It was the best of times, it was the most absurd of times. Oh, sorry, got carried away there.
Two trials worthy of note started today. One of serious import to MacroEconomic types, the other comedic for its lack of significance.
The latter: the trial of the guy who threw a sandwich at a fully armed, outfitted customs & border patrol officer shouting “We don’t want you here.” Sandwich guy first charged with a felony, when the grand jury failed to indict, charge reduced to a misdemeanor, but jury selection started today. Stay tuned.
Of (more) serious importance, the Supremes take up the issue of whether the President can simply make up tariffs based on his own say-so (“national emergency”) or not. The case has gone through several layers of lower courts and has perhaps belatedly arrived at the USSC. Arguments today, decision will probably be released fairly quickly, as opposed to the usual practice of waiting until the end of the term.
Either way it bodes economic disruption: a vote against the practice should imply refunding all that has been collected so far, a fraught task given the tens of thousands of vendors and billions at hand.
A vote in favor offers even more power to the Executive, which seems the opposite of the Constitutional directive that Congress holds that power, and the likewise black-and-white instruction that Congress cannot delegate those Constitutional powers.
Either way, popcorn time!
[edit; sorry, the USSC argument is Wednesday, not today.]
I watched about 2 hours of the USSC hearing on tariffs this morning. While cameras are not allowed in the court, microphones are, and CNN and MSNBC carried the hearing live, or at least most of it. (Fox did not, and as I cruised past was involved in a discussion of whether Mamdani is a Socialist or a Communist and I didn’t stay long enough to find out. CNN cut away for a Mamdani press conference, so I went back to MSNBC although CNN’s graphics and Twitter-like feed scroll was better. And for the media watchers about, I completely forgot about NewsNation, the former WGN channel trying to edge into the 24-hour news business, and my lack of awareness apparently is not uncommon, given their ratings overall. But I digress.)
Seven of the nine justices seemed broadly skeptical of the government’s arguments that the President has wide-ranging power to set tariffs as he pleases. The other two, the two who are in the tank for team A and object to everything for Team B were not heard from, at least while I was listening, but all the others offered multiple cites and questions wondering where this over-arching interpretation of Executive power comes from. Every answer from the government prosecutor was met and parried, so far as I could tell.
I would caution that questions during a hearing may not reflect how a Justice will eventually vote, but it certainly seemed that there is doubt, perhaps disbelief that the statutes can be stretched so far as is being done.
As for the other trial mentioned in the threat title, on Monday the officer who was “attacked” by sandwich guy testified that the hoagie hit him squarely in his tactical armored bulletproof vest. No report on whether the sandwich was loaded with American or foreign meats, however.
I followed the SCOTUSBlog live blog of the arguments from start to finish. Okay, I caught it half way and scrolled up.
Anyway, the moderator’s take was kind of a 3-3-3 perspective. Alito, Thomas, and Kavanaugh were taking a tack that was very solicitous of the government’s position. For those not following at home, it’s basically that when the International Economic Emergency Powers Act gives the President the power to “regulate” imports when an emergency exists, that power to “regulate” includes the power to impose tariffs. The three liberals were very overtly skeptical of that position.
The middle three are skeptics of the Executive assertions of very broad powers based on language that doesn’t really support it. Congress knows how to use the word “tariff” (or related words like “excise” or “impost” or “duties”), and so they’re reluctant to read a word like “regulate” and say that it also means “tariff.” They were probing that issue with both sides.
The officer did testify, under oath, that the sandwich “exploded” and “you could smell the onions and mustard”. Sounds foreign to me.
The defense attorney was ready and showed the court a photo of the sandwich still in it’s wrapper on the ground, and said “In fact that sandwich hasn’t exploded at all”.
“If someone physically hits me with ANYTHING, I want MY rights to not be physically assaulted, to be upheld.“
If I had a choice between ICE tackling me, roughing me up, and whisking me away for imprisonment and deportation, and someone throwing a sub sandwich at me, well, at the risk of it exploding I’d go for the sandwich every time.
"You don’t see there’s mustard on it?” No. “You can’t tell there’s ketchup on it?” No. “You can’t tell there’s mayonnaise on it?” No. Lettuce? Tomato? “In fact, the sandwich hasn’t exploded at all?”
“A federal judge called out Border Protection Commander Gregory Bovino on Thursday for lying on the stand, before issuing a preliminary injunction against federal law enforcement using force against protesters and journalists.”
