pull down to refresh
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
That’s interesting but the legal interpretation should be independent of how things played out.