“Trump sought to raise taxes astronomically on Americans by claiming that foreigners would pay for all of it” Brought to you by the same President that claimed Mexico will pay for the wall.
I could be making a good case for the wrong idea, but...
I read the Appeals Court document and it is written as if *for* the Conservatives on the Supreme Court. It's argument is based on the SC's "Major Questions Doctrine".
Lazy wiki copy for the paragraph below:
"The major questions doctrine is a principle of statutory interpretation in United States administrative law under which, pursuant to recent Supreme Court precedent, courts have held that questions of major political or economic significance may not be delegated by Congress to executive agencies absent sufficiently clear and explicit authorization. It functions as a canon to limit broad assertions of implied powers, effectively reinforcing the role of legislative power."
That Doctrine is the darling of the Conservatives on the SC. That is also the argument the Appeals majority used: the IEEPA, which the administration cites as it's basis, nowhere states "tariff" or any synonym of tariff, and has not been used for tariffs. It has been used for sanctions. But never *indefinite* tariffs.
By the logic of that Doctrine, Trump has no standing. Frankly, I think it gives away the SC's own opinion of an "emergency" given it had a chance to take up the case months ago, did not, and let it play out in lower courts.
Now is that absolute? It can be open to hypocrisy, as show by Brett Kavanaugh in FCC vs. Consumers' Research.
Liberals think the SC is totally wanton and just for Trump. But it is following a certain logic. On the face of it, it's not that Trump is absolutely empowered. It's that the Executive is absolutely empowered in the Executive Branch (*in their lane*). I argue that's ahistorical and extremely dangerous as it is. But it's not absolute over the other branches of government or state government.
I would argue this upcoming case would make or break that assessment. If they side with the administration, it's a cop-out of the highest caliber. If it gives the President the ability to execute these based on vagueness that violates their own "Major Question Doctrine" then it would empower the Chief Executive to do anything so long as they declared it an emergency, which undercuts the very basis of Constitutional power and limits to power. They could rubber stamp anything they want with absolute authority, so long as they say "it's an emergency".
If they find against the administration, it's a sign that the SC at least abides by its own logic: the government is three coequal branches imbued with specific powers. The Executive is the leader of the Executive Branch, but is not able to proclaim powers not specifically invested in it by another branch. (Whether any branch can give away power if they do so specifically is another matter). It's a push back on Executive Overreach, and will be a necessary correction back to checks and balances.
The administration may argue consequences (as phony as those are) but the Court has allowed for all his Executive Branch shakeups regardless of major consequences such as thousands of people bring fired. The Court (at least says) it cares about the facts and not the feelings or moral correctness.
If it makes an exception for Trump, it's giving away a game to give him deference and you might as well get your passport out right now. But it may also be finally a pushback, because it's a pushback based on their own logic. Don't forget, these guys and gals are from the Federalist Society. They're supposedly for limited government and States Rights. I don't say that flippantly, except in a case where they hypocritically act against those beliefs.
Based on their own think tank, they should be against Trump on this one. This would also be a benchmark for two other imminent cases: the firing of Cook (after the Fed was the only agency they said was totally independent) and the use of National Guard Troops in a situation of domestic policing and/or to be Federalized and enter a state despite no actual insurrection, emergency, or obstruction of Federal law and no request from the local government. (Even with a request, it would still be illegal).
The SC doesn't like getting into intent as much anymore, but when they keep saying "you better lower the interest rates or else" and fire Cook on an alternate basis, it's hard to turn a blind eye. In the Chicago case, saying "crime" and they're going to send troops to fight domestic crime, it's hard to turn a blind eye if the administration then tries to say "oh, just immigration". And if a state files a lawsuit against you, and keeps saying crime statistics, it's hard to say there's an insurrection. Crime is a bad thing, but it's a domestic issue. Sending in troops to fight domestic crime is like you shooting my grandma in December, me asking why, and you saying "well she gets sick every winter"; it has a logic but it's overreach, the wrong answer and illegal.
Cook is the one area of the Executive realm the SC put off limits from arbitrary decisions. The Chicago issue is a States Rights, Local Rights and Federalism issue alongside a military overreach issue. These three cases would be the trifecta to look out for in terms of how much the SC cares about law, separation of powers and limited government.
If they find against the administration, they are honest in what they're doing. We then have a SC that may be disagreeable but at least has a logic and will maintain the ship of state, and protect individuals and local government against Executive Overreach. If they find for the administration, it's a bunch of lick-spittles finding any excuse and twisting all logic to embolden the Presidency as the ruling position, and Trump specifically, with no checks on power, and the ability to do anything with the excuse of "emergency" and "national defense". It places the Chief Executive as a rubber stamp tyrant able to subsume the will of the people, local government and state government to personal whims and decisions.
I'm a flag waving, "I may not agree with what you say, but defend to the death your right to say it" patriot. I'm not a fair weather techno-bro tyrant on either side. Those people are why we got to what we're dealing with. The saddest part is that if this were any Democrat, your gut would know it'd all be thrown out. Biden had student loan plans thrown out as overreach. Maybe even if this was any Republican. But there's some dark loss of hope in our souls that questions if it will be, just because it's Donald Trump. And that nihilism may be correct. What the Hell happened to us?
On a side note, the three dissenting voices on that case I mentioned earlier were Gorsuch, Alito and Thomas. The most interesting freak of nature is if you got a majority *against* Trump because those three joined with the three Liberals on the court.
Really well argued. Thanks for doing a Deeper Dive on that. I agree that, if the Supreme Court decisions go pro-Trump on the matters you pointed out, then we don't have rule of law anymore because they are not even being true to their own constitutional legal principles.
If the Supreme Court goes along with Bissent's claim yesterday that disallowing his tariffs, as having been decreed outside his authority, would throw the administration and its negotiations into turmoil or go with the concern that so much damage has been done in one direction now that swinging the whole world the other way would just compound damage and make it all pointless in the end, those problems are THEIR creation exactly as you say:
"The administration may argue consequences (as phony as those are) but the Court has allowed for all his Executive Branch shakeups regardless of major consequences such as thousands of people bring fired. The Court (at least says) it cares about the facts and not the feelings or moral correctness."
They are the ones who--by allowing Trump so much leeway to keep acting by executive decree on matters that are not even normally under presidential power UNTIL a case works its way up them--have allowed enormous troubles to rapidly build up. If they say we can't change course away from unconstitutionally declared tariffs on the basis that it has gone this far, they are the ones who allowed it to go this far with their stays and injunctions on lower-court decisions that allowed Trump to keep going until the matter finally reaches the Supreme Court.
Thank you, David. It really gets into the problems of the theory of the 'Unitary Executive', which is what the current Supreme Court is relying on. That theory is the basis for the idea that the President is absolute in the Executive Branch, but not in the other branches of government.
The problem being, it leads to exactly these kinds of problems. It does not reign in the Executive well before getting to this point. Nor does it allow lower courts to contain them prior to the Supreme Court. Nor does it pay attention to the fact that Federal Agencies were not designed for or with the idea of the Executive being absolute over them. If that was in mind, they would have been set up differently by past Congresses.
Nor does it pay attention to the fact that Trump's understanding of the Presidency is that of a 10 year old who thinks the President is the big man who makes all the decisions. The President is an official only to enact or reject acts of Congress or direct the nation in a more dare I say "spiritual" level of ideas. Presidents are intended as something of a figure head with some powers.
Trump has mistaken the idea of a Unitary Executive with the idea that he is the government. Liberals have made that mistake too. That's not what that theory says. He can manage all the Executive departments he wants. But Congress is just as absolute in Congressional authorities and duties, the Supreme Court is just as absolute in law, and States are just as absolute in their governance, local actions and decisions and interpretations of their State Constitutions. Neither can push into the other's realm, except where that power has been explicitly ceded in an organized scope and makeup by those bodies or by the Constitution.
Again, dangerous theory because we see the practice. These are the results of the Supreme Court's decisions. And the Court should reign these all in, based on both the "Major Questions Doctrine" and "Unitary Executive Theory". But it stands to be seen. If they decide for Trump, they're used car salesman saying whatever line sells a dangerous, Nationalist perversion of Conservativism which violates all individual liberty and limited government grounds Conservatism has traditionally stood for. The purpose of American government is to hope for our better angels and stop our worst demons by hard limits and delegation of power and oversight.
The Unitary Executive theory allows what I'll term "jackass momentum" to build up because it lets a President run in a circle at 100 miles an hour, so long as its in the fence of the Executive Branch. That momentum can be so strong that it threatens to burst forth even over the laws, separation of powers and limited government of the Constitution itself.
Let's face it: What none of it accounted for was someone like Trump ever being electable in the first place. They all thought it was a problem that would never arrive.
I would say stock up now because the price of wheelbarrows made in China is going to rise as quickly as they become necessary for transporting the money you'll need just to buy one.
“Trump sought to raise taxes astronomically on Americans by claiming that foreigners would pay for all of it” Brought to you by the same President that claimed Mexico will pay for the wall.
I could be making a good case for the wrong idea, but...
I read the Appeals Court document and it is written as if *for* the Conservatives on the Supreme Court. It's argument is based on the SC's "Major Questions Doctrine".
Lazy wiki copy for the paragraph below:
"The major questions doctrine is a principle of statutory interpretation in United States administrative law under which, pursuant to recent Supreme Court precedent, courts have held that questions of major political or economic significance may not be delegated by Congress to executive agencies absent sufficiently clear and explicit authorization. It functions as a canon to limit broad assertions of implied powers, effectively reinforcing the role of legislative power."
That Doctrine is the darling of the Conservatives on the SC. That is also the argument the Appeals majority used: the IEEPA, which the administration cites as it's basis, nowhere states "tariff" or any synonym of tariff, and has not been used for tariffs. It has been used for sanctions. But never *indefinite* tariffs.
By the logic of that Doctrine, Trump has no standing. Frankly, I think it gives away the SC's own opinion of an "emergency" given it had a chance to take up the case months ago, did not, and let it play out in lower courts.
Now is that absolute? It can be open to hypocrisy, as show by Brett Kavanaugh in FCC vs. Consumers' Research.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/brett-kavanaugh-putting-thumb-scale-100000027.html
Liberals think the SC is totally wanton and just for Trump. But it is following a certain logic. On the face of it, it's not that Trump is absolutely empowered. It's that the Executive is absolutely empowered in the Executive Branch (*in their lane*). I argue that's ahistorical and extremely dangerous as it is. But it's not absolute over the other branches of government or state government.
I would argue this upcoming case would make or break that assessment. If they side with the administration, it's a cop-out of the highest caliber. If it gives the President the ability to execute these based on vagueness that violates their own "Major Question Doctrine" then it would empower the Chief Executive to do anything so long as they declared it an emergency, which undercuts the very basis of Constitutional power and limits to power. They could rubber stamp anything they want with absolute authority, so long as they say "it's an emergency".
If they find against the administration, it's a sign that the SC at least abides by its own logic: the government is three coequal branches imbued with specific powers. The Executive is the leader of the Executive Branch, but is not able to proclaim powers not specifically invested in it by another branch. (Whether any branch can give away power if they do so specifically is another matter). It's a push back on Executive Overreach, and will be a necessary correction back to checks and balances.
The administration may argue consequences (as phony as those are) but the Court has allowed for all his Executive Branch shakeups regardless of major consequences such as thousands of people bring fired. The Court (at least says) it cares about the facts and not the feelings or moral correctness.
If it makes an exception for Trump, it's giving away a game to give him deference and you might as well get your passport out right now. But it may also be finally a pushback, because it's a pushback based on their own logic. Don't forget, these guys and gals are from the Federalist Society. They're supposedly for limited government and States Rights. I don't say that flippantly, except in a case where they hypocritically act against those beliefs.
Based on their own think tank, they should be against Trump on this one. This would also be a benchmark for two other imminent cases: the firing of Cook (after the Fed was the only agency they said was totally independent) and the use of National Guard Troops in a situation of domestic policing and/or to be Federalized and enter a state despite no actual insurrection, emergency, or obstruction of Federal law and no request from the local government. (Even with a request, it would still be illegal).
The SC doesn't like getting into intent as much anymore, but when they keep saying "you better lower the interest rates or else" and fire Cook on an alternate basis, it's hard to turn a blind eye. In the Chicago case, saying "crime" and they're going to send troops to fight domestic crime, it's hard to turn a blind eye if the administration then tries to say "oh, just immigration". And if a state files a lawsuit against you, and keeps saying crime statistics, it's hard to say there's an insurrection. Crime is a bad thing, but it's a domestic issue. Sending in troops to fight domestic crime is like you shooting my grandma in December, me asking why, and you saying "well she gets sick every winter"; it has a logic but it's overreach, the wrong answer and illegal.
Cook is the one area of the Executive realm the SC put off limits from arbitrary decisions. The Chicago issue is a States Rights, Local Rights and Federalism issue alongside a military overreach issue. These three cases would be the trifecta to look out for in terms of how much the SC cares about law, separation of powers and limited government.
If they find against the administration, they are honest in what they're doing. We then have a SC that may be disagreeable but at least has a logic and will maintain the ship of state, and protect individuals and local government against Executive Overreach. If they find for the administration, it's a bunch of lick-spittles finding any excuse and twisting all logic to embolden the Presidency as the ruling position, and Trump specifically, with no checks on power, and the ability to do anything with the excuse of "emergency" and "national defense". It places the Chief Executive as a rubber stamp tyrant able to subsume the will of the people, local government and state government to personal whims and decisions.
I'm a flag waving, "I may not agree with what you say, but defend to the death your right to say it" patriot. I'm not a fair weather techno-bro tyrant on either side. Those people are why we got to what we're dealing with. The saddest part is that if this were any Democrat, your gut would know it'd all be thrown out. Biden had student loan plans thrown out as overreach. Maybe even if this was any Republican. But there's some dark loss of hope in our souls that questions if it will be, just because it's Donald Trump. And that nihilism may be correct. What the Hell happened to us?
On a side note, the three dissenting voices on that case I mentioned earlier were Gorsuch, Alito and Thomas. The most interesting freak of nature is if you got a majority *against* Trump because those three joined with the three Liberals on the court.
Really well argued. Thanks for doing a Deeper Dive on that. I agree that, if the Supreme Court decisions go pro-Trump on the matters you pointed out, then we don't have rule of law anymore because they are not even being true to their own constitutional legal principles.
If the Supreme Court goes along with Bissent's claim yesterday that disallowing his tariffs, as having been decreed outside his authority, would throw the administration and its negotiations into turmoil or go with the concern that so much damage has been done in one direction now that swinging the whole world the other way would just compound damage and make it all pointless in the end, those problems are THEIR creation exactly as you say:
"The administration may argue consequences (as phony as those are) but the Court has allowed for all his Executive Branch shakeups regardless of major consequences such as thousands of people bring fired. The Court (at least says) it cares about the facts and not the feelings or moral correctness."
They are the ones who--by allowing Trump so much leeway to keep acting by executive decree on matters that are not even normally under presidential power UNTIL a case works its way up them--have allowed enormous troubles to rapidly build up. If they say we can't change course away from unconstitutionally declared tariffs on the basis that it has gone this far, they are the ones who allowed it to go this far with their stays and injunctions on lower-court decisions that allowed Trump to keep going until the matter finally reaches the Supreme Court.
Thank you, David. It really gets into the problems of the theory of the 'Unitary Executive', which is what the current Supreme Court is relying on. That theory is the basis for the idea that the President is absolute in the Executive Branch, but not in the other branches of government.
The problem being, it leads to exactly these kinds of problems. It does not reign in the Executive well before getting to this point. Nor does it allow lower courts to contain them prior to the Supreme Court. Nor does it pay attention to the fact that Federal Agencies were not designed for or with the idea of the Executive being absolute over them. If that was in mind, they would have been set up differently by past Congresses.
Nor does it pay attention to the fact that Trump's understanding of the Presidency is that of a 10 year old who thinks the President is the big man who makes all the decisions. The President is an official only to enact or reject acts of Congress or direct the nation in a more dare I say "spiritual" level of ideas. Presidents are intended as something of a figure head with some powers.
Trump has mistaken the idea of a Unitary Executive with the idea that he is the government. Liberals have made that mistake too. That's not what that theory says. He can manage all the Executive departments he wants. But Congress is just as absolute in Congressional authorities and duties, the Supreme Court is just as absolute in law, and States are just as absolute in their governance, local actions and decisions and interpretations of their State Constitutions. Neither can push into the other's realm, except where that power has been explicitly ceded in an organized scope and makeup by those bodies or by the Constitution.
Again, dangerous theory because we see the practice. These are the results of the Supreme Court's decisions. And the Court should reign these all in, based on both the "Major Questions Doctrine" and "Unitary Executive Theory". But it stands to be seen. If they decide for Trump, they're used car salesman saying whatever line sells a dangerous, Nationalist perversion of Conservativism which violates all individual liberty and limited government grounds Conservatism has traditionally stood for. The purpose of American government is to hope for our better angels and stop our worst demons by hard limits and delegation of power and oversight.
The Unitary Executive theory allows what I'll term "jackass momentum" to build up because it lets a President run in a circle at 100 miles an hour, so long as its in the fence of the Executive Branch. That momentum can be so strong that it threatens to burst forth even over the laws, separation of powers and limited government of the Constitution itself.
Let's face it: What none of it accounted for was someone like Trump ever being electable in the first place. They all thought it was a problem that would never arrive.
It will be a wonderful day when the human race can feel shame again.
how far into the future are the Weimar wheelbarrows you think?
I would say stock up now because the price of wheelbarrows made in China is going to rise as quickly as they become necessary for transporting the money you'll need just to buy one.
Tarrifs on my cash wheelbarrow ..😭....probably best to just burn in it in place for warmth
:)