Democrats believe the courts are their secret weapon that will finally bring down Donald Trump’s Presidency.
Liberals count on activist Obama judges to throw up roadblocks to Trump’s agenda, as well as ease the path forward toward impeachment.
But this judge just smacked Nancy Pelosi with a bittersweet reality that just ruined her life.
Democrats use the court system to bind the Trump administration in knots every time the President presses forward on a “Make America Great Again” agenda item.
This is especially true on immigration matters.
Democrats filed lawsuits in friendly venues where Obama partisans granted nationwide injunctions blocking the President’s efforts to reform America’s immigration system to make it work for the American people instead of illegal aliens.
So when the Trump administration announced it was reprogramming money allocated for other purposes to build a border wall, Democrats went back to the well and filed a lawsuit in a Washington, D.C. district court.
But this time they did not end up with a friendly judge.
Trump nominee Trevor McFadden heard the case.
Unlike Obama activists on the bench, McFadden believes in the separation of powers and the rule of law.
And he asked some tough questions of the lawyer representing the House Democrats in this case.
Judge McFadden asked House General Counsel Douglas Letter if Democrats “used all the tools at its disposal before rushing to court?”
McFadden was hesitant to involve the court in a dispute between two co-equal branches of government, especially when the issue of whether or not the Democrats even have a standing to sue the Trump administration has not been decided.
“This is such a basic affront to the institutional interests of Congress,” Letter told Judge McFadden. “It goes to the very heart of checks and balances.”
But Judge McFadden did not sound persuaded.
And McFadden appears likely to rule against the Democrats.
That means the case could be headed to the Supreme Court.
That’s because another judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration from reprogramming funds to build a portion of the wall in Arizona and Texas.
“In short, the position that when Congress declines the Executive’s request to appropriate funds, the Executive nonetheless may simply find a way to spend those funds “without Congress” does not square with fundamental separation of powers principles dating back to the earliest days of our Republic,” wrote U.S. District Court Judge Haywood Gilliam.
Gilliam’s decision was clouded by the fact that he had donated $20,000 to Barack Obama.
His opinion read more like he was doing the Democrats a political favor as opposed to a work of sound legal reasoning.
But when two lower courts disagree, that is when the Supreme Court steps in to settle the dispute.
And given the makeup of the Supreme Court – the conservatives hold a 5 to 4 majority – the likelihood that Trump ultimately wins this case is high.
We will keep you up to date on any new developments in this ongoing story.