21 Comments
User's avatar
Scott Garl's avatar

Well, we have a 6k ES test on our overnight hands this evening, so F them.

These judges must all party with letita - the political banana-replublic-shit-show herself - james. Clown show!

Your blog has been hitting it out of the park last few days, thanks as always.

Expand full comment
Jeffrey Carter's avatar

Sell Mortimer Sell.

Expand full comment
Scott Garl's avatar

What's your stop with a 6k entry? Liquidation higher event poised to be retraced, but I'm not as bearish as everyone I know. Few guys I know have been selling for days now. Would be nice to see BTC give it up a tad, if short here. Should be a fun day tomorrow. But I know jack shit as a big red car would say.

Expand full comment
Jeffrey Carter's avatar

no stops. Stops are for wimps. When the appellate court reverses....

Expand full comment
Rascal Nick Of's avatar

Trump is being far too solicitous of these illegal rulings.

Expand full comment
NNTX's avatar

The judges are replaying the resistance from Trump's first term, even though there are fewer bureaucrats to help this time. This is a civilizational war with "trillions at stake" (to quote Sundance at The Conservative treehouse).

Implacable courage called for, along with prayer. And at some point SCOTUS will have to get off the sidelines...when is an issue since they are soon no longer sitting for the summer if I understand their working process.

Meanwhile the will of the electorate is frustrated and 4 months of Trump's term has elapsed.

Expand full comment
ronald reif's avatar

Thankfully the appeals court over ruled the order and the tariffs are back on.

Expand full comment
Jay's avatar
May 29Edited

I've been trying to think of a good response. One that everyone can live with when the situation changes and the other side is in power.

Asking judges to restrain themselves isn't a solution. There will always be partisan hack judges burrowed in. The partisan hacks who appoint judges will be sure of that.

What I have right now (short term) is that Trump needs to do some venue shopping of his own. Find a friendly judge to issue an alternate order vacating the nationwide injunction.

Then Trump can choose to follow that order instead, which, why not. That will force the question to a higher court, which is where it should be if nationwide injunctions are involved.

It's not a great way to handle the situation but it's better than what we are doing now.

Expand full comment
Danimal28's avatar

"It will undermine the US legal system."

Indeed. Legal beagles: much like federal law enforcement - we no longer trust you. At all.

Expand full comment
Thomas Hilterbrant's avatar

And Trump is not proclaiming emergencies where no real emergencies exist? Are his tariffs not political? It seems both sides use the law to further an agenda.

Expand full comment
Jeffrey Carter's avatar

Tariffs might be political, might not be. Depends. There is an argument made to have defense industries in your country......as long as you treat them like defense industries...(that doesn't happen). But, yes, some tariffs are to placate specific groups. FWIW, they don't replace taxes

Expand full comment
Ken Mitchell's avatar

The emergency is that we're about to collapse our economy with too much wasteful spending and revenues that can't support it.

Expand full comment
John Oh's avatar

It's dire and at least something is being attempted to change things before it's too late. But most people won't get it until the bottom falls out. And for the left, the bottom falling out is a good thing because they believe it will lead to chaos and then to a one party socialist utopia. I can't believe I actually believe that now, but I do.

Expand full comment
Deoxy's avatar

That has been their publicly (though usually quietly) stated goal for decades.

And it explains their behaviour better than anything but sheer insanity.

Of course you should believe it.

Expand full comment
Deoxy's avatar

"And Trump is not proclaiming emergencies where no real emergencies exist?"

According to whom? As we have seen over many years (if you are paying attention), most of these "declared emergencies" by Presidents and lesser officials (many of whom are not elected), they have the authority to declare the emergency... and no one else does.

When it is an emergency? When X person says so. That's how a lot of them work.

That you are just now noticing that so many of them really aren't emergencies is another example of people holding Trump to a different standard.

Now, maybe it *shouldn't* be that way. But boy, it's tedious BS when, *magicall*, what has been utterly uncommentworthy since before most of you were born is now suddenly a problem.

"Hence, it’s political," indeed.

Expand full comment
Nunya's avatar

"Politicians like to propose big, dreamy projects to make people feel good about themselves. They also do it in order to deflect from the things they are doing."

Also see - "Big Beautiful Bill"

Expand full comment
Mitch Weiner's avatar

Thankfully that has already been overturned 😄👏💯💪🇺🇲

Expand full comment
Anna Mac's avatar

I have to believe these leftist judges are purposely undermining the judicial system. Everyone must understand what will happen if the president decides to ignore these injunctions. When I think it can't possibly get worse...

Expand full comment
Rad4Cap's avatar

>>"This same court, and these same businesses and states, were okay with Biden/Obama and anyone else charging tariffs"

"This same court" was "okay" with tariffs imposed under the IEEPA (have an example?)"? Or were they simply "okay" just with "tariffs" in general? Because there's a BIG difference - ie one can't DROP CONTEXT when discussing these things.

Expand full comment
Chasing Naomi's avatar

I am beginning to think Trump loves limelight, the roll-out; doesn't much care what happens the next day.

Expand full comment
ShoNuffHarlem's avatar

This is idiotic. The Obama tariff was specifically authorized by congress, only against China in a statute

, and to fight dumping with specific findings a Federal agency must discover through investigation then pass to the president.

Trump simply exercised dictate authority through an act that grants emergency powers during a defined emergency. No such emergency exists says the court as defined by congress, and the act itself is to vague and violates the general delegation supreme court doctrine.

Conservatives shouldn't be for dictate via emergency powers ever. That's exactly how Nazi Germany arose.

The problem is congress never acting. That doesn't mean we should choose a dictator instead, law be Damned. That's how Napoleon came to power.

Even if tariffs are a good idea, it specifically says in the constitution they must come from congress. Obama tarrifs did Trump tarrifs didn't.

Expand full comment