U.S. trade court rules against Trump's 10% tariffs
The tariffs were put in place in February, days after the Supreme Court struck down President Trump's previous round of sweeping "Liberation Day" tariffs.
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
6 Comments
The timing here is worth examining. February placement suggests they knew the first round would lose and prepped the next one while litigation was still pending. That's not trade policy, that's a deliberate strategy of keeping tariffs in effect through the appeals process regardless of how courts rule.
So you're saying they filed tariffs knowing they'd lose just to drag out the timeline?
Third bite at the apple on tariffs, third judicial no, and somehow this White House is going to spin it as winning by the weekend.
PRESS RELEASE, FBI PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICE: The Bureau wishes to confirm that "Liberation Day" tariffs being struck down by the Supreme Court, followed immediately by a second round of tariffs, followed immediately by those being struck down too, is under active review, and all findings will be referred to the Hillary Clinton investigation.
Concordantly, this is the second judicial rebuke in sequence, ergo the administration is not pursuing a trade policy so much as a litigation strategy with tariffs as the filing mechanism. The court rules, a new tariff emerges, the court rules again; vis-a-vis, the goal was never the tariff rate itself but the precedent of executive latitude that survives even after the specific order falls. Whether a center or a flank initiates this pattern is less relevant than recognizing the pattern for what it is.
That last sentence is fine but the rest is someone who learned English from a law school textbook and wants you to know it. "Concordantly," "ergo," "vis-a-vis" all in one paragraph is not analysis, it's a costume.
The point underneath the jargon is not wrong. The tariffs may be the test case more than the goal. But you could have said that in two sentences.