Susan Li: Let’s talk about the Supreme Court and how it’s divided. So we have four Liberals, four Conservatives, Justice Roberts and they had a swing vote, Brad. And I guess it’s up in the air how he’ll decide.
Brad Micklin: Right, I think the decision’s going to turn more on the actual issues, as they should, than the makeup of the court. I mean here you have an issue of a national emergency, yet a lot of the statistics are suggesting that the numbers are actually reducing with border issues. So it’s going to be challenging to argue that the Supreme Court would decide this based on its makeup and not the actual facts of it.
Susan Li: Okay, Brad, so you know, again, this is not the first time that the president has used and invoked a national emergency. As I mentioned, Clinton, 17 times he’s declared it. George W Bush, 12 times. Obama, 13 times. So isn’t there already a precedent?
Brad Micklin: Well there’s obviously a precedent because it’s a power invested in the president. The problem here, or the uniqueness to this issue, is that almost all the past usages were for foreign crises or international issues. This is for a domestic construction, so it’s viewed very differently.
Brad Micklin: But I think the issue is, really, it shouldn’t even go to the Supreme Court. I think that we often invest into the Supreme Court the right to make our decisions and our laws but it really should go to Congress and see if they get the super majority.
Susan Li: We tried this. We tried this, didn’t we?
Doug Burns: Right, exactly.
Brad Micklin: Well no, that’s for the budget.
Susan Li: There was a 35-day shutdown for a reason.
Brad Micklin: Right, but they could still vote to change the national emergency. The President can veto it and then Congress can super majority veto his veto. And that would be the true test of whether or not they support us.
Susan Li: I don’t know, that might be a waste of time since we have been through this so many times.
Brad Micklin: But we’re going to spend years in the Supreme Court to just to get the same decision.
Susan Li: I don’t think it’s going to be the same. Okay, so let’s switch topics though, okay? Because there’s another pressing issue that we need to discuss on legal grounds. And the Supreme Court has now agreed to decide whether the Trump administration can add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, but Brad, isn’t there a bit of a time crunch because the census has to be printed by June?
Susan Li: So where do you think the Justices are gonna come down on this?
Brad Micklin: Well, you’re exactly right. I think whether they come down or not, I know they did decide to expedite the hearing on this. But considering the deadline and the importance of this because if they don’t do it now, it’s 10 years before we get to go it again, I think the consensus are gonna go out without the question.
Susan Li: But isn’t it leading? I mean is this legal to add a citizenship question in the census, Brad?
Brad Micklin: Well sure. I mean they’ve done in the past for many, many years. The question now is, both sides to a certain extent suggest that this question is going to frustrate the purpose of the consensus to get the true accurate representation of people, so putting this question is going to decrease responses.