I need to post this one quickly because I feel as if Linda Greenhouse (second item) may have caught a nuance in the Supreme Court tariffs decision that nobody else (to my knowledge) has caught.
Sarah Isgur’s reading of the tea leaves on the current Supreme Court’s “agenda” (first item) is also good. Don’t worry: the “agenda” according to Isgur is restoring the structural balance that gives Congress the preeminent role in our constitutional system. But can this Congress, a bunch of sycophants and social media influencers, rise to the sober occasion?
Civics lessons
“What the Roberts Court Is Actually Trying to Accomplish”
One of my pet peeves—no, it’s bigger than a peeve; more like an exasperation—is people who get paid for written opinions insouciantly treating the Supreme Court as just another bunch of partisan political hacks serving the interests of whichever major party has more SCOTUS appointees.
Sarah Isgur demonstrates to the attentive reader that they do their readers a disservice and lazily bear false witness when they treat the present court that way.
In preventing presidents from both parties from digging up decades-old statutes with vague language as the basis to expand their own power, as Trump tried to do in the tariffs case, the Court is forcing Congress to assert itself. Democrats in the past have criticized these kinds of decisions, arguing that the experts in executive-branch agencies are better positioned to address emerging crises than Congress is. But in Trump’s second term, they might now be realizing the value in limiting the power of presidents. After all, this is the logic by which the Court has stopped Trump from implementing worldwide tariffs at a whim and deploying the National Guard into cities. I predict that the justices will rule against Trump for the same reason in the upcoming birthright-citizenship case.
Her version of what I take to be her top-level theme: “Trump will be a more powerful president over a weaker presidency.” If that sounds like double-talk, then you definitely need to follow that shared link and thus brush up what I hope you knew after your high school Civics class.
Losing Patience with POTUS
Linda Greenhouse, whose Supreme Court analysis I ofter disagree with or even detest, has a very interesting comment on Chief Justice Roberts’ concise opinion in the tariffs case:
There was, however, one exception to the opinion’s conciseness: a meaty paragraph describing the roller-coaster course of Mr. Trump’s tariff regime. Here, with citations to seven separate executive orders omitted for the sake of readability, is the chief justice’s account:
Since imposing each set of tariffs, the president has issued several increases, reductions and other modifications. One month after imposing the 10 percent drug trafficking tariffs on Chinese goods, he increased the rate to 20 percent. One month later, he removed a statutory exemption for Chinese goods under $800. Less than a week after imposing the reciprocal tariffs, the president increased the rate on Chinese goods from 34 percent to 84 percent. The very next day, he increased the rate further still, to 125 percent. This brought the total effective tariff rate on most Chinese goods to 145 percent. The president has also shifted sets of goods into and out of the reciprocal tariff framework ([e.g.,] exempting from reciprocal tariffs beef, fruits, coffee, tea, spices and some fertilizers). And he has issued a variety of other adjustments ([e.g.,] extending “the suspension of heightened reciprocal tariffs” on Chinese imports).
For all the attention the decision in this case, Learning Resources v. Trump, has received, this paragraph has gone largely unremarked. I understand why; it’s unnecessary to the opinion’s argument. If, as a matter of law, the tariffs are invalid, it doesn’t matter whether they were imposed sensibly or capriciously. The paragraph is, in a word, gratuitous, something that can rarely be said about a passage in a Roberts opinion. So what is it doing there?
The answer, I think, is that the chief justice is sending a message not necessarily or not only to Mr. Trump but also to the waiting world. Something along the lines of, “People, this is what we’re dealing with.”
Bravo! Bravissimo!
Linda Greenhouse, John Roberts Is Losing Patience With Trump (emphasis added).
Shorts
- Correlation doesn’t imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing “look over there.” Randall Munroe via Maarten Boudry.
- Nothing has misled the American people to the warped belief that the president can act like a king more than this stupid, boring, performative after-dinner speech from hell. (Bill Maher on the State of the Union address)
- He’s already given himself a grade—“A-plus-plus-plus-plus-plus.” (Emma Tucker, Wall Street Journal, anticipating the State of the Union address)
- If your child tells you they will kill themselves if you do not allow them to medically transition (perhaps following a script he or she is provided on Reddit or Tumblr), take them to the hospital so they can be treated for suicidal ideation. Suicidal ideation and seeking transition are separate issues, so separate them. (Scott Newgent, Forget What Gender Activists Tell You. Here’s What Medical Transition Looks Like)
- Should we trust the science? Sure, in theory — but only when the science in question has earned our trust through transparency and rigor. (Jesse Singal)
- We do not go to church to understand. Rather, we go to church to meet God, and there is probably a great deal of that meeting which will have nothing to do with understanding. (Fr. Meletios Webber, Bread & Water, Wine & Oil)
Elsewhere in Tipsyworld
- Former ICE instructor says agency slashed training for new officers. Least startling whistle-blowing in a long time.
Tipsy Teetotaler ن 