House Democrats’ Lawsuit Over Trump’s Border Security Agenda Hits A Different Wall: The Judge

Posted: May 23, 2019 5:21 PM
House Democrats’ Lawsuit Over Trump’s Border Security Agenda Hits A Different Wall: The Judge

Source: AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

There were rumblings of a serious policy shift when it came to enforcing our borders. Border Patrol was going to get on-the-spot authority to determine the legitimacy of asylum seekers. Right now, the number of arrests at the border has reached six-figures. It’s the worst surge in migrants in over a decade. It’s a crisis that the Democrats don’t want to acknowledge or tackle. They want these people as voters and will do anything to ensure that happens, even if it means supporting open borders and criminality by illegal aliens. To be blunt, we’re full. 

Acting Department Of Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan said they were running out of money to deal with the crisis. His predecessor, Kristjen Nielsen, said that 80 percent of asylum seekers claims are not legitimate. These people know how to work our system. To help with enforcement, you all know about President Trump’s border wall, which had yet to be built. His key 2016 campaign promise faces aggressive Democratic opposition. Trump has tried to allocate other monies in the defense budget to build the wall, which caused Democrats to have a conniption fit. 

House Democrats filed a legal challenge to block the re-allocation, which has one judge “skeptical” of their legal rationale, according to Bloomberg News:

A U.S. House of Representatives attempt to block President Donald Trump from spending about $6.1 billion on a southern border wall ran into what could be a major obstacle of its own Thursday -- a skeptical federal judge.

The Democrat-led chamber asked U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden in Washington to bar the administration from reallocating the money from other Defense Department projects in the wake of Congress’s outright refusal to give the president all the funding he sought for the project.

But the judge -- a 2017 Trump nominee -- had reservations, opining at the outset about an apparent lack of legal precedent and whether courts are the right forum for resolving disputes between the executive and legislative branches. The so-called legal standing question "strikes me as a significant issue in this case," McFadden said.

McFadden asked House lawyer Douglas Letter whether his clients had exhausted all other avenues for resolving its dispute with the Trump administration. It had, the House attorney responded, it said no to the president.

The standoff over the funding, which began in December, resulted in a record 35-day partial shutdown of the federal government, after which both houses of Congress appropriated just $1.4 billion for Trump’s long-sought barrier.

This is all part of the House Democrats strategy of all-out war against the Trump administration. Yes, they promise the usual run-of-the-mill trash liberal agenda, but you cannot do that if you’re investigating and waging lawfare 24/7. They want his taxes to see if they can impeach him on anything there, they’re still on the Russian collusion myth, and they think obstruction of justice occurred in that investigation…because liberal guests on CNN say so on a daily basis. Trump won the 2016 election—and it’s broken the minds of many in liberal America.