Trump-appointed judge blocks Democratic effort to stop border emergency - Polidicks

https://www.axios.com/judge-trump-border-wall-national-emergency-e71d8249-98e2-4653-9b4a-b8c47133d7a3.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=organic&utm_content=1100 A federal judge in D.C. has rejected an effort by House Democrats to block President Trump's use of emergency powers to reprogram military funds for his border wall. "This is a case about whether one chamber of Congress has the “constitutional means” to conscript the Judiciary in a political turf war with the President over the implementation of legislation. ... [W]hile the Constitution bestows upon Members of the House many powers, it does not grant them standing to hale the Executive Branch into court claiming a dilution of Congress’s legislative authority. The Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to hear the House’s claims and will deny its motion." McFadden added: "To be clear, the Court does not imply that Congress may never sue the Executive to protect its powers." But he argues that House Democrats do not, in this case, overcome the burden to establish it has standing in its lawsuit.

Of course he does.

Can we block these blockers from blocking ever again?

Glad we have checks and balances like this to keep the checks and balances in check.

We should make a big list of these traitors

So does this mean there's nothing standing in Trump's way now, or are there other options?

Going to be appealed almost certainly

feel free to ignore that ruling congress, as a judge can only interpret what the constitution says not overrule it. There's already precedence for when Congress withheld Highway funding from states that didn't raise min. drinking age to 21, which was upheld by the Supreme Court. So this judge just ruled contrary to a SC ruling. Remove the judge from office.

You don't ignore rulings, you appeal them. Congress can indeed withhold highway funding, but that has nothing to do with this case. The connection between Congress and the states is totally irrelevant to the connection between Congress and the president. To assume otherwise is an overwhelmingly inaccurate simplification. Actually, it supports the judge's conclusion - Congress still has legislative means available to stop the "emergency." Namely, they can repeal the law granting the executive the power to declare an emergency like this. That simply requires that the legislature do its job, much like passing a law withholding highway funding. If the legislature can't get it's shit in order and repeal the law, that's not the judiciary's problem. They do not have standing to appeal an action under a law that they created if the issue could be resolved by them repealing it. In other words, Congress made their bed; they don't get to come crying to mommy when daddy tells them they have to sleep in it.

the problem is the judiciary created this in the first place by invalidating the previous emergency powers rules which held the president to congressional approval

If Congress does not want the president to wield the emergency powers sword unabated, they should repeal the NEA and rewrite it. INS v. Chadha only invalidated the NEA to the extent that Congress could unilaterally un-declare an emergency, which makes the NEA effectively redundant in that the president's power extended only as far as Congress would have been able to legislate anyway. If they want control, they can either keep control or give it to the president with the knowledge that they'll need a 2/3rds majority to take it back. They've had 36 years to change the rules in the wake of Chadha, but haven't. So the judge is telling them... go change the damn rules if you don't like them.

It was an analogy because Congress has full control over every budgetary concern. It's laid out in the constitution. Passing legislation isn't the only check and balance that Congress has against the Executive branch.