Five of nine Supreme Court members, and five of six Republican Supreme Court members, were executive branch attorneys dedicated to finding ways to expand presidential power at the expense of Congress. As justices, they act with a bias against Congress and in favor of presidential power…at least as long as that president is doing Conservative things.
Presidential power breaks down when the president is not faithfully enacting the laws of Congress, which he is required to do by the Constitution!, and when the president acts corruptly, aiming to enrich himself and his friends and family rather than do what is best for the country.
Trump uses his power as president to change US policy specifically to punish businesses owned or run by people who didn’t support him politically and in favor of those who do support him or are related to him.
Parties can now coordinate with candidates by using money in ways that they were previously banned from doing.
Attempts to prevent corruption with campaign finance laws has failed. We may need to rethink it. Money has found a way to affect politics even with campaign finance laws. If anything, the restrictions have made the super wealthy more powerful!
Making campaign finance more complicated with more regulation makes it harder for the smaller players to legally take part. The super wealthy have the means to figure out ways around regulation.
Republican Supreme Court justices use the shadow docket to stop policies they don’t like, and to allow policies they do like. They are more partisan ideological actors than judges focused on the law.
The conservatives on the Supreme Court advanced the shadow docket as a prominent way to make impactful decisions while fighting with the Obama administration.They wanted to stop major Obama actions so that a final ruling wouldn’t come after the actions have already had a major impact. Yet, during the Trump administration, the shadow docket has often been used to allow Trump to go ahead with actions. The conservatives of the Supreme Court appear to be using the shadow docket to implement their political ideology, not execute sound and considered legal decisions.
“Trump appointees who defy the president’s will are showing the courage of their convictions, applying the law as they understand it rather than reflexively deferring to the politician who gave them their jobs. But Trump, who takes it for granted that justices vote the way they do for political reasons, neither understands nor appreciates judicial independence.”
“These new tariffs are likely unlawful too.
Indeed, Trump’s own attorneys even admitted as much during the legal battle over the original tariffs.
…
Trump is leaning on Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974
…
Section 122 allows presidents to impose tariffs of up to 15 percent for up to 150 days to “deal with large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits.”
What’s that? The Trump administration wants to pretend—or perhaps wrongly believes—that it’s the same thing as a trade deficit. It’s not.
A balance-of-payments deficit is an archaic problem that existed before the introduction of floating exchange rates for foreign currencies. Changes made to the international monetary system in the 1970s—changes that Milton Friedman advocated, it’s worth noting—eliminated the circumstances that could lead to a balance-of-payments deficit.
“The United States does not have an international payments problem, fundamental or otherwise, and has not had one since we adopted a floating exchange rate more than five decades ago,” explains Bryan Riley, director of the Free Trade Initiative at the National Taxpayers Union. “Therefore, Section 122 does not give President Trump the legal authority to impose tariffs.”
Just like with the IEEPA tariffs, Trump’s use of Section 122 ignores the plain language of the law and invokes a broad executive power where Congress clearly provided a narrow one.”
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.