Last week, the International Trade Court hit Donald Trump's global trade war. He found that the Trump world tariffs presented on the “Day of Liberation” also their previous tariffs pretext Aimed at stopping the fentanyl that entered Mexico and Canada (as if) were beyond their authority. The panel of three judges surely was right on the rates of the day of liberation and probably about fentanyl tariffs, but there is a better case than, although bad policy, fentanyl tariffs were not illegal.
Please forgive an extensive Trump extract answer About social truth, but says a lot:
“How is possible for [the CIT judges] Potentially having done such damage to the United States of America? Is it purely a hate of “Trump?” What other reason could it be? It was new in Washington, and it was suggested to use federalist society as a recommended source in the judges. I did it, openly and freely, but then I realized that they were under the thumb of a true 'Sreazbag' called Leonard Leo, a bad person who, in his own way, probably hates the United States, and obviously has his own separate ambitions. … In any case, Leo left federalist society to make his own “thing.” I am very disappointed with the federalist society due to the bad advice they gave me about numerous judicial nominations. This is something that cannot be forgotten!
Let's start with the fact that Trump cannot conceive a good explanation for an inconvenient court ruling that is not Trump disorder syndrome. It is irrelevant that the International Law of Emergency Economic Powers, the Law of 1977, the administration invoked to impose relevant tariffs, does not even mention the word “tariff” or that Congress never imagined IEEPA as a tool to launch a commercial war with each nation in the world, including the “Penguin Islands.” It also ignores the fact that the decision was unanimous and Trump appointed one of the three judges (the other two were appointed by Reagan and Obama). (The decision has been arrested by an appeals court).
Trump is the main practitioner of what I call Trump's critical theory – Anything bad for Trump is unfair, illegitimate and proof that the sinister forces are handling the system against it. It is not surprising then that Trump thinks that Leonard Leo, previously a guide light in federalist society, the main conservative legal organization, is a “sleazbag” and a “bad person.” Note: Leo is none of those things.
But Trump's sides in Leo and federalist society are portentous. Because Congress is assimilated and refuses to take the initiative of trade (and many other things) as the Constitution provides, it has fallen into the courts to restrict Trump's multifront efforts to exceed its authority. That is why the White House cynically denounces the “not chosen” and “rogues” judges almost daily and why Trump's political sheikJudicial coup. “
The supreme qualification, and sometimes apparently unique, for appointments for the Trump administration has been servile loyalty To Trump. But that ethos is not reserved for the executive branch. The law firms, elite universities and the media are forced to kneel before the president. Why should judges be different?
Trump has a story of suggesting “My judges” – That is, his appointed, he should be loyal to him. That's why he recently nominated Emil Bove, his former personal criminal lawyer became political executor In the Department of Justice, for a federal trial.
The importance of Trump's attack against federalist society and Leo, for conservatives, cannot be exaggerated. The legal movement headed by the federalist society has been the most successful national conservative project of the last century. Academic, civic mind and principles, federalist society spent decades developing ideas and arguments to focus the Constitution on US law. But now Trump has emitted a fatwah that must also bend the knee and its principles to the needs of a man. The law is convicted, ruling against Trump is ingratitude in his mind.
Speaking of ingratitude, irony is that federalist society deserves a lot of credit, or guilt, for being chosen Trump first. In 2016, the death of Antonin Scalia left a vacancy in the Supreme Court. Many conservatives did not trust Trump to replace it. To reassure them, Trump agreed to choose from a list of potential replacements created by the Heritage Foundation and the federalist society. Possibly, that decision convinced many conservatives reluctant to vote for him.
In the decade since then, the Heritage Foundation has obediently reinvented himself in Trump's image. The federalist society remained faithful to its principles, and that is why the federalist society is in Trump's sights.
@Jonahdispch
Perspectives
Times Insights It offers an analysis generated by the voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear in any news article.
point of view
Perspective
The following content generated by AI works perplexed. Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
- The International Trade Court ruled that the use of Trump of the International Law on Emergency Economic Powers (IEEPA) to impose global tariffs on countries such as Canada, Mexico and China exceeded the presidential authority, since the law does not explicitly grant powers to imposition of fees.[4].
- Legal experts argue that the original tariff[4].
- Critics highlight Trump's dismissal from the unanimous decision of the Court, which included the judges designated by Reagan and Obama, as evidence of their tendency to attribute unfavorable decisions to personal prejudices instead of legal reasoning[4].
- The federalist society, once instrumental in ensuring conservative judicial appointments under Trump, now faces their criticism for prioritizing legal principles on political loyalty, which reflects Trump's demand for ideological alignment in all branches of the government.[4].
Different views on the subject
- The Trump administration assured an administrative suspension of the Federal Circuit Court, temporarily restoring tariffs and pointing out possible legal routes to defend their commercial policies during the ongoing appeals.[1][2].
- Supporters argue that tariffs remain a critical tool to address commercial imbalances and national security concerns, with the administration exploring alternative statutes such as section 232 for future measures[2][3].
- The defenders of the tariff[2][3].
- Some legal academics argue that the emergency powers invoked under IEEPA could still justify tariffs if they are linked to specific national security risks, such as cross -border traffic of fentanyl, although the courts have not yet ruled on this narrower justification[4].
