I agree wholeheartedly that US v Trump is the most important decision, and that the praise of this tariff decision is basically giving SCOTUS credit for eventually doing the right thing after exhausting all of its other options.
But my main takeaway from the tariff decision is one I have not seen anyone else make: Neil Gorsuch is full of crap!
I base that on his disagreement with Kagan.
Who are the 2 most commited textualist justices on the court? Neil Gorsuch would say that he is Mr. Textualism. But Barrett might be more of a textualist than him. After those two, I have no idea but I would probably say Kagan.
Anyway, in her concurrence, Kagan ibasically says that all you need to get the the majority's judgment is the text of the statue (she even has a fun little oblique reference to "99 problems" in there). And you have Gorsuch writing his massive concurrence defense of MQD, lashing out at Kagan for purporting to rely solely on the text, and, specifically, on the lack of the words "tariff" and "tax" or any other words related to raising revenue in the text.
And yet, somehow, you have the conservative wing's most avowedly textualist justice arguing that the text aline is not enough to reach the majority judgment, some additonal special sauce called the MQD is needed in order to get there.
In other words:
1. Gorsuch is telling on himself. He purports to be a textualist, but in this case where textualism is enough to get him to the judgment he reached, he refuses to rely on textualism alone. I find this interesting because Gorsuch is normally happy to JOIN opinions not based in textualism, but he is usually unwilling to WRITE opinions not based on textualism. But here, he does.
2. The MQD is exactly what we all thought it was: a conservative policy veto for use agaisnt Democratic Presidents. This wolf comes up as a wolf, and Gorsuch's burn-book concurrence was him expressing his frustration that the rest of the court would not join him in dressing the wolf in sheep's clothing.
Hmmmm...over a decade ago, the Republicans said not think of Trump when voting for him, but think about voting in a new member of SCOTUS. See the result
Nope no cheers for any of them. Break out the popcorn when Roberts, Massie, MTG, Bobert screw Trump over, but never think they are somehow becoming serious people. They are not.
I'm not cheering anyone. They caused this mess to begin with. If Roberts thinks this will save him from being the villain in the history books he's got another thing coming.
Oh sure you do Liz, and Hi, long time no see. If there was an award for judicial treason he would have gotten it two years running and up until Cannon upstaged him today, was on track for a three peat.
That's what I thought, but I am far from being knowledgeable on the subject. Thank you for not only the explanation, but the words I can now use to explain my thoughts to others.
Thanks Liz. Great column. Absolutely!! Those rat bastards do not deserve a cookie for doing the right thing after enabling tariff chaos for the last year.
On a related note, why are people criticizing the opinion for not providing a mechanism for reimbursing companies for the illegal tariffs paid? I thought systems were already in place to do that.
Liz, can you write an article about what we should root for in a refund of tariffs case? You mention it here that it would enrich the corporations so I am left with two bad options: give the money back to corporations transferring the wealth to them or keeping it with the government so that Trump can likely illegally transfer it to cronies and/or more defense budget. I guess the best we can hope for is to actually send every tax payer a refund of money and we all know that isn't happening. What am I missing? Any silver lining?
“Bare, bloody minimum” indeed. But what about those 3 dissenters? BFD that 6 justices managed a divided opinion preventing the end of tripartite government. What about the 3 monarchical dissenters? Is there any executive overreach they would deny? They don’t belong on the highest court anymore (if they ever did).
For those who listened to the PodCast that reached the Apple ecosystem today and which includes a segment entitled, "The Surprising History of the Aussie Ugg Boot", you might really enjoy reading about a similar dispute between Blue Jeans Cable and Monster Cable. Monster were a predatory near-monopolist in the market for audio cables - and attempted to bully Blue Jeans Cable in to capitulating and agreeing to pay Monster license fees for alleged infringements for an RCA type cable connector.
The response sent by the owner of Blue Jeans, a former lawyer, is as hilarious as it is blistering - and provides a lot of good examples of the way to counter a vexatious lawsuit.
You can enjoy the "Monster Cable Correspondence" here:-
For those who listened to the PodCast that reached the Apple ecosystem today and which includes a segment entitled, "The Surprising History of the Aussie Ugg Boot", you might really enjoy reading about a similar dispute between Blue Jeans Cable and Monster Cable. Monster were a predatory near-monopolist in the market for audio cables - and attempted to bully Blue Jeans Cable in to capitulating and agreeing to pay Monster license fees for alleged infringements for an RCA type cable connector.
The response sent by the owner of Blue Jeans, a former lawyer, is as hilarious as it is blistering - and provides a lot of good examples of the way to counter a vexatious lawsuit.
You can enjoy the "Monster Cable Correspondence" story here:-
I agree wholeheartedly that US v Trump is the most important decision, and that the praise of this tariff decision is basically giving SCOTUS credit for eventually doing the right thing after exhausting all of its other options.
But my main takeaway from the tariff decision is one I have not seen anyone else make: Neil Gorsuch is full of crap!
I base that on his disagreement with Kagan.
Who are the 2 most commited textualist justices on the court? Neil Gorsuch would say that he is Mr. Textualism. But Barrett might be more of a textualist than him. After those two, I have no idea but I would probably say Kagan.
Anyway, in her concurrence, Kagan ibasically says that all you need to get the the majority's judgment is the text of the statue (she even has a fun little oblique reference to "99 problems" in there). And you have Gorsuch writing his massive concurrence defense of MQD, lashing out at Kagan for purporting to rely solely on the text, and, specifically, on the lack of the words "tariff" and "tax" or any other words related to raising revenue in the text.
And yet, somehow, you have the conservative wing's most avowedly textualist justice arguing that the text aline is not enough to reach the majority judgment, some additonal special sauce called the MQD is needed in order to get there.
In other words:
1. Gorsuch is telling on himself. He purports to be a textualist, but in this case where textualism is enough to get him to the judgment he reached, he refuses to rely on textualism alone. I find this interesting because Gorsuch is normally happy to JOIN opinions not based in textualism, but he is usually unwilling to WRITE opinions not based on textualism. But here, he does.
2. The MQD is exactly what we all thought it was: a conservative policy veto for use agaisnt Democratic Presidents. This wolf comes up as a wolf, and Gorsuch's burn-book concurrence was him expressing his frustration that the rest of the court would not join him in dressing the wolf in sheep's clothing.
Great points!
Hmmmm...over a decade ago, the Republicans said not think of Trump when voting for him, but think about voting in a new member of SCOTUS. See the result
Nope no cheers for any of them. Break out the popcorn when Roberts, Massie, MTG, Bobert screw Trump over, but never think they are somehow becoming serious people. They are not.
His nyt obituary, which an establishmentarian like Roberts cares deeply about, will compare him to Roger Taney. Likely in the lead.
I'm not cheering anyone. They caused this mess to begin with. If Roberts thinks this will save him from being the villain in the history books he's got another thing coming.
Oh sure you do Liz, and Hi, long time no see. If there was an award for judicial treason he would have gotten it two years running and up until Cannon upstaged him today, was on track for a three peat.
The View from Madison.
Nailed it!
He caused this mess. That must be a really old photo
That's what I thought, but I am far from being knowledgeable on the subject. Thank you for not only the explanation, but the words I can now use to explain my thoughts to others.
100%
Thanks Liz. Great column. Absolutely!! Those rat bastards do not deserve a cookie for doing the right thing after enabling tariff chaos for the last year.
On a related note, why are people criticizing the opinion for not providing a mechanism for reimbursing companies for the illegal tariffs paid? I thought systems were already in place to do that.
Liz, can you write an article about what we should root for in a refund of tariffs case? You mention it here that it would enrich the corporations so I am left with two bad options: give the money back to corporations transferring the wealth to them or keeping it with the government so that Trump can likely illegally transfer it to cronies and/or more defense budget. I guess the best we can hope for is to actually send every tax payer a refund of money and we all know that isn't happening. What am I missing? Any silver lining?
“Bare, bloody minimum” indeed. But what about those 3 dissenters? BFD that 6 justices managed a divided opinion preventing the end of tripartite government. What about the 3 monarchical dissenters? Is there any executive overreach they would deny? They don’t belong on the highest court anymore (if they ever did).
For those who listened to the PodCast that reached the Apple ecosystem today and which includes a segment entitled, "The Surprising History of the Aussie Ugg Boot", you might really enjoy reading about a similar dispute between Blue Jeans Cable and Monster Cable. Monster were a predatory near-monopolist in the market for audio cables - and attempted to bully Blue Jeans Cable in to capitulating and agreeing to pay Monster license fees for alleged infringements for an RCA type cable connector.
The response sent by the owner of Blue Jeans, a former lawyer, is as hilarious as it is blistering - and provides a lot of good examples of the way to counter a vexatious lawsuit.
You can enjoy the "Monster Cable Correspondence" here:-
https://www.bluejeanscable.com/legal/mcp/
For those who listened to the PodCast that reached the Apple ecosystem today and which includes a segment entitled, "The Surprising History of the Aussie Ugg Boot", you might really enjoy reading about a similar dispute between Blue Jeans Cable and Monster Cable. Monster were a predatory near-monopolist in the market for audio cables - and attempted to bully Blue Jeans Cable in to capitulating and agreeing to pay Monster license fees for alleged infringements for an RCA type cable connector.
The response sent by the owner of Blue Jeans, a former lawyer, is as hilarious as it is blistering - and provides a lot of good examples of the way to counter a vexatious lawsuit.
You can enjoy the "Monster Cable Correspondence" story here:-
https://www.bluejeanscable.com/legal/mcp/