Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are no “attacks on people’s voting rights.” It’s a canard Democrats trot out to energize their base, just like Republicans trot out lies about election fraud. For example, studies show voter ID doesn’t reduce turnout (but also doesn’t reduce fraud). https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/21/18230009/v... . Gerrymandering doesn’t affect the presidential election. But the GOP won the House popular vote by…
You are so dead wrong I don't even know where to start. Gerrymandering doesn't affect the presidential election? Surveys show how everyone would have voted? Do you even hear yourself?
US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal
221–230 of 568 posts
Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
I remember Obama struggling pretty hard to get Obamacare through congress (and it ended up fairly watered down).
And it started as simply rebranded Romneycare (the 2006 MA state plan), so Rs should have found it palatable. And for the first half of Obama's first term, Ds could vote in anything they wanted but we still got a terrible version of a R health care plan. FWIW, Nixoncare, totally blocked by Ted Kennedy because the dems didn't want Nixon's name on anything else that was nice (the Clean Air Act President kept claiming h…
Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Biden admin not only kept the first Trump admin's China tariffs in place but significantly expanded them under the same law. Was Biden acting like a king or does this analogy only go one way? https://edition.cnn.com/2024/09/13/politics/china-tariffs-bi... https://web.archive.org/web/20250101032222/https://www.white... "[The Biden admin intends to use] executive authority"
You called GDPR a 'trade barrier' as a justification for tariffs against the EU so it's extremely obvious you're not arguing from any position of good faith at all here.
The least interesting commentary you can imagine is of or from a country's closest friends. From many perspectives Europe is indistinguishable from America, except from being a little poorer.
Let's see America's (or Europe's!) earnest criticism of Kinshasa. C'mon, show us who you really are. I promise you it will only benefit humanity.
Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal
#224I'm not a lawyer or even close to it, but why wouldn't the trump admin use the tariff act of 1930? quote: "Whenever the President shall find as a fact that any foreign country places any burden or disadvantage upon the commerce of the United States by any of the unequal impositions or discriminations aforesaid, he shall, when he finds that the public interest will be served thereby, by proclamation specify and declar…
The Tariff Act of 1930 reflects the duality between the President’s executive power to conduct foreign policy and Congress’s legislative power to set taxes. Until the early 20th century, tariffs were the primary mechanism for raising federal revenue. So Congress viewed tariffs as a tax, within Congress’s purview. But the 1930 Tariff Act also recognizes that tariffs are also a tool of foreign policy, which is within t…
Most notably, only Congress can declare war, which has been a real sticking point in the last century and why, for example, the Korean War wasn't technically a war (it was a "police action") and why the Vietnam War wasn't either. The First and Second Gulf Wars and the War in Afghanistan at least had explicit war resolutions passed by Congress, however misguided.
Brown pelicans typically lay three eggs. Some bird species can employ "deferred incubation" such that even when eggs are born on separate days, the eggs will hatch at the same time. Brown pelicans don't do this so the chicks hatch 2-3 days apart each. The eldest gets fed more so there ends up being a size difference. What inevitably happens is the eldest two conspire to push the youngest out of the nest. If it falls out, the parents won't feed it and it will die. Then after awhile the oldest pushes and second out. 90%+ of the time only the eldest ever fledges.
Why did I tell this story? Because it basically mirros what's going on with our government. We have, at least theoretically, three branches of government that are meant to balance each other. There has been a conservative takeover of the executive and judicial branches such as to neuter the legislative branch. This Supreme Court has both stripped Congress of power (eg overturning Chevron) and empowered the presidency (eg the presidential immunity decision that had absolutely zero basis in anything; it was simply invented). They've invented doctrines to allow them to overturn basically anything Congress does (eg "major questions" and "historical tradition"). This is a coup d'etat and the end result of the 50+ year Republican Project.
What happens next, just like the pelicans, is the courts gets neutered. Conservatives now push the "unitary executive" philosophy, which is a fancy way of saying they want a dictator, not beholden to any courts or lawmkaing body. The second chick is getting pushed out of the nest. The administration is openly defying the courts on many matters (eg Kilmer Abrego Garcia) and this Supreme Court has given them the immunity to do that.
I, personally, think we are beyond the point of no return. Electoral politics cannot possibly fix this situation. At the same time, the American empire is decline. We are going to see firsthand waht a dying empire looks like and I guarantee you it won't be pretty.
[1]: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-foreign-policy-powers-co...
Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Better hope this bill that house republicans have passed dies in the senate, since in effect it lets Trump override the courts: https://robertreich.substack.com/p/the-hidden-provision-in-t...
I'm disgusted with the executive branch's actions and congressional GOP's enablement. And, since the administration at times seems to want a fig leaf of legality, maybe the bill would make a difference after all by giving them more coverage. But, overall, I'm not sure that it's the "game over" step change that some commentary makes it sound like it is.
I could be misunderstanding - comments / counterarguments welcome.
Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal
#226Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have a narrow so small that passing tariffs would still be politically difficult even though they control both chambers, and that is not even considering a filibuster. I hope this judgement stands, however, trade actually works out really well for the US economy and its job market. Yes, we don't often manufacture the thing, but we have huge roles in designing those things and packing them with software. Even Chi…
Three of the post senior citizen Democratic representatives died in office so far so the margin is actually getting bigger as time goes on, the GOP had room to make multiple mistakes on the budget bill where one GOP rep fell asleep and didn't vote and one rep was present but just missed the deadline to vote. The Democratic senators have not shown the spine to put a hold on any appointments or pull a Tuberman and not…
Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal
#227Earlier quoted context omitted.
He doesn’t have to convince the courts of that. The President makes foreign policy, not the courts. As long as the President is plausibly exercising a foreign policy power Congress gave him, the courts don’t get to reweigh the evidence and decide for themselves whether the trade deficits result from other countries placing trade barriers or something else.
Used to be a time when Congress made foreign policy. Oh, how fast they grow up... (sheds tear)
Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal
#228Earlier quoted context omitted.
He would have to convince the courts that I don't like having a trade deficit with anyone somehow means our trading partners are "placing a burden or disadvantage upon the commerce of the United States by any of the unequal impositions or discriminations aforesaid"
He doesn’t have to convince the courts of that. The President makes foreign policy, not the courts. As long as the President is plausibly exercising a foreign policy power Congress gave him, the courts don’t get to reweigh the evidence and decide for themselves whether the trade deficits result from other countries placing trade barriers or something else.
Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal
#229Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal
#230Earlier quoted context omitted.
He would have to convince the courts that I don't like having a trade deficit with anyone somehow means our trading partners are "placing a burden or disadvantage upon the commerce of the United States by any of the unequal impositions or discriminations aforesaid"
He doesn’t have to convince the courts of that. The President makes foreign policy, not the courts. As long as the President is plausibly exercising a foreign policy power Congress gave him, the courts don’t get to reweigh the evidence and decide for themselves whether the trade deficits result from other countries placing trade barriers or something else.