#Tag
"The tariffs ruling makes clear that #SCOTUS is not going to rule reflexively for the Trump administration in every case (a point for which we already had data); and there’s still plenty of reason to be concerned about its overall behavior when Trump is one of the parties at bar."
Via "One First":
211. Making Sense of the Tarif...
"The tariffs ruling makes clear that #SCOTUS is not going to rule reflexively for the Trump administration in every case (a point for which we already had data); and there’s still plenty of reason to be concerned about its overall behavior when Trump is one of the parties at bar."
Via "One First":
211. Making Sense of the Tarif...
Well, let’s see. Having previously castrated Congress, Trump is now setting out to do the same to the Supreme Court. After SCOTUS ruled against his administration’s tariffs that were levied based on made up emergencies, Trump has essentially said that he’ll just keep them in place using other authorities.
Of course that begs the question as to why he didn’t use those authorities in the first place. Oh, and he’s going to level an additional 10% tariff on the rest of the world in addition to piling that on top of those he’s allowed to keep. But set that aside. Any way you look at the 6-3 SCOTUS decision it’s a political and legal loss for POTUS. But then, hell hath no fury like a pedophile scorned.
Sulking like a scolded child, Trump’s typical insult laden bullying remarks also went after the justices (both conservative and liberal) that did not vote in his favor, so you know he’s he’s doing that sulking like a wounded beast in a corner waiting to strike back.
So, all and all Trump is basically giving a big middle finger to the Supreme Court the same way he has the rest of the country’s institutions, as he continues to make a world that only he sees in what’s left of his delusional mind. SCOTUS may have tried to reset the tricky balance between Congress and the Executive Branch with this decision, but asking that castrated branch to get it up and act feels comically painful now that Trump is kicking them in the balls as well. Justice Gorsuch’s eunuch-like plea for a divided system of government sounds almost lullaby-like in its longing.
Lots of words will be written and spoken about what it all means. They won’t mean much. Given the SCOTUS decision and the pouty sour grapes speech following it, no one really knows what the economic damage will or won’t be at this point. But the political wreckage is easy to see. Suffice it to say, the situation is more than a messy minefield that will take some time to find a path through. We’d probably be better off just letting this wild bullshit artist rampage through it.
Shit’s gonna need to be cleaned up anyway.
(image from Igor Zakowski on Shutterstock)
You can also find more of my writings on a variety of topics on Medium at this link, including in the publications Ellemeno and Rome. I can also be found on social media under my name as above.
#donaldTrump #History #news #SCOTUS #Tariffs #Trump"One box" of rulings in the #SCOTUS press room = (only) 1-2 rulings coming at 10 ET.
#SCOTUS is set to hand down more rulings in argued cases starting at 10 ET today.
I'll be covering them live here on Bluesky.
The tariffs ruling is definitely a possibility, but there are 11 other cases that were argued before it (or during the same session), and plenty that were argued after:
202. The Timing of Rulings in ...
There's obviously about eleventeen things wrong with this quote, but let's just be clear on exactly what #SCOTUS *actually* said in Vasquez Perdomo:
"The application for stay presented to Justice Kagan and
by her referred to the Court is granted."
That's it.
www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...
RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:4llrhdclvdlmmynkwsmg5tdc/post/3mfc5annabf22
Lol, via Boston Globe: "Trump to hold news conference on #SCOTUS tariffs ruling" In which he threatens Plans B, C, D, and FU, rants about activist judges and basically says the rule of law doesn't apply to him.
"One box" of rulings in the #SCOTUS press room = (only) 1-2 rulings coming at 10 ET.
Today in Labor History February 20, 1905: The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Massachusetts's mandatory smallpox vaccination program in Jacobson v. Massachusetts. There were lots of problems early on with the vaccine. For one, they reused needles, causing the transfer of syphilis from infected to uninfected people. They also had problems with bacterial contamination of the vaccine that made some people sick. On the other hand, because of the global mandatory vaccination program, the disease was eradicated in 1977, the only human disease to be completely wiped out. Keep in mind that as recently as the mid-1950s, over 2 million people were dying annually, worldwide, from the disease.
With respect to personal freedom, the Court ruled in Jacobson that individual liberty is not absolute and is subject to the state’s use of police power. Consequently, Jacobson has been invoked in other Supreme Court cases to justify police power. The ruling led to a mobilization of the anti-vaccination movement and the creation of the Anti-Vaccination League of America. The Jacobson ruling was later invoked to support the eugenicist forced sterilization of people with intellectual disabilities (Buck v Bell, 1927); the federal partial abortion ban (Gonzales v Carhart, 2007); drug testing of students (Veronica School District v Acton, 1995); and, most recently, COVID mitigation mandates, like face masks and stay-at-home orders.
#workingclass #LaborHistory #smallpox #vaccination #publichealth #vaccinemandates #liberty #freedom #SCOTUS #publichealth #antivax
Today in Labor History February 20, 1905: The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Massachusetts's mandatory smallpox vaccination program in Jacobson v. Massachusetts. There were lots of problems early on with the vaccine. For one, they reused needles, causing the transfer of syphilis from infected to uninfected people. They also had problems with bacterial contamination of the vaccine that made some people sick. On the other hand, because of the global mandatory vaccination program, the disease was eradicated in 1977, the only human disease to be completely wiped out. Keep in mind that as recently as the mid-1950s, over 2 million people were dying annually, worldwide, from the disease.
With respect to personal freedom, the Court ruled in Jacobson that individual liberty is not absolute and is subject to the state’s use of police power. Consequently, Jacobson has been invoked in other Supreme Court cases to justify police power. The ruling led to a mobilization of the anti-vaccination movement and the creation of the Anti-Vaccination League of America. The Jacobson ruling was later invoked to support the eugenicist forced sterilization of people with intellectual disabilities (Buck v Bell, 1927); the federal partial abortion ban (Gonzales v Carhart, 2007); drug testing of students (Veronica School District v Acton, 1995); and, most recently, COVID mitigation mandates, like face masks and stay-at-home orders.
#workingclass #LaborHistory #smallpox #vaccination #publichealth #vaccinemandates #liberty #freedom #SCOTUS #publichealth #antivax
#SCOTUS is set to hand down more rulings in argued cases starting at 10 ET today.
I'll be covering them live here on Bluesky.
The tariffs ruling is definitely a possibility, but there are 11 other cases that were argued before it (or during the same session), and plenty that were argued after:
202. The Timing of Rulings in ...
There's obviously about eleventeen things wrong with this quote, but let's just be clear on exactly what #SCOTUS *actually* said in Vasquez Perdomo:
"The application for stay presented to Justice Kagan and
by her referred to the Court is granted."
That's it.
www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...
RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:4llrhdclvdlmmynkwsmg5tdc/post/3mfc5annabf22
"Doctors who give health advice to their patients or community that runs counter to the medical establishment face a rare but very real risk of state sanctions, including losing their license to practice.
That could soon change if anti-vaccine activists succeed in getting the Supreme Court to weigh in on how broadly the First Amendment protects doctors’ rights to free speech..."
"Doctors who give health advice to their patients or community that runs counter to the medical establishment face a rare but very real risk of state sanctions, including losing their license to practice.
That could soon change if anti-vaccine activists succeed in getting the Supreme Court to weigh in on how broadly the First Amendment protects doctors’ rights to free speech..."
