Trump threatens to impose 100% tariffs on BRICS nations
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
'Not strategic moves': Law professor says court may stop Trump's key orders
Writing for the New York Times, Pearlstein, a visiting professor of law and public affairs at Princeton and the director of its Program in Law and Public Policy, said that the new administration is clearly less concerned with the legality of its executive orders.
"These are not the strategic moves of a legal A team focused on insulating itself against judicial correction, or teeing up a model case to persuade the courts to move the law in a new direction," she wrote Thursday. "These seem more like the orders of a team unconcerned with the risks of any legal challenge at all."
While there is a fear that the courts will simply give in to Trump's demands, judges are already stepping in. On Wednesday, Trump's government funding freeze was itself frozen by a judge. While that's likely being repealed, it will be a long process for Trump lawyers at a time the administration is purging career employees who might work on those cases.
Federal District Court Judge John C. Coughenour also blocked Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship.
"The courts," Pearlstein wrote, "are not so dominated by partisan judges that any action challenging a Republican president will inevitably fail."
She noted that Trump was able to appoint more than 200 judges during his first four years in office, but researchers found that even those judges aren't handing "wins" to Trump out of loyalty.
She recalled stories of lawyers who, during his first term, were able to curb some of Trump's "most lawless efforts." Not having those lawyers on hand may mean more erratic orders, but that doesn't mean they'll survive any legal scrutiny.
"Getting lawyers to back absolutely anything Mr. Trump wants may not be as easy as the president and his advisers think," wrote Pearlstein, noting that they are bound by ethics rules.
"That may explain why some of these early orders in the new administration are largely devoid of specific legal guidance — and why they stand a fair chance of being overturned in the courts," she closed.
Writing for the New York Times, Pearlstein, a visiting professor of law and public affairs at Princeton and the director of its Program in Law and Public Policy, said that the new administration is clearly less concerned with the legality of its executive orders.
"These are not the strategic moves of a legal A team focused on insulating itself against judicial correction, or teeing up a model case to persuade the courts to move the law in a new direction," she wrote Thursday. "These seem more like the orders of a team unconcerned with the risks of any legal challenge at all."
While there is a fear that the courts will simply give in to Trump's demands, judges are already stepping in. On Wednesday, Trump's government funding freeze was itself frozen by a judge. While that's likely being repealed, it will be a long process for Trump lawyers at a time the administration is purging career employees who might work on those cases.
Federal District Court Judge John C. Coughenour also blocked Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship.
"The courts," Pearlstein wrote, "are not so dominated by partisan judges that any action challenging a Republican president will inevitably fail."
She noted that Trump was able to appoint more than 200 judges during his first four years in office, but researchers found that even those judges aren't handing "wins" to Trump out of loyalty.
She recalled stories of lawyers who, during his first term, were able to curb some of Trump's "most lawless efforts." Not having those lawyers on hand may mean more erratic orders, but that doesn't mean they'll survive any legal scrutiny.
"Getting lawyers to back absolutely anything Mr. Trump wants may not be as easy as the president and his advisers think," wrote Pearlstein, noting that they are bound by ethics rules.
"That may explain why some of these early orders in the new administration are largely devoid of specific legal guidance — and why they stand a fair chance of being overturned in the courts," she closed.
Basically what is happening is the senile old fuck has lost the plot. In his first term, he was able to figure out what orders were sort of appropriate and legal and follow that path.
Now he is 8 years more senile and grandiose. I suspect that his office has been taken over by charlatans, legal whores and grifters who write any dumb legislation that Stephen Miller or Elon Musk tell them to. These EO's are stupid, unconstitutional and legally invalid and the blue state attorney-generals are going to massacre one stupid, illegal EO after another.
It's a massive waste of time. His staff is not competent or ethical enough to produce competent, defensible EO's that can survive legal challenges in the courts.
Now he is 8 years more senile and grandiose. I suspect that his office has been taken over by charlatans, legal whores and grifters who write any dumb legislation that Stephen Miller or Elon Musk tell them to. These EO's are stupid, unconstitutional and legally invalid and the blue state attorney-generals are going to massacre one stupid, illegal EO after another.
It's a massive waste of time. His staff is not competent or ethical enough to produce competent, defensible EO's that can survive legal challenges in the courts.
Trump is the illusion of a strong and intelligent leader. It works with maga imbecile.
And every mention of trump seems to come with a salute
I don't think that's true.
He had people with Washington experience writing them for him instead of just social media MAGA faithful.
So they were better.
But even then they would often write things that even his supporters in the judiciary couldn't back.
Remember the Muslim ban?
The courts sent it back repeatedly with suggestions on how to fix it so they could approve it until he got it right.
I suspect we will see a similar pattern here.
IIRC, the Muslim ban was approved relatively quickly. So the errors were relatively minor.
I am more optimistic about the judiciary than you are. IMO, unless they're thrown a particularly tasty bone - i.e. abortion and Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett - they have no real reason to love Trump any more than any other administration. And when he does shit that is totally off the radar screen - like banning birthright citizenship - they're going to slap him down.
My impression is that his staff now is less professional and adequate than during his first administration. He is purging heavily. He had a parade of lawyers disbarred during his election litigation after 2020. So lawyers are leery about working for him and resigning or ducking assignments.
Given the very low calibre of his cabinet appointees, basic competence is going to be a serious issue in this administration, as much as weird, fucked-up policies and ideology.
If he imposes tariffs on all the major countries of the world and they stop selling in the US, how does that bode for the US economy that depends on imports?
And then you'd have to consider whether it is effective.
Even a 100% tariff will still make Chinese products cheaper than manufacturing in the US for example.
And then you'd have to consider whether it is effective.
Even a 100% tariff will still make Chinese products cheaper than manufacturing in the US for example.
Someone has to.
Trump definitely doesn't.
He put out the muslim ban executive order on January 27, 2017, one week into his presidency.
The Supreme Court upheld the third version of it on June 26, 2018.
So 17 months.
Yes, I think we both consider that to be true.
I would phrase it differently, but am more or less in agreement.
The more salient the political issue, the more they vote like absolute partisans.
So if things are purely procedural, they tend to vote the way "legal reasoning" would make you expect.
If things are political issues, they are more likely to vote politically.
That's a political issue though.
The lower courts might mostly smack him down, but the Supremes may very well decide it based on policy goals.
But, as I said, there are lots of "this makes us look like chumps, at least give us a fig leaf man" pathways to run down.
Oh yes.
But you also have a court that is now a super majority and has already committed to more bad shit.
So he can be much sloppier than he was.
It isn' t unlimited though, I agree.
Oh, like most fascists and authoritarians, there is a lot of clownish incompetence.
That doesn't mean they aren't dangerous and it won't stop people getting hurt.
Muslim Ban 3.0 has been put in place in about the same time.
I'm sure you are right, and yes, its a new one.
Lost in the volume of other crazy EO's.
I wonder how much of these items are produced in the US now.
Thank you. I will be taking advantage of the exchange rate that keeps trending in our favor.
Please do. Clearly, a weaker dollar will make Canada more competitive.
PS: Your inflation rate will rise.
Right now the Canadian dollar is falling. That’s why I want to take advantage.
let’s see how these tariffs do before we make that judgment. You’re not an economist . You regurgitate information without understanding it.
