Barron’s (January 8)
“There are few winners in the U.S. stock market from higher tariffs,” but investors are betting and hoping to win if the Supreme Court strikes Trump’s tariffs down. “The Supreme Court may or may not issue a Friday ruling regarding the legality of President Donald Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs without the approval of Congress. But investors already appear to be betting that the court will strike a blow against the levies.”
Tags: Congress, Emergency powers, Investors, Ruling, Stock market, Supreme Court, Tariffs, Trump, U.S., Winners
Wall Street Journal (November 9)
“President Trump has a big tariff problem: His border taxes are raising prices on tariffed goods, they’re unpopular with voters, and the Supreme Court might rule that his “emergency” tariffs are illegal.” To win back support, he has just promised “a dividend of at least $2000 a person (not including high income people!) will be paid to everyone.” This latest “hail Mary” is founded on, among other logical fallacies, a “contradiction that Mr. Trump can both pay a tariff rebate and pay down the national debt.” The WSJ editorial board has “advised Mr. Trump from the beginning that tariffs would do economic harm, and so they are.”
Tags: 2000, Border taxes, Contradiction, Dividend, Economic harm, Emergency, Illegal, Logical fallacies, National debt, Prices, Rebate, Supreme Court, Tariff, Trump, Unpopular, Voters
New York Times (November 6)
“President Trump’s barrage on global trade appears to have taken a hit” during questioning in front of the Supreme Court. “Concerns are growing that the Supreme Court could scramble the Trump administration’s tariffs strategy. That may be welcome news for free-trade advocates, but it could also unleash more uncertainty for businesses and Wall Street.” Market reaction was rapid as “the yield on 10-year Treasury notes spiked to 4.15 percent,” a sell-off that suggests “bond holders are fretting that an adverse ruling could deprive the government of revenues needed to offset the federal deficit.”
Tags: Barrage, Bond holders, Businesses, Free trade, Fretting, Global trade, Market reaction, Revenues, Scramble, Sell-off, Supreme Court, Tariffs strategy, Treasuries, Trump, Uncertainty, Wall Street, Yield
Bloomberg (October 7)
Should Trump’s “signature tariffs” be overturned by the Supreme Court, “it would unleash a bureaucratic nightmare involving reams of refund paper checks.” This could involve refunding “the bulk of the $165 billion in customs duties collected so far this fiscal year back to companies that paid them. But they won’t have an easy time getting their money back.”
Tags: $165 billion, Bureaucratic nightmare, Companies, Customs duties, Overturned, Paper checks, Supreme Court, Tariffs, Trump
Bloomberg (September 13)
“President Donald Trump’s most concrete step to rein in unprecedented US budget deficits — sweeping tariff hikes — faces the danger of a legal reversal that would put the nation’s finances on an even shakier footing.” While expert opinion is somewhat divided on the rationale for tariffs, “few disagree that tariff hikes are indeed generating a new stream of cash for the Treasury,” a stream that could disappear with the impending Supreme Court decision, placing “Trump’s deficit plan at risk.”
Tags: Budget deficits, Danger, Decision, Expert, Finances, Legal reversal, Opinion, Rationale, Risk, Shakier, Supreme Court, Tariff hikes, Treasury, Trump, U.S., Unprecedented
New York Times (March 21)
“Gig companies have drawn billions in venture capital funding to help underwrite a system that is a race to the bottom for labor protections. But it doesn’t have to be that way.” Britain’s Supreme Court has ruled that Uber must now classify its drivers as workers. “If Uber can sustain its business while granting drivers improved guaranteed benefits and a financial safety net, then surely that model can be replicated elsewhere.” Uber drivers and other Gig workers “deserve the opportunity to make financial headway.”
Tags: Benefits, Drivers, Gig, Labor, Opportunity, Protections, Safety net, Supreme Court, Uber, UK, VC, Workers
Wall Street Journal (December 14)
The Supreme Court loss means “President Trump’s legal challenges have run their course.” With “no remaining legal alternatives,” both the President and “the rest of the Republican Party can help the country and themselves by acknowledging the result and moving on.” Unfortunately, “there’s no predicting how Mr. Trump will behave.” He may very well “continue his ‘stolen’ election claims past Jan. 20.”
Tags: Alternatives, Claims, Election, Legal challenges, Loss, Moving on, Republicans, Result, Stolen, Supreme Court, Trump
USA Today (October 7)
The “superspreader” event in the Rose Garden will go down in history. Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the “maskless Supreme Court nomination ceremony turned into a form of biological attack on the top echelons of U.S. government.” Symbolic of “America’s failing response to the novel coronavirus,” the event was “a sad brew of hubris and misapplied science.” White House officials and guests mistakenly thought “they could frolic in a kind of virus-free bubble, exempted from the preventative measures that have reshaped and constrained the lives of millions of average Americans.”
Tags: Biological attack, Bubble, Ceremony, COVID-19, Failing, Frolic, History, Hubris, Maskless, Nomination, Pandemic, Rose Garden, Superspreader, Supreme Court, U.S.
The Guardian (September 24)
“The supreme court has delivered a comprehensive demolition of Boris Johnson’s government and its handling of Brexit. The unanimous judgment of the 11 justices…amounts to a root and branch rejection of the prime minister’s attempts to rule without parliament, to take Britain out of the European Union by 31 October without a deal, and to contrive a premature general election…. The immediate effect of the judgment is devastating for Johnson. It is expressed so cogently and unambiguously that it will be difficult for him to wriggle out of it – even though he is certainly foolish enough to try.”
Tags: Brexit, Devastating, EU, Foolish, Johnson, Judgment, Parliament, Rejection, Supreme Court, UK, Unanimous
Chicago Tribune (September 27)
“Separating politics from process in Washington is harder than scraping gum from the sidewalk in summer. But for the benefit of Ford, Kavanaugh and the confirmation process…. there should be more investigative work done….. A quick vote up or down would leave unanswered the fundamental question of a Supreme Court nominee’s character and fitness.”
Tags: Character, Confirmation, Fitness, Ford, Investigative work, Kavanaugh, Nominee, Politics, Process, Supreme Court, Vote
