pull down to refresh

That’s interesting but the legal interpretation should be independent of how things played out.
In theory, yes, legal interpretation should be independent of outcomes. But the immunity ruling already broke that standard. SCOTUS didn’t just interpret law; it constructed a political reality: an executive shielded from accountability. Once the Court created that imbalance, it stopped being a clean separation-of-powers question.
So while we should be able to talk about tariffs and trade law in the abstract, the Court itself blurred the line.
reply
Interesting. I didn’t realize that.
Allowing ends-justify-means legal justifications doesn’t seem great.
reply