Acts20.com

We are most likely about to see panic among the Dems like we have never seen before. It will make the Kavanaugh hearings look civil. Letting Trump appoint a third justice is completely unacceptable to the libs.Therefore, I predict we will see the move to impeach Trump put on fast track. Such doubt about his character must be created that even Republican Senators will become afraid to hold confirmation hearings on a SCOTUS pick. Most likely, Comey appearing before the House Judiciary Committee next week is the start to this plot. But what might throw a monkey wrench into the works will be a lackluster Mueller report. So the Dems will be forced to whip up one false narrative after another, which the mews media, of course, will run with. But I predict this is where they will overplay their hand and quickly lose favor with the American people. Trump will prevail on SCOTUS and the wall. The former, along with strong leadership on economic challenges will ensure his reelection in 2020

I'm very excited about the prospect of Justice Ginsburg being replaced with a youthful conservative.

We will see. But I doubt they will overturn him. At the SCOTUS, at least 5 of the Justices will not have already made up their mind before any arguments are presented, unlike the 9th Circuit. A solid case can me made to objective judges that Trump's move is justified. Evidence will actually be considered.You still have not explained why it is bogus

Could you... show me where that is? Which, that Lincoln and FDR ignored the court? Or the constitutional power? LMGTFYHere's a fair summary, though I've read much more over the years.thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/424314-yes-trump-has-authority-to-declare-national-emergency-for-border-wall

I do appreciate a justice who reviews the evidence before making up his or her mind. Scalia once said (paraphrasing) that a good justice is one who writes decisions he does not like.

Yes -- specifically language in the constitution (since you said

(BTW, the whole Truman thing is really interesting. That's what ultimately prompted Congress to pass the National Emergencies Act, which was an effort to

I do appreciate a justice who reviews the evidence before making up his or her mind. Scalia once said (paraphrasing) that a good justice is one who writes decisions he does not like.And, it's bogus because it is. Truman tried it during a war -- an actually legitimate national emergency, when the US didn't have sufficient steel to fight in the Korean War -- and the Supreme Court sent him packing. Contra UncleJD, Article II of the Constitution does not contain a contingency king clause that empowers the president to unilaterally do whatever he wants if the other branches of government don't agree with him. Trying to take over an industry and using material means to enforce existing law are two different animals. Apples and Oranges

Agree to disagree I guess. They are two different animals, I agree, but the question is what the president is empowered by the NEA to do over the objection of Congress. So while nationalizing an industry is a far, far greater exercise of power, it's still an exercise of power, and I expect SCOTUS to focus on that issue rather than on the scale of the exercise. They're both apples. One of them is just a lot bigger than the other one.

I would think that Trump could use the next justice as a negotiating tool. That is: I will select a MUTUALLY AGREED UPON nominee...in return for FULL FUNDING of the wall.