Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 2
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/05/28/business/us-cou... A federal court on Wednesday ruled that President Donald Trump overstepped his authority to impose sweeping tariffs that have raised the cost of imports for everyone from giant businesses to everyday Americans.
A three-judge panel at the US Court of International Trade, a relatively low-profile court in Manhattan, stopped Trump’s global tariffs that he imposed citing emergency economic powers, including the “Liberation Day” tariffs he announced on April 2. It also prevents Trump from enforcing his tariffs placed earlier this year against China, Mexico and Canada, designed to combat fentanyl coming into the United States.
The order halts Trump’s 30% tariffs on China, his 25% tariffs on some goods imported from Mexico and Canada, and the 10% universal tariffs on most goods coming into the United States. It does not, however, affect the 25% tariffs on autos, auto parts, steel or aluminum, which were subject to Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act – a different law than the one Trump cited for his broader trade actions.
White House spokesperson Kush Desai said in a statement that: “It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency. President Trump pledged to put America First, and the Administration is committed to using every lever of executive power to address this crisis and restore American Greatness.”
White House deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller was blunter, posting on X that “The judicial coup is out of control” in response to the news.
Jeff
No. of Recommendations: 0
No. of Recommendations: 2
<A federal court on Wednesday ruled that President Donald Trump overstepped his authority to impose sweeping tariffs that have raised the cost of imports for everyone from giant businesses to everyday Americans.
Well that is a surprise! I thought the president had unlimited power, but of course, I haven't taken the time to read the constitution.
Aussi
No. of Recommendations: 8
I'm pretty sure this story is far from over - in the courts and out. There was no mention of how much the funds expected to be collected from the tariffs (essentially a sales tax) played into "balancing" the "Big Beautiful Bill's" figures. That piece of creative literature is already upsetting to GOP deficit hawks when it included the revenue the tariffs implied that demi-god Elon Musk complained about its structure and today is being "off-ramped" from his heading of DOGE.
Tonight, after the news broke that the judges had ruled his tariffs illegal and after he had reacted angrily to a reporter’s question about the “TACO trade,” a presumably angered Trump reached out to his alt-right base as he appeared determined to demonstrate dominance. He posted a meme on his social media account showing an image of himself walking toward the viewer on what appears to be a wet, nighttime city street. Pepe the Frog, a symbol of the far right, stands in the background.
Above Trump, in all capital letters, are the words: “He’s on a mission from God.” Below his feet, also in all caps, the message continues: “& nothing can stop what is coming.” This is a phrase from the right-wing QAnon conspiracy community and refers to the idea that members of the “Deep State” and its collaborators will soon be arrested.
I've often wondered about the pace of the diverse issues currently being addressed. While Biden was president, his failing mental acuity was apparently kept from, not only the press, but even his cabinet members. That means that "aides" were, in fact, making policy and running the government to a fair degree. I imagine that much of the same "parallel" scenario is taking place in the Trump administration. The major difference is that Trump insists on injecting his own spin in many cases and has a tendency to mess around with the carefully crafted plans of his "aides".
The reality show continues to hold onto its ratings.
Jeff
No. of Recommendations: 5
While Biden was president, his failing mental acuity was apparently kept from, not only the press, but even his cabinet members. That means that "aides" were, in fact, making policy and running the government to a fair degree.
Not for nuthin’, but that is always true. The President sets the overall agenda, and aides carry out most of the dirty work: rounding up votes, writing (or help writing) legislation, deflecting people with requests, reaching out to lobbyists for support and all the rest.) There is simply far too much going on for one person to be “in charge” of it all, except in a “vision” role. Now add up all the wasted time in performance-of-the-job activities (dinners, greeting and photo-ops with donors, glad handing the little people and so on, and there’s really precious little time for the real in-the-trenches work of getting things done.
That doesn’t mean that Biden was fully on-the-job, I’m not making apologies, and the staff (particularly Chief of Staff) is probably more in charge of getting what’s important in front of the president, and thereby has a larger hand in getting things accomplished than the President himself.
Supposedly they reduced Biden’s hours to “more daylight”, less “later in the day”, which, if the Chief of Staff was competent, meant that the most important stuff still passed his desk while the chaff was shuffled off to underlings.
I’m still agog that they were able to hide his decline for so long, particularly with the kind of scrutiny that happens these days as compared with, say, Wilson’s stroke and his wife’s protective enclosure around him for such a long time.
No. of Recommendations: 11
I’m still agog that they were able to hide his decline for so long,
Did they though? Seem like a bit like revisionist hang-wringing to me : )
It makes a better story for blame allocation to say that it was a cover up, but you can't cover up something already that widely known.
It was hardly a secret that he was somewhere near the doddering end of the spectrum well before he was elected, so the only question was ever the precise degree. It's hard to say where exactly someone sits on that spectrum even with a serious test. Remember "I'm running as a proud democrat for the Senate" during the 2020 presidential race?*
Seen from afar, I would give his verbal skills an extremely low score (though did I hear he always had a habit of mixing up words?) but in the end the term was actually pretty effective. No matter one's political persuasion, they definitely got some major legislation passed through a system that is no longer built for that. I suppose one could say that it's a team sport, and the team made their goals even if the captain was not really competent.
Jim
* Though if you listen to the whole clip, the garble was more the elision of a verb or using the wrong tense, not the "senate" part. He was apparently trying to make the point that he had been a proud democrat when he ran for the senate, he had been a proud democrat when he ran for vice president, and he was then a proud democrat running for president.
My transcription, bearing in mind that nobody makes that much grammatical sense when you transcribe too literally:
"We have to come together, that's why I'm running. I'm running as a proud democrat. For the Senate. When I had run as a proud democrat for vice president. I'm running as a proud democrat for president".
For it to make sense, the intended meaning would probably have been like one of these:
"We have to come together, that's why I'm running. I'm running as a proud democrat. [I ran as a proud democrat] For the Senate. When I had run as a proud democrat for vice president. I'm running as a proud democrat for president".
--or just change the tense--
"We have to come together, that's why I'm running. I [ran] as a proud democrat. For the Senate. When I had run as a proud democrat for vice president. I'm running as a proud democrat for president".
No. of Recommendations: 0
Well, that was quick"
A federal appeals court has paused Wednesday night’s ruling from the Court of International Trade that blocked President Donald Trump’s tariffs.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s ruling restores Trump’s ability to levy tariffs using the emergency powers he declared earlier this year. The appeals court also ordered that both sides provide written arguments on the question of the blocking of Trump’s tariffs, to be filed by early next month. The appeals court set a deadline of June 5 for the plaintiffs to respond and June 9 for the government to reply.
Press secretary Karoline Leavitt defended Trump’s imposition of tariffs under a national emergency, saying the matter was already “adjudicated by Congress.” She called the three-judge panel “activist judges,” though it includes a judge appointed by Trump during his first term, and said that they “are threatening to undermine the credibility of the United States on the world stage.”
Leavitt railed against what she said was an effort to “brazenly (abuse) their judicial power to usurp Trump’s authority.”
I guess the question at-hand (or a foot) is whether the president has the authority to impose the tariffs.
Jeff
No. of Recommendations: 3
I guess the question at-hand (or a foot) is whether the president has the authority to impose the tariffs.
Certainly - he need only send a bill to congress, no? (though there might be some treaties that have to be annulled as well).
Of course he may not wish to do that for other reasons. For example, having to do with perceptions of which branch has all the power and which branches have been demoted to advisory bodies.
Jim
No. of Recommendations: 7
Did they though? Seem like a bit like revisionist hang-wringing to me : )
It makes a better story for blame allocation to say that it was a cover up, but you can't cover up something already that widely known.
Yes, it was clear that he had deteriorated from the campaign 4 years earlier, that’s why a majority of Democrats (me included) thought he was “too old” to run (and have a 4 years term) again. But once he declared no other Democrats stepped up to challenge him (well, there was one somebody who, I forget, was unknown then and is unknown now) so the contest came down to “Joe Biden vs Donald Trump”.
Given that choice, we had little choice but to go “OK, it’s Joe Biden. Again. Even though we’re not comfortable with it.”
Then came the debate, and we were all agog at the level of diminution , not just that there was “some.” It took a further week for the public, party elders, and even Hollywood royalty and other supporters to convince him to leave, and by that time there was no opportunity to run primaries or another selection mechanism and the job naturally fell to Kamala.
Yes, it was “widely known”, but I don’t think it was “widely known to the extent that his staff (and wife) knew”, and for that they should not be forgiven.
After the horrendous debate performance, Jill went up to him and said “Congratulations! You answered all the questions!”
Seriously?
No. of Recommendations: 0
“Then came the debate, and we were all agog at the level of diminution , not just that there was “some.” It took a further week for the public, party elders, and even Hollywood royalty and other supporters to convince him to leave, and by that time there was no opportunity to run primaries or another selection mechanism and the job naturally fell to Kamala.”
It took Biden nearly a month to drop out.
“A look at the 28 chaotic days between Biden’s disastrous debate and his dropout”
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/26/biden-cam...I contrast Biden’s disastrous exit with Buffett’s recent announcement. That’s the graceful way to do it. Some pols and justices just have to cling onto power, and destroy their legacy in the process.
No. of Recommendations: 1
It makes a better story for blame allocation to say that it was a cover up, but you can't cover up something already that widely known.This was precisely the point Mark Liebovich made more than a week ago in his Atlantic article:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/...Yes, it’s a cynical business, politics, but here is why I think that the “cover-up” of Biden’s “true condition” is beside the point—and why I’m not really vibing with the umbrage-mongering: It’s pretty much impossible to “cover up” for something that is hiding in plain sight. Democrats could trot out as many White House officials as they wanted to claim I was with the president just this morning, and he was sharp as a tack and running circles around staffers less than half his age. But whenever Biden was allowed to go out in public—a rarity, which itself was a red flag—the public’s preexisting consensus about his infirmity was only reinforced. Biden was in no position to keep doing his job given his condition, which had been evident for years to most people paying even casual attention. Observable facts, people: They can be a real pain to cover up.Pete
