pull down to refresh
42 sats \ 1 reply \ @jamalderrick OP 19 Nov \ parent \ on: Trade Deficit Blowout Undercuts Tariff Case at SCOTUS Politics_And_Law
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.
Interesting. I didn’t realize that.
Allowing ends-justify-means legal justifications doesn’t seem great.
reply