“Tariffs don’t conjure consumer demand out of thin air. Americans were buying plenty of washing machines, clothing, and steel before the tariffs. What changes is where some things are made. Production shifts from foreign manufacturers with efficiency or cost advantages to more expensive domestic manufacturers. American producers stand to gain, except when they must pay tariffs to import the materials they need (as is often the case).
But everyone who buys the product pays more. The extra $100 a family spends on a washing machine won’t instead be spent at the restaurant next door, the repair shop, or the shoe store. Real wages—what your paycheck actually buys—fall when the prices of most things rise.
…
When Americans buy less from China, it’s true, some of our overseas business competitors lose revenue. But what about the American households losing access to cheaper goods? Or the American producers losing access to cheaper materials and ingredients that make them more competitive?
Both countries take a hit. Serious analysts who favor targeted tariffs for strategic reasons generally acknowledge this tradeoff and argue that the benefits justify the costs. What they don’t claim is that such costs don’t exist.
…
Even when firms do absorb some of the hit, the money doesn’t disappear. These companies instead hire fewer people, pay lower wages, invest less or, in industries where profit margins are already thin, hike future prices. The burden just takes a different route to your wallet.”
““The average person doesn’t appreciate how stunning” it is for a grand jury to outright reject an indictment, as a former prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s office in D.C. put it to me. “The rules are skewed so heavily in favor of the prosecutor that it’s almost comical. But the public is essentially saying, ‘We do not trust you. We are skeptical of you.’”
…
Pirro, like Attorney General Pam Bondi, is willing to use her power to try to intimidate and punish Trump’s political opponents — even if that means degrading herself, the office and DOJ, and wasting taxpayers’ money all at the same time. On top of that, Pirro has managed to antagonize federal judges in the district and racked up a long list of rebukes, which will only make it harder for her and her prosecutors to win in court in the future.
Through it all, Pirro is failing to win the indictments, let alone convictions, that Trump craves. She is stumbling not just by the traditional standards of a U.S. Attorney, but also by the Trumpian version.
The Trump administration’s abuse of the Justice Department to pursue Trump’s antagonists would probably be an even bigger story if they were succeeding instead of flailing. The department’s cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James were borderline frivolous on the merits, but they got dismissed after a judge concluded that Lindsay Halligan, who was separately taken to task for serious prosecutorial errors before the Comey grand jury, had been illegally installed as the U.S. Attorney overseeing the cases in the Eastern District of Virginia. The DOJ tried to charge James on two more occasions, but grand jurors rejected those efforts.
Of course, Pirro had joined the pile-on against Trump’s adversaries even before last week’s case. In January, she opened a criminal investigation into whether Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell lied to Congress about renovations at the Fed’s D.C. headquarters. The investigation was roundly criticized as a pretextual effort to force Powell to lower interest rates, as Trump has been insisting. It is also blowing up in Trump’s face, with GOP Sen. Thom Tillis vowing to block Kevin Warsh’s nomination as Fed chair until the Powell investigation is resolved.
Pirro’s effort to indict the six Democratic members of Congress marks her highest profile flop to date, but it is far from the first. Remember Sandwich Guy? Pirro made a video mocking the man who threw a sandwich at a federal agent, then failed to secure felony charges from a grand jury before losing the fallback misdemeanor case altogether.”
“Educators fear these immigration raids will have long-term consequences similar to the Covid-19 pandemic like increased student absences and anxiety and declining academic performance. They have already seen signs of this, with early data showing steep attendance drops despite their best efforts to keep students in their brick-and-mortar classrooms.”
The Conservative Supreme Court justices can’t agree on what the major questions doctrine is and what exceptions to it should be.
The Supreme Court made a major change in how lower courts operate by limiting nationwide injunctions. Such injunctions could have prevented the US government from illegally taking all this money in the first place and avoided the issue of if, when, and to whom, the tariff money is paid back. This policy allows the president to act illegally for months or years until the Supreme Court finally resolves a case.
“As in the Good case, experts in police training and tactics questioned why a federal officer apparently positioned himself in front of Martinez’s vehicle.
“You don’t stand in front of the car, you don’t put yourself in harm’s way,” said Geoffrey Alpert, a police use-of-force expert at the University of South Carolina. He added that there’s never a scenario where it’s justified, “because you don’t know whether this person is going to flee, and if he flees, you could be dead.””
In Trump’s second term, his administration sees their job as pleasing Trump, not making sure he has the best true information. Trump doesn’t really care about the truth. People in the administration try to get in Trump’s good graces by publicly lying for him. Sticking their necks out and lying and yelling on his behalf, is a display of loyalty.