> but completely misses the point. It does not. You think the point is to reiterate what's already been said. > The ruling said that the President can't spend

> but completely misses the point. It does not. You think the point is to reiterate what's already been said. > The ruling said that the President can't spend the money without Congressional authorization. The ruling is an interpretation that makes no sense on its face, which is not unusual for many courts. The President isn't spending money. He doesn't literally write a check. Direction (executive branch) has costs associated with actions. He certainly can direct from a written order. The line of thinking from the ruling is paradoxical. If congress was required to have an audit of the costs for any action POTUS (or any part of the executive) took, that would incur a cost, effectively removing the power of the Executive and miring the process in recursion hell without recourse. Currently, the legislative still has recourse, but the ruling directly mentions that the ruling is a critique about Constitutionality being breached between the branches without any relation to the case at hand. Note the ruling, in effect, was against the plaintiffs who were funded by people interested in challenging the law. All parties, being politically motivated, is what makes it a political ruling, which is not unusual, despite the reasoning.