I predict Justice Roberts will not give Trump the fifth vote for his emergency wall.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

[bearsfootball516]

1. I actually agree.

[standingtall]

2. Yep but it being that close

ought to encourage Democrats to stack the supreme court once they control all 3 wings of the government again.

[pangaia]

6. It's too late for that.

[standingtall]

9. No it is not

We could win back the Presidency,the Senate and keep the congress. Then we could get rid of the legislative filibuster repeal the 1860's law that limits supreme court justices to 9 and then nominate as many as we want.

[wasupaloopa]

16. I like that plan

[pangaia]

19. Oh, SOunds good.

Then what happens when the russians win back all three branches and do the same thing?

[standingtall]

20. When we stack the courts we protect our majority

on the supreme court by adding states. There are 5 U.S. Territories that can be states, and they will vote Democratic giving us 10 new Democratic Senators and the KGOP never win back all 3 branches of government, and even if they did the type of candidates they would have to field to compete in the Senate would be much more moderate, and therefore supreme court justices appointed by a republican would have to be more moderate.

[Polybius]

33. Now that's a stretch to say the least

We haven't had a new state in 60+ years. You really think we can get 5 more soon?

[standingtall]

36. If we get back all 3 wings of government

and the supreme court. What is there that could stop us besides ourselves if the people of the territories want to be states?

[Polybius]

39. We had all three branches of government very recently

During Obama's first two years, and under Clinton as well. During the last 25 years, we've talked a little about DC and PR. Nothing ever came out of it, and I never heard of any others being mentioned. Seems the best bet is PR. I don't see any others happening.

We'll see though. We'll probably control all three branches after the 2020 or 2022 elections.

[standingtall]

40. The legislative filibuster was in place the last time we had all 3 wings of government

if Democrats are willing to get rid of the legislative filibuster the next time we have all 3 wings of government than there should be nothing to stop them from stacking the supreme court and adding states. There are 5 U.S. territories that can be made states without any constitutional hurdles Puerto Rico,Guam,U.S. Virgin Islands,Northern Mariana Islands,American Samoa . Under the constitution congress controls the admission of states. So if we control the congress we can ad these states and if we control the supreme court there wouldn't be much to stop us. As far as D.C. there is a constitutional question rather a capital can be a state so I wasn't even counting it.

[eleny]

25. Holding all three branches probably means we dominate many states

So we can move our elections towards paper ballots counted by eyeballs. That means we could hold the majority for a very, very long time.

[Blue_true]

29. Not really.

But we absolutely must win in 2020. Gingsberg will likely retire within that Presidency if she makes it, my guess is so will Breyer and Thomas. We need to hold the liberal seats and pick up Thomases seat, giving us a functioning majority.

[BigmanPigman]

7. The fucking moron and Malaria are already having Justice Thomas

and his wife to a private dinner, etc trying to butter him up to retire early. I just read it yesterday. Thomas has never been too crazy about the job the article said and so he may be encouraged to resign like Kennedy did. Kennedy went along with tRump's urging and his son's Deutche Bank connections didn't hurt either the situation either.

[wryter2000]

10. Any replacement for Thomas

Would be an improvement

[BigmanPigman]

27. I know!

[Freethinker65]

3. Probably so, but Trump will float disbanding the Supreme Court for a National Emergency

And watch the GOP sit on their hands again and say Trump is just bluffing and it would not be wise. The GOP actually owns this Trump "emergency" as much as Trump does.

And they will continue to seat alt-right judges to lesser courts at a rapid pace.

[smirkymonkey]

37. So depressing.

I just want to go to bed and pull the covers over my head until this nightmare is all over.

[Bok_Tukalo]

4. I think Gorsuch is the droid you are looking for

He is the most libertarian of the five.

[wryter2000]

8. Will it come before SCOTUS?

Who will bring the case?

[frazzled]

12. Congress, I should think.

It would be an infringement on their constitutional obligation to control the purse strings. They can do that, can they not?

I am appalled, and yet a part of me really wants to see him try this, so we can test the limits of presidential power. Though I agree it's a big gamble with this Supreme Court.

[Volaris]

31. Here's the thing tho:

If Trump gets away with this, and gets to say some 'thing' is an emergency just because he says it is (and not based on any actual definition of the word),

Then I'd take that as a phyrric defeat.

Because which do YOU think is the more pressing 'emergency'---nonexistant invader caravans, or dead kids in schools?

I wanna see how this plays out. My bet is with the OP---if this gets to the SC, Roberts will slap this down and ENJOY doing it: he's not gonna let the likes of Donald fucking Trump jerk his court around and not pay a price.

Let's also not forget that if the House does impeach, John Roberts will be the sitting judge in the Senate Trial, so not somebody I'd wanna piss off too much if I were the pResident.
Just sayin.

[malaise]

11. He will lose in court

Take that to the bank.

[Vinca]

13. I'm really glad he's doing this. Finally. FINALLY. Facts will be put on record.

It's not an emergency in anyone's mind except Don's. It will be in the official court record that he's a bloody fool.

[erpowers]

22. Not an Emergency in His Mind

I doubt that this is an emergency in Trump's mind. He is doing this because he is scared of losing his base. Remember, before Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity stepped in and claimed he would be dead in the water if he did not deliver on the wall, he seemed willing to sign the previous funding bill without declaring a national emergency. I do not think Trump ever really had any intention of building the wall. I think he thought he could draw this thing out for four years and keep his base excited. This seems to be a case similar to what John F. Kennedy discussed in the 1960s of a person being devoured by the tiger he tried to control. I think Trump has lost control of his base. I think a great deal of this stuff was just a game to Trump.

[smirkymonkey]

38. I will be amazed and disgusted if he gets away with this.

This cannot be happening. It's completely insane.

[madaboutharry]

14. I agree.

I think Justice Roberts actually might even loathe Trump and think that Trump is a complete disgrace. I would be shocked if Roberts went along with this madness.

I wouldn't be all that surprised if Gorsuch joined Roberts in saying no.

[nycbos]

15. Roberts cares about the legitimacy of the court.

[honest.abe]

17. Agreed.

Roberts is becoming the new Souter.

[Volaris]

32. On the Public Opinion cases, yes.

If it's a corporate contract dispute that nobody but the 2 litigants really gives a shit about, Roberts is a Corprotist, through and through heh.

And I think that's why we got the Citizens United decision we did...cause Roberts misjudged how MUCH it would impact Public Opinion...and I think he might realize that. But overall, I'm starting to respect him as The Chief.

I'm interested to see what he does with this.

[kentuck]

18. Didn't the Congress vote to give the President the power to declare "national emergencies" in 1970's

Until the Congress changes that law, Roberts would probably agree with Trump?

[PoliticAverse]

26. Yes. There are 31 "national emergencies" currently in effect. Bush and Obama declared several.

See: https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-01-11/us-currently-31-other-national-emergencies-heres-what-means

[Calista241]

21. I kinda doubt this will be successfully challenged.

The law exists that says the President can declare a state of emergency.

We're basically arguing over whether something is or is not an emergency, and I don't think the Courts will wade into that minefield for a couple reasons. First, I don't think the courts will want to have to wade into this time and time again as future Presidents declare emergencies. What if they're wrong next time? What are the repercussions if they're wrong? The Court will not want to be put in the position of governing on behalf of the executive or legislature.

I think the fix to this is to replace the law that allows Presidents to declare emergencies like this, especially if they're going to spend over a certain amount of money, or it's going to last over a certain length of time. Congress already does this with natural disaster relief packages, and authorizations of use of force, etc.

[theboss]

24. This is a strange case in that I can't imagine the conservative wing likes this

On the other hand, they have an out if they go by a strict reading of the law.

And if you have a more expansive view of executive power, well, you may go for it.

Because we treat everything as the end of history now, we never put these things in a bigger context.

[theboss]

23. I don't think it will be 5-4

I also think there's a chance it has a weird alignment with a liberal judge stating he has the right. This is a very strange situation.

[musicblind]

28. I agree.

Roberts is not a "Trump" Republican and he is a constitutionalist.

I do not see eye to eye with Roberts on almost anything, but he is a patriot and loves his country.

[GulfCoast66]

30. I don't see it and we may lose some of the Liberal judges

The law is incredibly broad and gives Congress the right to override it. Which they won’t.

Now some of the details may trip him up. I can’t see a court allowing the seizure of private lands with no legislative backing just on a presidential order.

[Awsi Dooger]

34. I agree with this

Roberts will not depart. Roberts went our way a couple of times but to apply that elsewhere is a big mistake, IMO. He is nothing like Souter.

I would expect 6-3 or 7-2

[mcar]

35. Agree