zeke5123a
15hr ago
Gorsuch’s opinion will be taught in law schools as setting out the doctrinal elements of MQD. It is a tour de force.
zeke5123a
15hr ago
Sure in general. In this case where a retroactive tariff is merely enforcing an original tariff that was rescinded for technical legal reason seems different.
zeke5123a
16hr ago
I don’t found her analysis compelling at all (putting aside whether legislative history ought to even be considered).
It seems to me that regulating (the word used in the legislative history) easily can include tariffs. Moreover, I think she is wrong that tariffs goal is to raise revenue. It is impart revenue raising but many defenses of tariffs are not about revenue raising (eg protecting nascent industries, protecting strategically important industries). Tariffs categorically could easily fit within the legislative history.
But me finding a Jackson opinion lacking is like me finding steak delicious. It’s expected.
zeke5123a
18hr ago
But the majority also allows quotas (so not 0-100). Functionally, a quota functions somewhat similar to a tariff in economic impact.
zeke5123a
19hr ago
I disagree. Kavanaugh makes a strong argument that given the Nixon tariff, the meaning at the time of the statue would’ve been clearly understood to include tariffs and therefore MQD is not applicable. The fact presidents haven’t used it since is largely irrelevant.
He also points to the historic understanding to again ground the definition to obviously include tariffs. Finally, he makes a compelling point that the majority seems to believe the statue permits a bull elephant in this elephant hole (the ability to prevent any imports from a country) yet the majority believes the statute precludes a baby elephant (ie a tariff). This is of course an inversion of how MQD typically work.
I think the reality is that in the merits of interpreting regulating imports Kavanaugh has the better of it. But I think what really bothers the conservative members of the majority is the statute envisages an emergency. But how could our trade balance—which has existed for decades—be an emergency?
So while that part wasn’t really reviewable I think the majority imprecisely used MQD to say no way even if doctrinally Kavanaugh has the better of it.
zeke5123a
1d ago
Your post reminds me of Bastiat. Hr said something akin to the statist claim that we (classical liberals) oppose food when we oppose the government paying for food or education when we oppose the government paying for education.
zeke5123a
1d ago
Your priorities seem really whack. Why limit your banging to hot Asian gym girls? Subtract Asian and gym. Don’t discriminate against hot girls!
zeke5123a
4d ago
Well, I’m a bit worried that if AI solves law, robotics will solve “working with…hands” when combined with AI.
zeke5123a
4d ago
Sure. I don’t even disagree but people recognize 20th century Fox because of the branding + its wealth of films. That doesn’t imply people would recognize a producer behind it.
zeke5123a
4d ago
I don’t think it’s the production per se but the association with some other property (eg Pirates of the Caribbean) that works.
zeke5123a
4d ago
I thought there was a dip of about 12 percent from the peak in the first half?
Also, Nielsen utilized a new method to count which increased viewership by about 10% (meaning the halftime show was even less watched live compared to the Lamar show). But of course it also means the SB wasn’t viewed as much aw last year.
zeke5123a
5d ago
You might be right. Hasn’t been my experience.
I hope you are wrong (if I’m right we both have jobs)
zeke5123a
5d ago
I’m in a very specialized area of law. While there is a lot of law, you’d be surprised daily how many fact patterns I face where there is no guidance (either judicial, administrative, or secondary) and things fall down at the edges (ie basically comes down to judgement).
Moreover, law changes all of the time (especially in this field). This seems to confuse LLMs sometimes (both in what the current law is and what the change in law means and doesn’t mean). Finally, a lot of the guidance doesn’t strictly apply in one area but can (taking into account a lot of factors) apply to totally different area without any indication.
Further, my role isn’t primarily telling what the answer is but figuring out what the facts are, what they can be, and what the best set of future facts are applied to an unclear legal framework whilst trying to predict future government policy.
We’ve tried using LLMs. They’ve all failed to this point.
zeke5123a
5d ago
Sure people used to watch the Oscars (though still not most people). Someone ruining Weinstein in passing would not create widespread name recognition. Movies perhaps but even then how many people paid attention to that kind of thing?
Walt Disney was some what recognizable as he did shows etc as part of marketing. The other famous people were directors and people would go see movies due to directors. Pretty rare to go see a movie because of a producer.
zeke5123a
5d ago
I’ve heard “he is worth 100 or 150” without giving the base but I’ve never heard anyone mention figures while dropping the first six.
zeke5123a
6d ago
If you asked the average Joe or Jane in early 2000s who Harvey Weinstein was I bet few would know (do ordinary people pay attention to thank you’s in an Oscar speech — do they even pay attention to the Oscar’s?).
If you showed a picture even less would’ve been able to tell you who that was.
If you asked them who Clooney was, a majority would be able to tell you.
zeke5123a
6d ago
I was puzzled by this. I think he meant deca-millionaire. Maybe it’s a British thing?
zeke5123a
6d ago
OTOH, Cosby was conservative coded. On the other hand, Diddy. On the gripping hand, Tyson.
zeke5123a
6d ago
Exactly. I think your point is correct and conflating elite with celebrity misses a key point.
You could’ve also mentioned the UVA scandal.
zeke5123a
6d ago
But that’s conflating things—elite and celebrity. The two do not always go hand in hand.
You misunderstand the metaphor.
The origination of the phrase is that Congress doesn’t hide elephants in mole holes (or anthills — I forget the specifics). The concept was the statue prima facie gave the authority (ie the hole) but the nature of bill was such that Congress clearly wasn’t intended to give a massive power to the executive.
Inverting the phrase (i.e., elephant in an elephant hole) is simply saying yes there was a massive grant of authority (ie the hole) but obviously Congress was intended to give the grant (thus the hole being elephant sized; not mole sized).
It is thus curious that Congress gave this large power but failed to include a smaller power within the catch all. Note this is the opposite of how MQD typically works.
Re wartime you have it exactly backwards. Tariffs become more important in wartime; not less. You are thinking about it in the context of the enemy. But the provision can be used for not just the enemy but third parties. As the executive, you may want to raise revenue, keep a supply of a vital good going while encouraging domestic production, or utilize the threat of tariffs to pressure third parties. It’s obviously a key wartime power and in the event of an actual war I believe SCOtUS would rule 9-0 there is a power to tariff.
Again, I think the real problem here is that there clearly was no emergency and thus Trump was abusing the statute. I think BK is correct that the statute envisages a tariff but am sympathetic to the majority that Congress was not envisioning its use in the way Trump has used the statute.
More options
Context Copy link