Definer in chief
Who gets to define an emergency? Why, Donald Trump, of course. No one understands emergencies the way Donald Trump understands emergencies.
The Trump administration blamed “activist judges” on Thursday for blocking Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs as it looks to overturn a major legal blow to the president’s signature economic policy.
On Wednesday a US trade court ruled Trump’s tariffs regime was illegal, in a dramatic twist that could block the US president’s controversial global trade policy.
The ruling by a three-judge panel at the New York-based court of international trade came after several lawsuits argued Trump had exceeded his authority, leaving US trade policy dependent on the president’s whims and unleashing economic chaos around the world.
Tariffs typically need to be approved by Congress but Trump has so far bypassed that requirement by claiming that the country’s trade deficits amount to a national emergency. This had left the US president able to apply sweeping tariffs to most countries last month, in a shock move that sent markets reeling.
There you go. It’s his job to decide when there’s a national emergency. The rest of us, aka the peasantry, know nothing about it.
The court ruling immediately invalidates all of the tariff orders that were issued through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a law meant to address “unusual and extraordinary” threats during a national emergency. The judges said Trump must issue new orders reflecting the permanent injunction within 10 days.
However, the Trump administration has already appealed against the ruling and asked for a pause because it “jeopardizes ongoing negotiations with dozens of countries”. White House officials have
hit out atfumed about the court’s authority. “It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency,” Kush Desai, a White House spokesperson, said in a statement to Reuters.…
Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff for policy,
hit out atraged about the ruling in a social media post claiming “the judicial coup is out of control”.
Wrong coup, Deputy.
Golly, what terrible writing. What does “it” in the middle of the sentence refer to? Presumably “it” refers back to “activist judges,” but if so, the writer should say “they” instead of “it.” I think maybe the author was thinking of “the court” as “it,” but that’s not what s/he wrote.
And what does, “looking to overturn a major legal blow” to DJT’s tariff shenanigans mean? It’s either “looking to overturn” DJT’s policy, or “dealing a major blow to” DJT’s policy, but “looking to overturn a major legal blow” to DJT’s policy is incoherent nonsense. Sheesh. Who edits these things?
Surely “it” refers to the Trump admin? I think that’s a pretty normal construction. I don’t see a problem with the second bit either. The Trump admin wants to overturn the judicial halt on his tariffs.
Three judges – one a Reagan appointee, one an Obama appointee, one a Trump appointee – and a unanimous decision. And a predictable tantrum by Stephen Miller afterwards about a ‘judicial coup’: it would be hysterically funny, if in the end it wasn’t.
Ah.
Golly what a terrible reader! XD
lol no just a momentary brain fart, happens to all of us.