Replies

In essence, Trump can tell the court that the Dems lack standing? Even SC? SC has self appropriated power before.

I think Trump’s problem is that if he does not recognize a court especially the SC, that’s going to be grounds for impeachment especially when they get the enemedia howling. The leftists are trying to put him in this box.

So, if Trump declares the emergency order to build the wall, and SC upholds it, Trump will be effectively neutered probably impeached unless.....
1. He has some superincriminating info whereby he can just start arresting Dems, media etc and putting them in front military tribunals.
2. We have a hot civil war. Perhaps CA attempted secession, or Trump baits CA into it.
3. We have a major conflict and serious flash point /hot war with China or its equivalent.

I would go back and review Sulla’s dictatorship and Caesar’s siezure of power. Both men were forced into taking control as an act of self-preservation.

“What would FDR have done of a judge said shut down the Manhattan project.”

The country was at war and united back then and any judge that tried to do something like that would be disposed of and erased from history as if he had never lived.

The problem today is that if we had a world war with China, Russia etc, the Dems would be siding with our enemies, and probably doing it openly!

They check and balance ion emergency powers should be the uS congress not individual or panel of judges. Emergencies require more representation than the judiciary can provide.

It would not be the demo lacking standing. It would be the court not having the authority to rule on national emergencies. This would be a very dangerous thing.

I am familiar with both having read about 3000 pages of Roman history from Livy to the year of the four caesars. I don’t equate elected presidents with constitutional powers which can be amended with a Roman dictator. My analogy to the Manhattan project in evidence.

That’s really not how it works.

The federal courts — led by the Supreme Court — have established very strong rules about who has standing.

The Department of Justice ALWAYS challenges every lawsuit instinctively on the grounds of standing.

You seem to assume that the Supreme Court would interpret it as some kind of affront to challenge standing.

The challenge to standing is TO THE PLAINTIFF — not to the court.

The courts view it as one of dozens of ways the courts defend themselves against a flood of lawsuits. Courts think they are over-worked and over-burdened with way too many lawsuits. So courts LIKE IT when anything can make lawsuit go away. Courts act like it is some kind of an insult when someone files a lawsuit because it means more work for the judges.

The rules on standing were invented purely by judges. Standing is judges’ idea.

And EVERY TIME a lawsuit involving the government is filed, the DoJ *ALWAYS* files a challenge to standing — EVERY SINGLE TIME.

It is not something unusual.

In fact, if a defendant does not question standing, the court (at any level) will raise the question on its own — sua sponte.

If no one questioned standing, the Supreme Court would raise the question itself spontaneously.