Vanity-What’s happens if the Supreme Court (John Roberts) denies Trumps National Emergency?

[Bigtigermike]

What’s the next possible course of action? Is it over for the wall? I don’t trust that guy and it’s obvious that everybody in Washington DC saved for a small group is trying to do everything within their power to deny Trump his key signature issue. They’re determined that he loses the election next year

[StAnDeliver]

"I think any lawsuit needs to be expanded to include all declared national emergencies, don’t let it be specially for the wall."

Yes, exactly, in that, any decision against Trump triggering EA76 opens all existing 31 EAs to petition SCOTUS.

So Somalia would be straight up in a heartbeat to sue against Bobo's National Emergency of 2012: "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia, continued in 2018"

Not gonna happen.

[Sirius Lee]

Then President Trump immediately reverses and abolishes ALL OTHER National Emergencies instituted under this Law by past Presidents.

Yup. President Trump has placed another rake in the path of the Mockingbird State Media (MSM) and their fellow deep state holdouts in the judiciary.

[SaxxonWoods]

Oh good! I hope you are a Supreme Court Justice.

[Doctor DNA]

Over at Gateway P, there is a new thread about the exec order that Trump is using to gather funds for the wall, the exec order he is using is Barrack Obama’s executive order from 2011 and is still in effect. If so, Trump has outfoxed them again! Brilliant!

[Hurricane]

Obama really didn’t have to do it and he didn’t. Look what happened. Trump really didn’t HAVE to do it but he puts the country before his critics and DID it.

[Reno89519]

If? I figure it is a given that he will. I think leaving this to the courts is a fail. It gives Trump and everyone fodder for elections but does not to fix our problem on the border and with illegal immigration.

[nathanbedford]

To clarify our thinking I think we ought to distinguish two steps in a two-stage process.

First we have to ask ourselves are we judging a law in its application or are determining if the law itself is Constitution?

If we are judging the law and its application that gets the court into the very precarious business of substituting its judgment for that of the commander-in-chief, the very person designated by Congress, to make the judgment of the existence or nonexistence of an emergency and the appropriate steps to be taken in the event of such an emergency. Until we entered an age in which courts enjoin presidential actions because they don't like the contents of one of his speeches, we would all have said that it is inconceivable that a court would substitute its judgment for that of the commander-in-chief in matters military.

Today, as our federal judiciary abandons even pretext to adherence to the Constitution, we must expect anything.

If we consider whether this statute is itself constitutional, we're opening a can of worms for conservatives.

We conservatives rail because Congress has abdicated its constitutional responsibilities to unnamed, often unaccountable bureaucrats who make regulations establishing crimes, prosecute alleged violations, adjudicate guilt and innocence, and inflict punishment. Here we see the article one branch of government abdicating its responsibility to the executive branch to tax-and-spend. Much of this is the result of a metastasizing cancer on Congress which is shirking responsibilities in every area but much of it can also be blamed on technology. In the age of atomic bomb bearing Intercontinental ballistic missiles, we must act quickly in national emergencies and Congress certainly is not the place to look for decisive action.

Perhaps the most important speech rendered by a senator in the Cavanaugh hearings (albeit not the decisive speeches which were delivered by Cavanaugh and by Graham) was delivered by Sen. Ben Sasse who observed that the reason the Cavanaugh hearings have become so contentious was that Congress had abdicated its responsibility to govern to the supreme court and inferior courts and because the federal courts had arrogated unto themselves the powers of the article 1 branch of government.

I consider the grant of power to the president to be unconstitutional as it is currently structured. I am, however, also a pragmatist who understands that to declare this statute in this circumstance to be unconstitutional is to do what Bill Clinton refused to do on the issue of campaign finance, to wit, unilaterally disarm.

So we are forced into a false choice, supporting a statute which is unconstitutional and which leads to all manner of miseries such as deficit spending, crony capitalism, shadow bureaucracies, and 1200 page continuing resolutions on the one hand or watching the sure and certain death of the conservatism as it is washed away by a wave of socialist voting illegal immigrants.

[HighSierra5]

All of these leftists saying that Trump is being political and just trying to fulfill a campaign promise are being devious. The illegal immigration problem has been there long before Trump. We’ve been screaming for a wall and an end to the invasion for decades. They are constantly trying to distract from the failure of not enforcing existing laws. This clown show will come to an end when they are literally thrown out of office. Until then just keep eating your peanuts and popcorn.

[inchworm]

That why Trump should have not signed bill. He should just declared the emergency and that way if Roberts can’t find his balls on decision day, Trump could say SCOTUS/Roberts just perpetuated the government shutdown.

[Reno89519]

I’d save the cheering until AFTER the wall is built. Heck, even say 25% or 50%, then start cheering. Right now all we talk, some furtive actions, and expected legal actions, plus a resisting and conspiring congress. I figure chances of wall being built in any form is about 1%. As for campaign fodder, 100%.

[FlingWingFlyer]

Americans need to take a serious look at our “justice system”. They should not have the power they’ve stolen and SHOULD NOT BE the final word on EVERYTHING that goes on in the United States. The Founding Fathers and the Constitution never intended them to be the freaky little gods they’ve become.

[gibsonguy]

The point is Trump said “I really don’t have to do this”. Pretty tough to make the case that this is an emergency when you just said it wasn’t.

[joma89]

It means the deep state has won the cold civil war. I would be interested in seeing what happens in a hot one.

JoMa

[Celerity]

The writing is on the wall. We’re moving towards a civil war.

Prepare accordingly.

[RoseofTexas]

He knows because of the resistance charged atmosphere by the anti trump clan across the nation including the evil black robes. He probably feels he only has a 20% -40% chance of succeeding with the NE wall. Sad but true..look at how easily the SOTU funny video was removed from his twitter page because of ONE FREAKIN complain!! The elites and radicals have been emboldened by our backstabbing party at the hill!! Poor trump he actually has NO BODY defending him in DC...just us puny SILENT folk across the nation. SOCIALISM is walking right through the unlocked door of America's soil with each unchallenged day that passes. I weep for our nation 😢

[metesky]

What if Eleanor Roosevelt could fly?

What if FReepers stopped wetting their panties?

[NTHockey]

Oh, there is plenty the voters can do about it, IF they have the courage to do it. The Founding Fathers risked ALL - Life, Riches and Reputation to gain our freedoms.

Today, Who would tear themselves away from their Lazyboy Recliner and their big screen TV? Who would sacrifice their SUV? Most importantly, who would defend to the death our freedoms?

Eric Holder called us “a nation of cowards”. Was he right?

[Liz]

What happens if USSC's John Roberts denies Trumps National Emergency?”

(HAT TIP SEEK AND FIND)---Trump should do an Andrew Jackson and say, “Justice Roberts has made his decision, let him enforce it...”.

[nonliberal]

Nice kids you have there, John. It would be a shame if we found out they were illegally adopted.

[MomwithHope]

Need proof of life on Ginsburg. We hear she is walking a mile a day. We hear she is in a medically induced coma. We hear she went to a concert - no pictures not even from people’s cell phones. We hear she was “present” for arguments. Was that by Skype? You can bet if she was physically improving and back at work the left would be plastering pictures all over, and there would be a lot of press. Her health needs to be verified and soon, before any more votes.