[semantic]

Couple of points: First, I have no problem with Trump signing the funding bill under any context, court strategy or not. As many/most know, the absolute key in contract negotiations is getting a signed agreement. After that, change orders, escalation fees and scope expansion begin in earnest. Consider CA's train to nowhere as a perfect example of how this process works.

Even the applicable birder states have no standing in matters of federal sphere; see AZ failure to enforce federal immigration law. Since this is purely a matter between two separate branches of federal government, SCOTUS could possibly rule the original basis is unconstitutional. But then that itself raises too many conflicting points, primary the reason it was considered necessary in the first place.

Third, in relation to the first point and scope expansion: Trump is essentially militarizing the border. When was the last time this occurred? WWII? Think Viet Nam and GW II - basic authorization in hand, which forms the foundation to justify immediate and massive escalation.

Fourth, border security and the meaning of being a country with national borders and policy oriented towards the citizens' benefit will become the primary political battle for 2020. Trump runs on his current position, whereas his opponent, as well as Congressional races run on ...? Can you imagine the debates? How does one even begin to justify open borders and the displacement of existing citizens for unlimited immigration from the 3rd world in front of a live audience? It only sort of works now with obfuscation - it will never fly under bright light scrutiny.

Which brings us back to SCOTUS - I think it's a natural 9-0 or 8-1 decision if they even pursue the case. Will a national referendum available in 2020 that will resolve the problem through democratic means, the SC would create a constitutional crisis for no good reason. They may be corrupt, but they aren't stupid.

[LS]

Trump had to sign. If he vetoed, a court would (reasonably) rule that he did not take all Constitutionally allowed actions to resolve the problem.

Now it’s just a debate over $$, to my knowledge something no court has ever ruled on. It’s always about judicial principles, not dollar amounts.

Moreover, yesterday SpewMore was urging Trump to sign. Rush Limbaugh thought this was actually an attempt to get Rush to veto it. Why?

I think Rush is right: the reason is, I think SpewMore’s lawyers at the last minute figured out the trick and it was too late to stop it in Congress. The WH has some pretty brilliant guys in the counsel’s office.

In WW I, Woodrow Wilson militarized the border against Pancho Villa.

[GOPJ]

Fourth, border security and the meaning of being a country with national borders and policy oriented towards the citizens' benefit will become the primary political battle for 2020. Trump runs on his current position, whereas his opponent, as well as Congressional races run on ...?

Can you imagine the debates? How does one even begin to justify open borders and the displacement of existing citizens for unlimited immigration from the 3rd world in front of a live audience? It only sort of works now with obfuscation - it will never fly under bright light scrutiny.

Excellent...