How will the Supreme Court vote on the "national emergency"?

[kentuck]

They voted with Trump on the "ban" and many are expecting a similar result with this issue, also.

But, there is a difference.

We will know after their vote if they are simply a partisan tool of the Republicans or if they still take the Constitution seriously?

It is a very basic constitutional issue about separation of powers. Does the Congress have the power of the purse, as stated in the Constitution, or can the President assume that power thru the National Emergency Act of 1976?

All the Justices have stated that they will follow the law as written in our Constitution.

Soon, we will know. Either way, it will show just how serious the threat is to our Constitution.

[ginnyinWI]

1. Okay but not probably very soon.

It sounds to me like it will be a long process in the courts. Like a couple of years maybe.

[brush]

15. Roberts will side with the Libs as he doesn't want the legacy of his court...

to be one of stomping on the Constitution by going along with this power grab by the executive branch.

[dalton99a]

2. There is a remedy to root out Trumpism: Expand the court

when Democrats regain control of the White House and Senate.

[spin]

6. Of course when the Republicans regain control they will retaliate by ...

also expanding the court. Eventually after a few decades the Supreme Court will have 101 Justices. It will be necessary to build a brand new enormous building to house the expanded Supreme Court.

[dalton99a]

9. They will have to wait their turn

[California_Republic]

3. Congress should repeal or modify the national emergency act

[PubliusEnigma]

4. The hopes for the future of our Nation ride on the shoulders of Chief Justice John Roberts.

He will be the one who finally stops Trump, or doesn't.

[jaysunb]

7. +1. n/t

[ooky]

10. And the health of RGB,

and our ability to take back the Senate and White House in 2020, so she can finally enjoy a well deserved retirement.

[UniteFightBack]

11. Just thinking about this....

and the horrid possibility of rump for 4 more years...really gets me stressed.

[PoliticAverse]

5. How did they vote on the 31 other "national emergencies" currently in effect?...

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

[gldstwmn]

8. I don't think anyone challenged the validity of those as national emergencies n/t

[kwolf68]

12. Even if

This latest move toward fascist authoritarianism is rebuffed, remember how close it actually got to one man ruling by decree without any congressional oversight.

This is a man acting like this, installing extreme right wing judges into positions YET LOST the popular vote in the election.

It's just not logical to rule like this. You lose the vote you try to moderate your position to appeal to the majority of people who voted against you.

I remember when Obama was elected in 2008, with sweeping results, the meme from the Republicants was "he had no mandate". Then Dolt 45 gets in on a electoral college technicality and governs like he won 90% of the vote.

These people are brazen and fearless in their attempts to reshape America as they see fit, no matter what. Trump is simply too incompetent to really achieve their dreams, but the model is now created. The next guy, with similar views as Trump, may be much brighter and we may be fucked

[onenote]

13. They will avoid the constitutional issue.

As a general rule, the federal courts endeavor to resolve cases on non-constitutional grounds when possible. In this instance, the courts will confront a couple of statutory interpretation questions before they have to reach issues of the constitutionality of the National Emergencies Act, either as a facial matter or as applied.

In particular, the courts could find that while the term "emergency" isn't defined, it cannot mean anything the president says is an emergency. And the court could find that the statutory provision cited in the National Emergency declaration does not permit the redirecting of DoD funding for the purpose of building a border wall.

The Court is going to be reluctant to find that the NEA is facially unconstitutional which would require them to determine that Congress lacks the Constitutional authority to pass legislation that authorizes the president to declare emergencies and take actions based on other statutes passed by Congress.

[machoneman]

14. No, no former NE was voted on by the SC. I do think they will reject....

...the claim simply to avoid the separation of powers issue.

Think: if Trump had ordered the Army to the border w/o any effort to take $ from the DOD, he'd be o.k.

But, oh no, he and that idiot Mulvaney (plus a cadre of stupid WH lawyers) believe thy are in the right. I also believe that those same lawyers fully know the NE will be shot down but hey, why challenge the orange idiot? Let the SC do the heavy lifting.