Yesterday ended with a meaningful win for President Trump in the federal courtroom. In The House ruled by Democrats, their lawsuit to stop the president from using the national emergency for the border wall was rejected, giving Trump full and rightful authority.

Judge Trevor N. McFadden ruled The House could not prove any kind of injury to stand in court.

Nothing immediate will happen at the moment with the ruling because there are other groups which blocked the national emergency call to continue building the wall. If the other courts handling the case accept Judge McFadden’s ruling, then the rest of the litigation options will become weaker as the battle moves forward.

There will be other cases with subpoenas, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia did not touch. Judge McFadden ruled it as different legal analyses which the other courts will handle. Private groups opened other cases in California which did not go before the Judge on Monday.

Judge McFadden was appointed by President Trump

To recap the timeline of the events, back in February, President Trump requested several times for Congress to issue billions of dollars to build the wall along the border. When Congress refused, President Trump declared a national emergency to build it.

Construction processes were already underway when The House filed suit to stop the proceedings. From the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Haywood Gilliam called for the construction to come to a halt as the funds from the emergency stopped for the court’s evaluations.

President Barrack Obama appointed Judge Gilliam to the seat during his term in office. We can clearly see where this is going.

Judge McFadden put down in writing these words in his ruling, “Congress has several political arrows in its quiver to counter perceived threats to its sphere of power to expressly restrict the transfer or spending of funds for a border wall. As it has recently shown, the House is more than capable of investigating conduct by the executive. These tools show that this lawsuit is not a last resort for the House.”

Every time a case comes into a courtroom, there is always research done and excerpts taken from previous cases. This one was no different because, in 2015, Judge Rosemary M. Collyer who was appointed by former President George W. Bush to the Federal District Court in Washington ruled in the same manner with the Affordable Care Act from former President Obama.

It was brought to court when the spending was challenged by Republicans. The House claimed it was the only way to stop the administration from passing out $136 billion to subsidies.

The House’s lawyers at the time were trying to control the spending and the money going out. It was a way to preserve the constitutional powers and rights by suing the White House.

Judge McFadden stated courts may weigh in and give their verdicts in which he did. He concluded his writing with these words, “Using the judiciary to vindicate the House’s investigatory power is constitutionally distinct. The investigatory power is one of the few under the Constitution that each house of Congress may exercise individually. It is perhaps for this reason that the House’s power to investigate has been enforced with periodic help from federal courts.”

Inside the public document of the case, Judge McFadden sums everything up, “This case presents a close question about the appropriate role of the Judiciary in resolving disputes between the other two branches of the Federal Government. To be clear, the Court does not imply that Congress may never sue the Executive to protect its powers. But considering the House’s burden to establish it has standing, the lack of any binding precedent showing that it does, and the teachings of Raines and Arizona State Legislature, the Court cannot assume jurisdiction to proceed to the merits. For these reasons, it will deny the House’s motion. A separate Order accompanies this Opinion.”

This means there is still hope in the judicial system when it comes to common sense. It is sad to see that Democrat-appointed judges will fight the legal system in the party’s favor instead of what is known as the law.

The Conservatives will conserve the morals and safety of the land while the Liberals seem to want to liberate everyone from morals and safety to let the illegal immigration continue. Conservatives are the only ones who seem to push for something to be done.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *