anon_
19hr ago
Certainly bilateral (pairwise) aren’t, otherwise you end up with the triangle problem (A sells to B, B sells to C, C sells to A, everyone concludes they are getting screwed). Even overall trade differences aren’t useful because of off-trade movements. The US receives tons if money licensing IP that doesn’t show up in trade. If anything, Marvel licensing Hulk undie production in Bangladesh for sale in Australia ought to count twice in our favor instead of zero times.
It might be easier at this point to just enumerate tariffs or other trade barriers. They exist, free traders have been chipping away at them for ages. That seems more honest.
anon_
22hr ago
That will greatly increase the chance of having to fight the PLA in the Philippines or Japan or Guam or Hawaii.
anon_
22hr ago
I agree it's vague, but it is as deferential to the government while still maintaining that deportees get some due process in the form of judicial review. I really can't imagine any other result that's this favorable to the administration.
In that case the court found that if the detention was on behalf of the US then the court would have jurisdiction to order his return since the US had "constructive" custody of him.
We shall see.
Vladeck has an article (of course) that talks about this in some detail.
I greatly respect Vladeck, but I have serious issues with his analysis. My two major complaints is that he cites concerns that are, frankly, not proper or justiciable.
Trading APA review for habeas, even if the remedies were otherwise commensurate, is trading the ideologically diverse (and national security-experienced) D.C. federal courts for the most right-leaning federal courts in the country. And the justices know that, too.
I mean, we all know that. It's a fact. But the best application of APA vs Habeas here does not depend at all upon this fact, and Vladeck knows or ought to know it. It also wouldn't matter if the DC Circuit was full of Trump appointees and the 5th full of Biden ones.
This isn’t any old case; it’s the case in which the government has come the closest to outright defiance of a court order (something Chief Judge Boasberg is still in the middle of adjudicating). [...] Not two weeks later, here’s Roberts providing the decisive vote to hold that, in fact, the case shouldn’t have been before that judge (or that court) in the first place
Again, whether or not this belongs in the DCC or the 5th is completely independent of whether the government ordered a court order. That fact cannot enter into a jurisdictional question -- and it's just beneath him to suggest that it's relevant.
The remedy for contempt cannot possibly be "we rewrite or reframe jurisdictional law to punish the contemptuous litigant".
anon_
1d ago
Hmm, then I'll amend what I wrote above about redressability. If the US is paying to house this particular guy, then it is likely a remedy to order the US to stop paying.
anon_
1d ago
At minimum, the previous order was not dissolved. It's fine to say that the facts underlying it had changed significantly and it could have been relitigated, but it clearly wasn't. The Court has reiterated rather often that those orders remains in effect until removed, regardless of changes in the underlying merits.
You're talking about individual cases in front of an Article 3 judge with all the appeals that entails for every individual you want to deport.
I don't think this is necessarily so. The opinion reinforces that "the detainees are entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard "appropriate to the nature of the case." Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 313 (1950)." -- which means that the Court is not addressing what process is due here.
The Court goes on to say "The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs" -- which I read to mean that the government can provide notice of intent to remove and it is on deportee to then seek relief. That's just about maximally stacking the procedural burden in favor of the government.
On thing missing in the court's ruling, though, is any mention of the ~270 individuals already deported under the act. Certainly without the kind of review the court orders today. The courts decision implies this was a violation of their Fifth Amendment rights but does not actually say anything directly about them. Can they file habeas petitions in the United States to be returned? If the government can get you out of the country is that it?
Redressability is a key part of standing. It's not just out of the country like in GITMO -- those were still individuals detained by agents of the US government to whom a remedy would apply.
The most a court could order here is that CBP would be required to admit them if they presented themselves at a border crossing. They can't order a foreign government to release or transport them. Even that, I'm not sure would be considered a remedy that would redress the harm, given that it's so speculative. EDIT: It was suggested below that the US might be paying for the continued detention abroad, in which case it is possible to order the US official that is doing so to stop. I'm not quite up to my standing doctrine on whether this now counts as a remedy.
anon_
1d ago
$12M vs 1M — besides being lopsided, that’s just peanuts. It’s all barely a rounding error.
anon_
2d ago
Some explorations of trade imbalances between countries:
Scenario 1
- A->B 500 units
- B->A 500 units
- A->C 500 units
- C->A 500 units
Scenario 2
- A->B 500 units
- B->C 500 units
- C->A 500 units
Scenario 3
- A->B 1000 units
- B->A 500 units
- B->C 500 units
- C->A 500 units
Proponents that believe that disparities in the pairwise trade balance between countries must arise from foul play (call it the disparate impact theory of trade I guess) presumably believe that from the perspective of Country A, (1) is ideal. Scenario 2 doesn't differ from (1) except by the unrelated actions of (B) and (C), and scenario (3) is just (1) + (2) and so if those are fine, surely their sum must be fine.
What I think this all gets to is that pairwise analysis isn't really very meaningful.
anon_
2d ago
Why were blue collar workers expected to sacrifice their livelihoods for the benefit of financial markets back in the 90s, but we shouldn't expect financial markets to sacrifice some of their growth for the well-being of blue collar workers now?
What do you actually think will happen to blue collar workers now? How many will be better off in June than they were in March?
anon_
3d ago
TOTAL_TARIFFS_PAID / TOTAL_VALUE_OF_GOODS doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room.
That's meaningless. If Canada puts a 1000000% tariff on US dairy, the US will export 0 dairy to them and there will be 0 tariff paid.
anon_
3d ago
As soon as Trump announced, their retaliation was already basically locked in. Their announce didn't move the needle because it was highly improbable they were gonna just do nothing.
anon_
3d ago
I'd add that, unfortunately for me, if Trump proceeds to wreck the economy it will cause a lasting polarization against his anti-woke efforts.
anon_
3d ago
A majority can, at any time, remake the rules. The rules continue to apply at the pleasure of the majority.
anon_
4d ago
And likewise for tariffs.
It’s the folks that give different answers to the two questions that are suspect.
But yeah, voters don’t grok tax incidence.
anon_
4d ago
§2(b)(1)(A)(i) requires a valid reason be given in writing to the clerk to be verified (c)(1)(A) and returned as invalid if not conforming (c)(1)(C).
Modifying that would require another majority vote.
anon_
4d ago
Not only is it not realistic or practical, the goal is to have a house in which there is butter. Fixing the problem by removing the butter only gets us further from that goal.
anon_
4d ago
Because those incentives are tied to other matters -- they are not completely independent choices.
For example, if you want to live in a high-trust neighborhood where people don't lock their front doors, this implies leaving an incentive for thieves to defect. If you want to be able to have Amazon leave packages on your stoop, that implies leaving an incentive for porch pirates.
anon_
4d ago
It has similar negative incentives to a high corporate income tax (the latter of which was reduced in 45's term to be more in line with the rest of the world).
There was a very incisive point about this on one of the economics blogs -- that is it difficult to have a consistent model in which the costs of tariffs are primarily borne by consumers but the cost of corporate taxes are primarily borne by producers (or vice versa).
It is possible to come up with reasons why this might be so -- by adjusting the specifics on incidence -- but this requires the kind of fine-tuning that one has to be suspicious of when it just so happens line up with one's preexisting political commitments.
anon_
4d ago
I think when the House moves on to other business, you raise a point of order that this business is not properly before the House until it votes on your privileged matter. If the Speaker refuses, the appeal goes to the full House for a vote.
Since you had a majority for the DC in the first place, this vote presumably goes your way and the other business cannot be done.
anon_
4d ago
It was not allowed simply because House rules forbade it. As noted, the Constitution grants the House the right to make their own rules.
In any event, one doesn't need to be in favor of proxy voting for frivolous reasons (need to make a fundraiser) in order to support it for good ones (a newborn).
anon_
4d ago
I would assume the video feed would be authenticated (in addition to everything else) by a physical token that the representative has to retrieve at the point of swearing in. But anyway, for reasons I added above, this is extremely unlikely -- far more so than the modest request for new mothers not to have to fly to DC with a newborn under 12 weeks.
anon_
4d ago
That would be an even more radical change to the rules of the House.
Proxy voting is seen (perhaps wrongly) as a more conservative alternative in which votes are still fundamentally cast in person with a roll call.
Yes, but less poignant
More options
Context Copy link