Whenever a legal challenge to a particular policy is decided, it is decided when the court discusses the desirability of the policy as if it were making a statement. For example, after the US International Trade Court defeated Trump’s tariffs enacted under the International Economic Policy Act of 1977 (You Selections, Inc. v. Trump), supporters of Taiffs condemned the court’s ruling on social media as a “judicial coup” policy.
It is not about a minor judge deciding how to properly deal with national emergency. President Trump has pledged to put America first, and the administration is committed to addressing this and using every lever of executive power to restore America’s greatness.
On the left, many accused the ruling of upholding bad poly (abortion restrictions) after the US Supreme Court rejected Dobbs’ Roev Wade. The argument they were making was that Dobbs did not misdeterminate that the law was wrong, but scholars say that legal abortion is a desirable policy.
But it’s here. There is no court to judge policies. The court interprets the law and acts for the law. If the court maintains action, it is undesirable (or suing because it is undesirable), and it is desirable (or, of course) that it becomes a judicial coup. Ironically, it is a court of policy making, and opponents oppose different things.
please select. Was the previous court question “Is tariffs a good tool to influence trade deficits?” Also, the previous question to the court was, “should tariffs be used in trade negotiations?”, “Whether the International Emergency Economic Force Act of 1977 (“IEEPA”) would delegate before the president, or in the form of authority to impose tariffs that have not been imitated by a good loop from almost every country in the world?” Whether the Tarif is good or bad politic has nothing to do with whether the President has the laws he called for to impose them.
The court is not in a position to judge good from bad policies. That’s a question limited to Congress (not the President). Congress must “speak clearly” when delegating authority to the administrative department for big questions. Ending (or reducing) a policy simply because the court is appropriate or bad would be to deprive power from the appropriate branch (see Biden v Nebraska, Pgs. 25–26). The Congress is where we decide what Polly should be enacted.
In the United States, all governmental authorities are derived from the constitution. That’s not because they win elections and other supposed “open will.” The Constitution is the “Supreme Law of Land.” All government actions must comply with them (see Article 6). The court’s job is to once again agree with all parties for the sake of the law, even if Howes hopes that their actions may be.
I commend the International Trade Court’s decision in your choice on both economic and legal basis. However, if the situation was the opposite and Trump ended up using Ieepa to unilaterally cancel all tariffs (the policy outcome I support), I still wanted the court to overthrow such a declaration. It’s in the hands of the Congress, and Congress is only to set tax policies. Congress You decide whether Polly is good or bad. The court should not. By removing the tariffs on your choice (or Biden v Nebraska student loan forgiveness), it is not a statement about the social or political merits of Thhue police, but rather a legal merit. It is completely irrelevant to argue that tariffs are important negotiation tools (e.g.); These are Congressional arguments, and the courts said it’s Congress that needs to have those arguments (like your choice and Biden v Nebraska).
(0 comments)
Source link
