A different tune

Trump is pitching a fit.

At this time last year, President Trump warmly shook hands with Chief Justice John Roberts at the State of the Union address, thanking him for the opinion he authored granting Trump and other presidents in the future expansive immunity from prosecution for their official acts after leaving office. But on Friday, after the Supreme Court invalidated Trump’s tariffs, the president was singing a decidedly different tune.

At a hastily called press conference, an agitated Trump railed against the conservative Roberts and two of the courts other conservatives, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, both Trump appointees.

“They’re just being fools and lapdogs for the RINOs and the radical left Democrats,” Trump said.

With his usual eloquence and fair-minded reaonability.

Trump called the three conservatives “disloyal, unpatriotic,” and at one point he launched into a rant about how the court should have invalidated the election results in 2020, which Trump lost to Joe Biden.

Disloyal, eh? Thus making it embarrassingly clear that he thinks the ones he nominated should rule the way he wants them to rule – that in short they owe him.

Trump suffered a massive defeat at the Supreme Court. Writing for a hefty 6-to-3 majority, Chief Justice Roberts said that the nation’s founders deliberately and explicitly placed the power to impose taxes, including tariffs, with Congress, not with the president.

As the Chief Justice put it, “Having just fought a revolution motivated in large part by taxes imposed on them” by the King of England without their consent, the Framers wrote a Constitution that gives Congress the taxing power because the members of the legislature would be more accountable to the people.

Try telling that to Trump.

Comments

3 responses to “A different tune”

  1. Omar Avatar

    At this time last year, President Trump warmly shook hands with Chief Justice John Roberts at the State of the Union address, thanking him for the opinion he authored granting Trump and other presidents in the future expansive immunity from prosecution for their official acts after leaving office. But on Friday, after the Supreme Court invalidated Trump’s tariffs, the president was singing a decidedly different tune.

    At law, wording is important. To my non-lawyerly mind, there is a ticking bomb inside that part in bold type above. After leaving office, Trump will be incapable of performing any official acts. But it could be interpreted as still leaving him wide open for prosecution for official acts he performed while in office.

  2. Athel Cornish-Bowden Avatar
    Athel Cornish-Bowden

    the opinion he authored granting Trump and other presidents in the future expansive immunity from prosecution for their official acts after leaving office.

    This strikes me as ambiguous. It makes sense if interpreted as “immunity from {prosecution after leaving office} for their official acts,” but is that what it says? Can it not mean “immunity from prosecution for their {official acts after leaving office}”? I often have this problem when I listen to the news in France, when I hear, for example, “Procureur de la République de Lyon”: Since when has Lyon been a republic? I ask myself. But it must be understood as “{Procureur de la République} de Lyon”, not as “Procureur de {la République de Lyon}”. Perhaps the intended meaning is what springs automatically to a French mind, but it doesn’t spring automatically to mine.

  3. Ophelia Benson Avatar

    Yes well it’s NPR – they’re not always great at the wording. But grasping the meaning relies partly on background knowledge. In this case the background knowledge is that there are no official acts after leaving office so it means the other thing. However, this is journalism. Lawyers take great care to avoid such ambiguities so that they don’t lose.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *