re: Goldman Responds To Court Block Of Trump Tariffs: Nothingburger, White House Can Sidestep

The judiciary is 100% comprised with activist judges.

quote:

---

One thing that bothers me about Congress' delegation of authority is it's inability to take back its constitutional powers. If Congress decides it no longer wants POTUS to have tariff authority, it would need to pass a law withdrawing it's authority, and POTUS could veto it. If Congress just wanted to pass a resolution stating it disapproved of the Liberstion Day tariffs, POTUS could just veto that.

---

yes, I've always thought that was crazy... from the point of view of Congress. It's well known by Congress, but they don't seem to mind that they will struggle to clawback that authority.

We've seen the net effects since LBJ in my opinion.

This case is a good example. So IEEPA lays out that the President's authority exists if there are "any unusual and extraordinary threat" (not emergency, not war- just unusual and extraordinary) to "the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States" ('or' is key).

So those powers are:
In general
(1) At the times and to the extent specified in section 1701 of this title, the President may, under such regulations as he may prescribe, by means of instructions, licenses, or otherwise-

(A) investigate, regulate, or prohibit-

(i) any transactions in foreign exchange,

(ii) transfers of credit or payments between, by, through, or to any banking institution, to the extent that such transfers or payments involve any interest of any foreign country or a national thereof,

(iii) the importing or exporting of currency or securities,

That's pretty damn broad and Congress granted it (except to our current judiciary who said "tariffs aren't included").

But, to your point there is a mechanism for that clawback if Congress wanted to do it. And there is an argument that instead of these injunctions what the judicial branch should be instructing - Congress can overturn that veto and take the power back. That's also in the constitution; maybe these judges should be citing that.

quote:

---

The order states what it states.

---

Exactly! The ORDER (section II) granted the relief that was requested: withholding of removal to El Salvador. The typos in the opinion were irrelevant. Here's the ORDER. What else you got?

quote:

---

It says what it says. PERIOD!

THERE WAS NO WITHHOLDING ORDER TO EL SALVADOR!

It's not a typo. The basis was discussed extensively in the record.

The DOJ Attorney who allowed the El Salvador claim w/o challenge in court was either incompetent or deliberately undercut the case. It's why that attorney was dismissed by the US AG.

---

I'm sorry. This is just stupid analysis. The only thing you got correct is that the ORDER said what it said, which was that it GRANTED the withholding that was requested. That request was for withholding from removal to El Salvador.

As for the "initial mistake by the DOJ," why did DOJ NEVER amend their pleadings? If the order applied to GUATEMALA, why didn't DOJ amend their pleadings or even argue that the order applied only to Guatemala.

Seriously, please answer that question. The case is still pending. Why hasn't DOJ adopted the Guatemala argument?

quote:

---

Why was the very simple procedural process followed if the order had a “typo?” Seriously, please answer that question.

---

The ORDER did not contain a typo. It was very clear. The withholding relief requested by Abrego Garcia was GRANTED. See the part where it says ORDER???

Excellent posts in this thread. The use of "experts" to argue that we aren't in an economic emergency is laughable. The politicization of economics has become so extreme that we have debates over whether inflation actually is a monetary phenomenon. The "experts" do things like (misleadingly/incompletely) cite Friedman on trade deficits, but reject his thoughts on inflation. To the extent that we do get higher prices from trade tariffs, it will be caused by our own industrial decay, foreign dependency and monetary excess which relate back to trade deficits, among other things. But in the end analysis, monetary policy is at the root of inflation, due to supply of money outpacing supply of goods and services.

If only we could have this kind of sensibilities within the government

quote:

---

I see no reference to Guatemala.

---

Then you need to go back to law school. When an order refers to a specific section of law you can reference that section in the petition to determine what the order grants. Very basic stuff. Guess what you will find there….

“Seriously, please answer that question. The case is still pending. Why hasn't DOJ adopted the Guatemala argument “

Obviously it’s moot because he ain’t coming back