78nvCOt51TUCW4REz5EtJ6lUwoKqoiP7ctM

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63786
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Checks and Balances
« Reply #102 on: December 10, 2019, 09:57:56 PM »
Judge halts $3.6 billion diverted from military construction projects for border wall
By: The Associated Press  

EL PASO, Texas — A federal judge on Tuesday blocked the Trump administration from spending some Defense Department money to build a border wall with Mexico, the latest twist in a long-running legal battle over one of the president’s signature domestic issues and campaign priorities.

The ruling by District Judge David Briones in El Paso, Texas, prevents the government from spending $3.6 billion that was diverted in September from 127 military construction projects to pay for 175 miles (280 kilometers) of border wall.

His decision doesn’t apply to another pot of Pentagon money, $2.5 billion that was initially meant for counter-drug operations and was redirected to wall spending. In July, the Supreme Court granted an emergency order allowing that money to be spent during a legal challenge.

The Justice Department said it would appeal Tuesday’s ruling.

Spending that was halted — at least for now — is intended for 11 projects in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. The longest and most expensive by far would blanket 52 miles (83.2 kilometers) in Laredo, Texas, at an estimated cost of $1.27 billion.

The Pentagon freed $6.1 billion after Trump declared a national emergency on the Mexican border to end a government shutdown in February. Congress gave $1.4 billion for wall construction, far less than what Trump wanted.

On a dirt road past rows of date trees, just feet from a dry section of Colorado River, a small construction crew is putting up a towering border wall that the government hopes will reduce — for good — the flow of immigrants who cross the U.S.-Mexico border illegally.

Briones, ruling in a case filed by El Paso County and the Border Network for Human Rights, said he didn’t want to minimize the importance of border security but “that concern cannot override the public’s interest in the Executive Branch complying with the law.”

“That is especially so when Congress — the People’s representatives — determined that securing the border required only $1.375 billion, not $6.1 billion, to be spent on a wall,” he wrote.

Briones, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, stopped short of extending his ruling to the $2.5 billion pot of Pentagon money because, he wrote, it would effectively override the Supreme Court.

The president’s critics cheered the decision.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said it “confirms the president’s national emergency declaration to steal funds from military families to build a wall he promised Mexico would pay for was, and is, an outrageous power grab by a president who refuses to respect the constitutional separation of powers.”

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2019/12/11/judge-halts-36-billion-diverted-from-military-construction-projects-for-border-wall/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=Socialflow+ARM&fbclid=IwAR2dbAOiMII7G9jfly184UBh_On5CCAFMD1lzUvQZPWrVAwiDPGllWzqSGI

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Checks and Balances
« Reply #103 on: December 11, 2019, 07:22:02 AM »
The big picture idea is that Trump will go down in history as the 3rd US President to be impeached.

The previous 2 ( Johnson , Clinton) survived the senate trial, Johnson by a single senator.

It will be interesting to see how this goes.


And you will still be fat and broke despite the economy being at record levels.   Do you ever sit back, ever, and ask yourself - gee why am I losing all the time?  Maybe its your liberal failed ideas and thought structures and patterns? 

Its pathetic for a person like yourself and strawQUEEN and Prime to be miserable in this economy and country now.   Sad and pathetic.  Losers.   

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Checks and Balances
« Reply #104 on: December 11, 2019, 11:52:10 AM »
You got me there. Obviously , my lifestyle isn't up to your lofty standard.
I'm piss broke, living alone with feral cats in a beater trailer, by the Bumfuk County, Ga toxic waste dump . ;D

Maybe, regardless of $$ , some of us think Trump is a total buffoon and find him to be a national disgrace.

Sad

Primemuscle

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40785
Re: Checks and Balances
« Reply #105 on: December 11, 2019, 12:58:42 PM »
Judge halts $3.6 billion diverted from military construction projects for border wall
By: The Associated Press  

EL PASO, Texas — A federal judge on Tuesday blocked the Trump administration from spending some Defense Department money to build a border wall with Mexico, the latest twist in a long-running legal battle over one of the president’s signature domestic issues and campaign priorities.

The ruling by District Judge David Briones in El Paso, Texas, prevents the government from spending $3.6 billion that was diverted in September from 127 military construction projects to pay for 175 miles (280 kilometers) of border wall.

His decision doesn’t apply to another pot of Pentagon money, $2.5 billion that was initially meant for counter-drug operations and was redirected to wall spending. In July, the Supreme Court granted an emergency order allowing that money to be spent during a legal challenge.

The Justice Department said it would appeal Tuesday’s ruling.

Spending that was halted — at least for now — is intended for 11 projects in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. The longest and most expensive by far would blanket 52 miles (83.2 kilometers) in Laredo, Texas, at an estimated cost of $1.27 billion.

The Pentagon freed $6.1 billion after Trump declared a national emergency on the Mexican border to end a government shutdown in February. Congress gave $1.4 billion for wall construction, far less than what Trump wanted.

On a dirt road past rows of date trees, just feet from a dry section of Colorado River, a small construction crew is putting up a towering border wall that the government hopes will reduce — for good — the flow of immigrants who cross the U.S.-Mexico border illegally.

Briones, ruling in a case filed by El Paso County and the Border Network for Human Rights, said he didn’t want to minimize the importance of border security but “that concern cannot override the public’s interest in the Executive Branch complying with the law.”

“That is especially so when Congress — the People’s representatives — determined that securing the border required only $1.375 billion, not $6.1 billion, to be spent on a wall,” he wrote.

Briones, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, stopped short of extending his ruling to the $2.5 billion pot of Pentagon money because, he wrote, it would effectively override the Supreme Court.

The president’s critics cheered the decision.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said it “confirms the president’s national emergency declaration to steal funds from military families to build a wall he promised Mexico would pay for was, and is, an outrageous power grab by a president who refuses to respect the constitutional separation of powers.”

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2019/12/11/judge-halts-36-billion-diverted-from-military-construction-projects-for-border-wall/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=Socialflow+ARM&fbclid=IwAR2dbAOiMII7G9jfly184UBh_On5CCAFMD1lzUvQZPWrVAwiDPGllWzqSGI

Interesting that there's no mention of the difficulty the government has run into in appropriating private land on which to build the wall. It's a hot issue all along the Texas - Mexico border.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63786
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Checks and Balances
« Reply #106 on: December 13, 2019, 02:49:20 PM »
Supreme Court to rule on release of Trump tax records
By granting review of these cases now, the justices made it possible for them to be heard during the current court term.
Supreme Court agrees to hear fight over Trump finances
Dec. 13, 2019
By Pete Williams
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/supreme-court-agrees-hear-trump-appeals-subpoena-fights-over-financial-n1101901?cid=sm_npd_ms_fb_ma&fbclid=IwAR34bG0euX0cKAa9Z_Nkuh9hlfr-mNZsZrXIfrkgrSSwkcVQ5muYzhbSJDY

Agnostic007

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15002
Re: Checks and Balances
« Reply #107 on: December 13, 2019, 09:17:38 PM »
The big picture idea is that Trump will go down in history as the 3rd US President to be impeached.

The previous 2 ( Johnson , Clinton) survived the senate trial, Johnson by a single senator.

It will be interesting to see how this goes.


It's as interesting as watching a rerun of a football game you've seen. The house will impeach, the Senate will acquit. That's it. There is zero chance of anything else happening

chaos

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 57639
  • Ron "There is no freedom of speech here" Avidan
Re: Checks and Balances
« Reply #108 on: December 14, 2019, 07:05:03 AM »
It's as interesting as watching a rerun of a football game you've seen. The house will impeach, the Senate will acquit. That's it. There is zero chance of anything else happening
And the democrats knew this when they made up the reasons for this "investigation", why do you think they wanted to waste taxpayers money like this?
Liar!!!!Filt!!!!

Grape Ape

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22253
  • SC è un asino
Re: Checks and Balances
« Reply #109 on: December 14, 2019, 07:30:30 AM »
And the democrats knew this when they made up the reasons for this "investigation", why do you think they wanted to waste taxpayers money like this?

This is one of the main points that exposes them.
Y

Primemuscle

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40785
Re: Checks and Balances
« Reply #110 on: December 14, 2019, 01:31:33 PM »
It's as interesting as watching a rerun of a football game you've seen. The house will impeach, the Senate will acquit. That's it. There is zero chance of anything else happening

You may be right, but one can always hope.

Primemuscle

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40785
Re: Checks and Balances
« Reply #111 on: December 14, 2019, 01:38:25 PM »
And the democrats knew this when they made up the reasons for this "investigation", why do you think they wanted to waste taxpayers money like this?

It is better to have tried and failed, then to have never tried at all.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63786
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Checks and Balances
« Reply #112 on: February 07, 2020, 04:51:49 PM »
In another Trump win, court tosses Democrats' suit over his businesses
By Jan Wolfe
Reuters•February 8, 2020

https://www.yahoo.com/news/appeals-court-throws-democrats-emoluments-152636069.html

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63786
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Checks and Balances
« Reply #113 on: February 26, 2020, 01:05:41 PM »
Court hands Trump win in sanctuary city fight, says administration can deny grant money
By Adam Shaw, Bill Mears | Fox News

100 elite Border Patrol agents will be deployed to 10 major cities including New York and Los Angeles; reaction and analysis on 'Outnumbered.'

A federal appeals court on Wednesday handed a major win to the Trump administration in its fight against “sanctuary” jurisdictions, ruling that it can deny grant money to states that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.

The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York overturned a lower court ruling that stopped the administration’s 2017 move to withhold grant money from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, which dispenses over $250 million a year to state and local criminal justice efforts.

“Today’s decision rightfully recognizes the lawful authority of the Attorney General to ensure that Department of Justice grant recipients are not at the same time thwarting federal law enforcement priorities,” a DOJ spokesman said in a statement. “The grant conditions here require states and cities that receive DOJ grants to share information about criminals in custody.  The federal government uses this information to enforce national immigration laws--policies supported by successive Democrat and Republican administrations.”

“All Americans will benefit from increased public safety as this Administration is able to implement its lawful immigration and public safety policies,” the statement said.

The latest decision conflicts with rulings from other appeals courts across the country concerning sanctuary policies, indicating a Supreme Court review is ultimately likely.

New York City and liberal states including New York, Washington, Massachusetts and Connecticut sued the government, and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York backed them — ordering the money be released and stopping the government from putting immigration-related conditions on grants.

But the appeals court ruled that it “cannot agree that the federal government must be enjoined from imposing the challenged conditions on the federal grants here at issue.”

“These conditions help the federal government enforce national immigration laws and policies supported by successive Democratic and Republican administrations,” the court ruled. “But more to the authorization point, they ensure that applicants satisfy particular statutory grant requirements imposed by Congress and subject to Attorney General oversight.”

It also disagreed with the district court’s claim that the conditions intrude on powers reserved only to states, noting that in immigration policy the Supreme Court has found that the federal government maintains “broad” and “preeminent” power.

The ruling marks a key win for the administration in its efforts to crack down on the continued use of “sanctuary” policies that limit local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration authorities in order to shield illegal immigrants from deportation.

Such policies generally forbid local law enforcement from honoring detainers -- requests from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that they be alerted to of an illegal immigrant’s release from custody so they can be be picked up by ICE and put through deportation proceedings.

Proponents of the policies claim it makes cities safer because it encourages illegal immigrants to cooperate with police without fear of deportation. But the Trump administration has been relentlessly pushing back by highlighting cases in which criminals are released onto the streets only to re-offend.

It has also deployed a series of measures to combat the practice, including deploying elite Border Patrol agents to sanctuary cities to help ICE track down and detain illegal immigrants.

The Justice Department recently announced a slew of measures, and President Trump has called on Congress to pass legislation that would allow victims of crimes committed by illegal immigrants to sue sanctuary cities and states.

“Not one more American life should be stolen by sanctuary cities; they’re all over the place and a lot of people don’t want them,” Trump said at the State of the Union address this month.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/court-hands-trump-win-in-sanctuary-city-grant

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63786
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Checks and Balances
« Reply #114 on: March 11, 2020, 02:48:42 PM »
Supreme Court gives Trump win by allowing 'remain in Mexico' policy to continue
By Ronn Blitzer | Fox News
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-gives-trump-temporary-win-on-remain-in-mexico-policy

jude2

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 10973
  • Getbig!
Re: Checks and Balances
« Reply #115 on: March 11, 2020, 05:39:39 PM »
Supreme Court gives Trump win by allowing 'remain in Mexico' policy to continue
By Ronn Blitzer | Fox News
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-gives-trump-temporary-win-on-remain-in-mexico-policy
Good ruling.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63786
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Checks and Balances
« Reply #116 on: August 05, 2021, 11:42:35 PM »
President Biden's extension of the eviction moratorium is unconstitutional and he knows it
Biden was elected to restore norms to Washington, D.C., but his eviction decision is one of the most egregious acts of executive overreach in decades.
Charles Cooke, Opinion Contributor
Published Aug. 5, 2021
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/08/05/eviction-moratorium-delta-variant-brett-kavanaugh-unconstitutional/5498649001/

Agnostic007

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15002
Re: Checks and Balances
« Reply #117 on: August 06, 2021, 07:59:48 PM »
And the democrats knew this when they made up the reasons for this "investigation", why do you think they wanted to waste taxpayers money like this?

because it was the right thing to do. That the Republicans sold their souls wasn't the democrats problem.

Howard

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15401
Re: Checks and Balances
« Reply #118 on: August 08, 2021, 08:01:37 PM »
And you will still be fat and broke despite the economy being at record levels.   Do you ever sit back, ever, and ask yourself - gee why am I losing all the time?  Maybe its your liberal failed ideas and thought structures and patterns? 

Its pathetic for a person like yourself and strawQUEEN and Prime to be miserable in this economy and country now.   Sad and pathetic.  Losers.

Then I  think , my life could be worse...I could be Soul Crusher  ;D

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Checks and Balances
« Reply #119 on: August 09, 2021, 04:16:03 AM »
Then I  think , my life could be worse...I could be Soul Crusher  ;D

I trained for 2 hours already today.  You?

Skeletor

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15701
  • Silence you furry fool!
Re: Checks and Balances
« Reply #120 on: August 09, 2021, 10:23:03 PM »
President Biden's extension of the eviction moratorium is unconstitutional and he knows it
Biden was elected to restore norms to Washington, D.C., but his eviction decision is one of the most egregious acts of executive overreach in decades.
Charles Cooke, Opinion Contributor
Published Aug. 5, 2021
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/08/05/eviction-moratorium-delta-variant-brett-kavanaugh-unconstitutional/5498649001/

Calculated move to buy time.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63786
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Checks and Balances
« Reply #121 on: August 09, 2021, 11:07:52 PM »
I trained for 2 hours already today.  You?

 ;D

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63786
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Checks and Balances
« Reply #122 on: August 09, 2021, 11:09:26 PM »
Calculated move to buy time.

And forget about the whole Constitution, rule of law, etc.  They would have already passed articles of impeachment had Trump done this.  Bunch of intellectually dishonest marxist hacks. 

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63786
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Checks and Balances
« Reply #123 on: August 11, 2021, 10:55:53 AM »
 :-\

Biden ‘checking’ if he can overrule states and order universal masks in schools
By Samuel Chamberlain and David Marcus
August 10, 2021
https://nypost.com/2021/08/10/biden-looking-at-ordering-universal-masking-for-school-kids/

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63786
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Checks and Balances
« Reply #124 on: August 24, 2021, 11:41:51 PM »
Supreme Court orders ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy reinstated
The Associated Press
Posted: AUG 24, 2021

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to block a court ruling ordering the Biden administration to reinstate a Trump-era policy that forces people to wait in Mexico while seeking asylum in the U.S.

With the three liberal justices in dissent, the court said the administration likely violated federal law in its efforts to rescind the program informally known as Remain in Mexico.

House passes $3.5 trillion budget plan, advances infrastructure bill
A federal judge in Texas had previously ordered that the program be reinstated last week. Both he and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused the administration’s request to put the ruling on hold.

Justice Samuel Alito ordered a brief delay to allow the full court time to consider the administration’s appeal.

https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/supreme-court-orders-remain-in-mexico-policy-reinstated/