This is John Batchelch, conversation with the Professor Josh Blackman writing at the Civitas Institute

about the Supreme Court and the powers of the presidency over the last hundred years,

like a wave up and down, up and down, the Lochner era, the New Deal era, the Warren Court, the Berger Court,

the Rehnquist Court, now the Roberts Court. What I take from this is that on the bench now are

lawyers, and that signifies a deal when it comes to reconsidering or considering again a case

where Richard Nixon was limited in what he could impound,

that is, not spend.

It's a matter for the Trump administration now to not spend,

and the court will decide whether they have the power to refuse to descend.

The technical word is impoundment.

Here's Josh to explain why things might have changed here in the 21st century. Much more of this tonight. Yeah, I think train is a problem, but I don't know

how much viability train has going forward. And I think what you said is correct. I'll go back to your opening

remarks. Justice Kagan described Congress's dealing with Nixon as a war, waging a battle. And it's just such

strong terms. And in some regards, the Berger Court got in on that war. They got in on that battle,

and they thought that they were co-combatants with Congress trying to restrain a dangerous president.

I think the difference now is the Supreme Court is mostly lawyers who serves in the executive branch.

And they're actually sympathetic to the views taken by Nixon, they're taken by Reagan, to be taken by the Bushes.

So they may see this not as a war, but as kind of a retreat and bringing things back to where they were before the Nixon debacle.