jerrymahoney

Per NY Times this morning: re: Musk v. Navarro Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, tried to downplay the feud. “Boys will be boys, and we will let their public sparring continue,” she told reporters.

Shes wrong too Things could get interesting if it turns out Justice Barrett has no problem ruling on the administration's "wrong side".

Then maybe this will help:

With apologies to Elizabeth Barrett Browning (1806 –1861) How do I love thee? Let me count the ways. Uh well, let me see, there's always ... Can you repeat the question?

I will miss photos like this as to is REALLY running the Cabinet meetings:

As modified and attributed to Senator William McKinley Dirksen (even though he claims he never said it): A trillion dollars here and a trillion dollars there, and pretty soon you're talking real money.

Trump version 2 is just getting started.

Noted that Justice Barrett partially joined the dissent.

Trump does not want to be losing the conservatives.

Dr. Burns is a research fellow at the (conservative) Hoover Institution on the Stanford U. campus.

From the above NYPost link: Justice Sonya Sotomayor slammed the majority for writing an opinion “without mention of the grave harm Plaintiffs will face if they are erroneously removed to El Salvador or regard for the Government’s attempts to subvert the judicial process throughout this litigation.” Justice Amy Coney Barrett, an appointee of Trump, joined portions of the dissent.

CIGNA policies offer $1 million PER YEAR in coverage. Do self-insurers set aside that much?

You asked a question "Who gives a flying ...?" -- I answered.

Maybe these folks from The Guardian headline today: Rightwing group backed by Koch and Leo sues to stop Trump tariffs New Civil Liberties Alliance says president’s invocation of emergency powers to impose tariffs is unlawful BTW that NYTimes opinion piece was not by Paul Krugman

From NY Times opinion 7 APR 2025 President Trump’s imposition of high tariffs on friend and foe alike has stunned the world and stumped economists. There is no economic rationale, experts say, for believing these tariffs will usher in a new era of American prosperity. But the slash-and-burn approach of the Mar-a-Lago Accord isn’t the answer. For one thing, it is hard to find an economist outside of Mr. Trump’s inner circle who thinks it is a good idea. https://archive.ph/MpKM0

Oh Humor (cultural reference Mork & Mindy)

My simple explanation why the plaintiff has standing, even though she is not Chinese, is that she purchases products from China for resale. If she had to pay legitimate tariffs on her imports, that would be one thing; the filing claims that the tariffs are unlawful and injurious to her business based in Pensacola, FL. as the IEEPA, as invoked by named defendants, does not authorize tariffs.

As here: The 2022 debt relief program, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, did not waive or modify the existing student loan laws, but instead “created a novel and fundamentally different loan forgiveness program.” The 2022 debt relief program, Roberts continued, also ran afoul of the “major questions” doctrine, which is the idea that if Congress wants to give an administrative agency the power to make decisions of vast economic or political significance, it must say so clearly. https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/08/supreme-court-temporarily-bars-latest-biden-student-debt-relief-plan/ Noted in the Pensacola lawsuit: The IEEPA does not contain the word tariff(s)

The case as above claims that Trump has no authority to implement tariffs under the IEEPA. It cannot be said that the case, if in favor of the plaintiff, is the machination of an 'activist liberal judge' as the Judge assigned to the case, T. Kent Wetherell II, was nominated to the federal bench by (then) President Donald J. Trump in 2019.

NB : The Pensacola IEEPA tariff case has been assigned to US District Judge Kent Wetherell, a Trump appointee who previously issued a ruling halting a key component of President Joe Biden’s immigration policy in 2023.

Trump stated that the tariffs are authorized under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (“IEEPA”): President Trump is invoking his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) to address the national emergency posed by the large and persistent trade deficit that is driven by the absence of reciprocity in our trade relationships and other harmful policies like currency manipulation and exorbitant value-added taxes (VAT) perpetuated by other countries. The IEEPA does not authorize tariffs.

Well then ...

April 4, 2025 12:39 PM A conservative legal organization is suing to prevent President Donald Trump’s emergency tariffs on Chinese goods, the first attempt to challenge Trump’s authority to impose tariffs since he returned to office. The New Civil Liberties Alliance, a law firm that fights federal overreach, filed a complaint Thursday in Florida federal court on behalf of north Florida paper company Simplified and its owner Emily Ley to stop Trump’s 20 percent tariffs on all Chinese imports under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. “The President purported to order these tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (‘IEEPA’), but that is a statute that authorizes presidents to order sanctions as a rapid response to international emergencies,” the lawsuit asserts. “It does not allow a president to impose tariffs on the American people. President Trump’s Executive Orders imposing a China tariff are, therefore, ultra vires and unconstitutional. This Court should enjoin their implementation and enforcement.” https://www.nationalreview.com/news/conservative-legal-group-brings-first-suit-challenging-trumps-authority-to-impose-tariffs/

Per the topic heading: Donald Trump standing in the White House Rose Garden saying that, with his Tariff and trade policy agenda: "With today’s action we are finally going to be able to make America great again — greater than ever before ... Jobs and factories will come roaring back into our country."

Well Mr. Spider, just say to yourself over and over: It's just an overdue market correction.