• Re: New Judge Allows Trump Tariffs to Continue - LawFare a PROBLEM Now

    From Mitchell Holman@21:1/5 to c186282@nnada.net on Fri May 30 02:01:06 2025
    XPost: talk.politics.misc, alt.politics.usa, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

    c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote in news:KvGdnXNyH-1fm6T1nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com:



    IMHO, *elected* - not appointed - people should
    have the most power.


    Tell that to the thousands of loyal
    Americans fired by Musk.


    On the flip, The Law is
    supposed to be The Law and NEEDS to be in order
    to keep the elected from becoming tyrants.


    Did you read the GOP's "Big Beautiful
    Bill" that exempts the president from having
    to follow ANY law or court ruling?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From c186282@21:1/5 to All on Thu May 29 21:15:46 2025
    XPost: talk.politics.misc, alt.politics.usa, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/05/29/stock-markets-surge-after-us-court-blocks-trump-tariffs/

    The Trump administration has won the right to keep its sweeping
    global tariffs in place after “activist judges” tried to block
    them.

    The US Court of International Trade ruled late on Wednesday
    that Mr Trump had overstepped his authority by imposing
    sweeping “liberation tariffs” on countries around the world
    and ordered him to cancel them within 10 days.

    But on Thursday night, an appeals court paused the ruling
    while it looks more closely at the arguments.

    In a court filing in Washington DC, the Department of Justice
    had said it would appeal to the country’s most senior judges
    if immediate relief was not granted allowing Donald Trump’s
    tariffs to remain in place.

    White House economic advisers are also reviewing other avenues
    to impose tariffs at the same time, the president’s press
    secretary said.

    . . .

    HOW do we deal with the rapid escalation in
    obviously partisan "lawfare" ??? This seems
    to be a flaw the Founders did not really
    envision.

    IMHO, *elected* - not appointed - people should
    have the most power. On the flip, The Law is
    supposed to be The Law and NEEDS to be in order
    to keep the elected from becoming tyrants.

    This is NOT easy.

    Awhile back, kings and popes had the "final word"
    in contested matters. Might be a good decision,
    might not, but it was SETTLED. Quasi-'democracies'
    were invented to replace the kings because a bit
    too often those decisions sucked.

    CAN our system come up with a logical harmonious
    well-fitting solution to 'lawfare' ???

    Hey, coin toss !!! :-)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)