So a court has now knee capped Trump’s ability to impose tariffs. At what point is enough enough? Are we watching a really good strategy by the Ds in a death by a thousand litigations? To quote the Biscuit from an old show from the 90s, “I’m troubled.”
Just another open-thread comment about something I read somewhere else.
Supposedly, the Lebanese army has disarmed 80% of Hezbollah sites in the country’s south. This sounds like big news, but it’s Hezbollah, so I’m skeptical. Still, for a few minutes, why not be happy?
The report was originally published yesterday in “The Wall Street Journal,” but it’s behind a paywall, so here’s a link to the story as printed in “The Times of Israel” : https://tinyurl.com/4jd7fpma.
And here’s a sample paragraph:
“Lebanon’s army has dismantled most of Hezbollah’s posts and weapons stockpile in the country’s south, with the help of Israeli intelligence passed along by the US, and Israeli and American officials are said to be pleasantly surprised by the progress, The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday.”
Rival research centers are jumping at the opportunity. As Bloomberg News has reported, countries including Australia, Canada, Denmark and Norway are offering funding, streamlined visas and other perks to lure top academics. Germany has invited Harvard to set up an “exile campus.” The EU has launched a €500 million “Choose Europe” program.
Which got me thinking. If any of those countries could have a Harvard, they already would. Just what is it that makes American higher ed the envy of the world, at least in post-graduate education/research? I’m quite certain it’s not government largesse.
Im skeptical being as hezbollah has been in the government and the major player outside
Furthermore the byline is by the same fellow that bought the gaza hospital story hook line and sinker
Omar al bacqui
physicguy – A court “kneecapped” Trump’s power to impose tariffs because Trump never had that power to begin with.
It wasn’t that long ago, just a few years, that conservatives would still be rightly outraged when presidents acted beyond their powers and claimed to justify themselves with never-before-conceived interpretations of decades-old statutes. Good times.
Goodness knows there have been some screwy and abusive court decisions since January. This isn’t one of them.
put me as cynical about what the journal reports, this particular byline has removed all doubt
whereever these judges live the fentanyl epidemic hasn’t touched them, nor has the outstripping of infrastructure, or the wave of intellectual property theft, or hacking of telecoms and the like,
Congress gave the President broad authority and latitude to set tariffs in the Tariff Act of 1974. Learn some history, Bauxite.
The court has no role to play in the tariff issue. None at all. Congress has the powers to allow or disallow what Trump is doing with tariffs. Sen Kennedy says congress gave POTUS this power. If congress doesn’t like what he is doing they can stop him. If they don’t have the votes, too bad, so sad.
The court once again is trashing the constitution.
Turley with some thoughtful explication and specific suggestions to get things back on track:
…So, in theory we should be “celebrating” this ruling which could mean that tariffs can no longer be used in the way they have been? It has seemed strange so that so much power was concentrated in the hands of the President on this particular issue (the ability to cause massive disruptions in global trade, without any of the usual checks and balances, seemed odd). We’ve argued that we would prefer much more to be done via Congress than via Executive Order (primarily for the staying power those policies would have, versus EO’s which can easily be reversed).
But maybe it is just the inherent contrarian in me, but I’m not overly excited about the news….
[Emphasis in original; Barry M.]
Miguel, thanks much for that Sharyl Attkisson link…
[From Page 6, pdf] “…[…] in 1962, Congress delegated to the President the power to take action to adjust imports when the Secretary of Commerce finds that an “article is being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security.” Trade Expansion Act of 1962, Pub. L. No. 87-794, § 232(b), 76 Stat. 872, 877 (codified as amended at 19 U.S.C. § 1862(c)(1)(A)). This delegation is conditioned upon an investigation and findings by the Secretary of Commerce, and agreement by the President. See id. Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, requires that the U.S. Trade Representative (“USTR”) take action, which may include imposing tariffs, where “the rights of the United States under any trade agreement are being denied” or “an act, policy, or practice of a foreign country” is “unjustifiable and burdens or restricts United States commerce.” 19 U.S.C. § 2411(a)(1)(A)–(B). The USTR may impose duties also where the USTR determines that “an act, policy, or practice of a foreign country is unreasonable or discriminatory and burdens or restricts United States commerce.” Id. § 2411(b)(1). This power is conditioned on extensive procedural requirements including an investigation that culminates in an affirmative finding that another country imposed unfair trade barriers under § 2411(a)(1)(A) or (B) or § 2411(b), and a public notice and comment period. See id. § 2414(b).”… [source]
the decision ignored all the steps, that the Trade Rep, took in the course of crafting these tariffs,
but it shouldn’t surprise me because the procrustean meand that they engage in, to avoid the plain text of the law, doesn’t
I love that one too. The color composition is astonishing and gorgeous.
However, I never thought that was a pearl earring. Look at the size of it!
Watch “Tim’s Vermeer.” My highest recommendation.
Ref the painting: would lipstick have been available or common at that time and place?
Even if Vermeer is highlighting the wetness of her lips, that color of red [as viewed on my monitor, anyway] seems pretty red compared to the usual normal “pinkishness” when lipstick is not used.
And I agree with Huxley that the pearl really looks more like a polished metal disc to me than a spherical gem. But if there is a wire or other connection to the ear, I don’t see it.
Wikipedia
“ The use of lipstick dates back to early civilizations such as Sumer and the Indus Valley Civilization, and was popularized in the Western world in the 16th century. ”
So lip color possible.
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
So a court has now knee capped Trump’s ability to impose tariffs. At what point is enough enough? Are we watching a really good strategy by the Ds in a death by a thousand litigations? To quote the Biscuit from an old show from the 90s, “I’m troubled.”
Just another open-thread comment about something I read somewhere else.
Supposedly, the Lebanese army has disarmed 80% of Hezbollah sites in the country’s south. This sounds like big news, but it’s Hezbollah, so I’m skeptical. Still, for a few minutes, why not be happy?
The report was originally published yesterday in “The Wall Street Journal,” but it’s behind a paywall, so here’s a link to the story as printed in “The Times of Israel” : https://tinyurl.com/4jd7fpma.
And here’s a sample paragraph:
“Lebanon’s army has dismantled most of Hezbollah’s posts and weapons stockpile in the country’s south, with the help of Israeli intelligence passed along by the US, and Israeli and American officials are said to be pleasantly surprised by the progress, The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday.”
Here’s a big dose of truth.*
* See https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/05/crying_over_george_floyd.html
The title of this Bloomberg Opinion piece is:
If America Doesn’t Want Harvard, Somebody Else Will
https://archive.md/gBgI5
Which got me thinking. If any of those countries could have a Harvard, they already would. Just what is it that makes American higher ed the envy of the world, at least in post-graduate education/research? I’m quite certain it’s not government largesse.
Im skeptical being as hezbollah has been in the government and the major player outside
Furthermore the byline is by the same fellow that bought the gaza hospital story hook line and sinker
Omar al bacqui
physicguy – A court “kneecapped” Trump’s power to impose tariffs because Trump never had that power to begin with.
It wasn’t that long ago, just a few years, that conservatives would still be rightly outraged when presidents acted beyond their powers and claimed to justify themselves with never-before-conceived interpretations of decades-old statutes. Good times.
Goodness knows there have been some screwy and abusive court decisions since January. This isn’t one of them.
put me as cynical about what the journal reports, this particular byline has removed all doubt
whereever these judges live the fentanyl epidemic hasn’t touched them, nor has the outstripping of infrastructure, or the wave of intellectual property theft, or hacking of telecoms and the like,
a proper fisking of tat silly piece
https://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=414793
there was a film with scarlet johanssen which had title,
https://dailycaller.com/2025/05/28/trump-crackdown-corporate-diversity-jobs-plummeting-new-data-dei-corporate-america/
they’ll probably find another reasonable judge to stop this,
https://twitchy.com/warren-squire/2025/05/29/npr-katherine-maher-trump-defunding-executive-order-violates-first-amendment-viewpoint-discrimination-n2413489
a little knowledge is dangerous
https://x.com/Fat_Electrician/status/1927617848031019513
of course we know this character’s habit of taquiya,
is it anywonder they come to these sorts of policy conclusion, like that clownshow starmer macron and metz were party to the other day,
https://x.com/SharylAttkisson/status/1928011373218553990
for obvious reasons I’m not sanguine on this deal,
https://www.ynetnews.com/article/dp99eynbn
Congress gave the President broad authority and latitude to set tariffs in the Tariff Act of 1974. Learn some history, Bauxite.
The court has no role to play in the tariff issue. None at all. Congress has the powers to allow or disallow what Trump is doing with tariffs. Sen Kennedy says congress gave POTUS this power. If congress doesn’t like what he is doing they can stop him. If they don’t have the votes, too bad, so sad.
The court once again is trashing the constitution.
Turley with some thoughtful explication and specific suggestions to get things back on track:
“Trump needs Congress to save his tariffs, and his trade strategy”—
https://nypost.com/2025/05/29/opinion/turley-trump-needs-congress-to-save-his-tariffs-and-his-trade-strategy/
+ Related:
“Blocked?”—
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/blocked
Key grafs:
[Emphasis in original; Barry M.]
Miguel, thanks much for that Sharyl Attkisson link…
Very evil times….
another view
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/goldman-responds-trade-court-block-trump-tariffs-nothingburger-white-house-can-sidestep
now learned legal authorities like illya Somin sarc, have a tendency to
remove all doubt,
now Congress like a Galapagos turtle, is slow to move, except when it’s fortunes are at stake,
see DOGE, which they have dismissed, but I guess if one keeps up at ramming speed we won’t hit a wall,
ps it’s ironic how tyler, one of whom is albanian, seems to have some greater sense of the economy,
of course Goldman is where Rob Rubin and Mark Carney come from, so caveat emptor
like wise deep in the weeds
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2025/05/28/federal-trade-court-rules-president-trump-cannot-initiate-tariffs-under-international-emergency-economic-powers-act-all-tariffs-blocked/
[From Page 6, pdf] “…[…] in 1962, Congress delegated to the President the power to take action to adjust imports when the Secretary of Commerce finds that an “article is being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security.” Trade Expansion Act of 1962, Pub. L. No. 87-794, § 232(b), 76 Stat. 872, 877 (codified as amended at 19 U.S.C. § 1862(c)(1)(A)). This delegation is conditioned upon an investigation and findings by the Secretary of Commerce, and agreement by the President. See id. Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, requires that the U.S. Trade Representative (“USTR”) take action, which may include imposing tariffs, where “the rights of the United States under any trade agreement are being denied” or “an act, policy, or practice of a foreign country” is “unjustifiable and burdens or restricts United States commerce.” 19 U.S.C. § 2411(a)(1)(A)–(B). The USTR may impose duties also where the USTR determines that “an act, policy, or practice of a foreign country is unreasonable or discriminatory and burdens or restricts United States commerce.” Id. § 2411(b)(1). This power is conditioned on extensive procedural requirements including an investigation that culminates in an affirmative finding that another country imposed unfair trade barriers under § 2411(a)(1)(A) or (B) or § 2411(b), and a public notice and comment period. See id. § 2414(b).”… [source]
the decision ignored all the steps, that the Trade Rep, took in the course of crafting these tariffs,
but it shouldn’t surprise me because the procrustean meand that they engage in, to avoid the plain text of the law, doesn’t
https://twitchy.com/amy-curtis/2025/05/29/the-conversation-transgender-saint-n2413487 they should stay silent,
Re: Vermeer painting
I love that one too. The color composition is astonishing and gorgeous.
However, I never thought that was a pearl earring. Look at the size of it!
Watch “Tim’s Vermeer.” My highest recommendation.
Ref the painting: would lipstick have been available or common at that time and place?
Even if Vermeer is highlighting the wetness of her lips, that color of red [as viewed on my monitor, anyway] seems pretty red compared to the usual normal “pinkishness” when lipstick is not used.
And I agree with Huxley that the pearl really looks more like a polished metal disc to me than a spherical gem. But if there is a wire or other connection to the ear, I don’t see it.
Wikipedia
“ The use of lipstick dates back to early civilizations such as Sumer and the Indus Valley Civilization, and was popularized in the Western world in the 16th century. ”
So lip color possible.