[LS]

Correct, but one more point: Trump HAD TO SIGN THE BILL.

If he didn’t sign, a court “could” say he did not take advantage of every legal/constitutional alternative to a Declaration of Emergency.

That’s why the sequence in which he did this was brilliant. Now his lawyers can say, “we went through Congress, we jumped through all the hoops, but it still didn’t even begin to address the problem.”

If he had vetoed, as some here wanted him to do, that would leave a court an out.

[CincyRichieRich]

Correct, but one more point: Trump HAD TO SIGN THE BILL.

If he didn’t sign, a court “could” say he did not take advantage of every legal/constitutional alternative to a Declaration of Emergency.
...
Superb point!!!

[SisterK]

Hopefully Congress will offer a better spending bill when this piece of garbage expires. But, they probably will not.

Need conservative leadership heading all departments who are not hesitant to discreetly hack away the fat.

[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.

[lilypad]

Will someone send this to Anne Coulter please?