President Trump’s Department of Justice, under Attorney General Pam Bondi, argued that the lower court’s ruling in State of Oregon, et al. v. Trump was not only legally indefensible, but a direct assault on the lawful authority of the presidency and the economic well-being of the American people.
At stake is whether the judiciary will gut the president’s ability to use tariffs as leverage in trade negotiations, negotiations that, under Trump, produced historic wins for American workers.
The decision by the US Court of International Trade to strike down President Trump’s use of tariffs as a tool of negotiation is not only deeply flawed in its legal reasoning, it is a case study in judicial myopia. That is a strong charge, and I do not level it lightly.
But when a court disregards explicit statutory delegation, ignores Congress’s own votes to preserve executive flexibility, and, in doing so, threatens the gains of successful international negotiations, one is left wondering what, exactly, the judiciary imagines its role to be. [americanliberty]
Good Night, Patriots!
No comments:
Post a Comment