Do not depend on SCOTUS when it comes to stopping Trump

[Czarcasm]

The Supreme court gave a green light to Trump’s bulldozing through The National Butterfly Center to build his wall.

Hundreds of thousands of butterflies flit through the center’s 100-acre sanctuary. But 70 percent of the land will eventually be on the other side the wall, said Marianna Wright, the executive director.

The ruling means his administration gets to bypass 28 federal laws, including the Endangered Species Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. Contract workers actually came on the property unannounced July of 2017 before any ruling or even notice had been made, and started chainsawing trees in the wildlife refuge.
The topper?

By waiving requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, the Trump administration will also be skipping over an analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the wall. The federally regulated analysis also typically offers ways to lessen the harm of its projects.
“It’s a lot harder to clean up after the fact than prevent it in the first place,” Eliseuson said.

[Sage_Rat]

For the most part, I expect SCOTUS to rule according to the law. If the law supports Trump, then SCOTUS will not stop Trump. If the law goes against Trump, then SCOTUS will stop Trump.

[Little_Nemo]

@Sage_Rat

For the most part, I expect SCOTUS to rule according to the law. If the law supports Trump, then SCOTUS will not stop Trump. If the law goes against Trump, then SCOTUS will stop Trump.

If everyone agrees on what the law is, the Supreme Court doesn’t get involved. The Supreme Court interprets the law when people can’t agree on what the law says.

I expect that this Supreme Court will choose to interpret the law in a way that is favorable to Donald Trump.

[HurricaneDitka]

The issue, in Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Department of Homeland Security, was apparently

Whether Section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act—which grants the Secretary of Homeland Security sweeping power to waive any or all legal requirements in her sole discretion, and then insulates that exercise of discretion from judicial review—violates the separation of powers.

Section 102(c) of the Act reads:

WAIVER.—The provisions of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973 and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 are
waived to the extent the Attorney General determines necessary
to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under
this section

I’m not sure which particular waiver was at issue in this case, but here’s an example of one such DHS waiver