The investor call I was on today said exactly this
I understand and obviously I am no lawyer. But Trump’s DOJ has sworn to the court that this guy’s deportation was an “administrative error”. Based on that, the judge ruled that they need to get him back - a remedy for an admitted error.
SCOTUS has now said that they need to think about this, so let the guy rot for a few days more. WTF is there to think about? If they want to initiate a new legal process, surely the guy has to be here.
I’m not sure even China would actually go that far. It would be devastating.
They may do it briefly just to prove a point. And we would deserve it.
Sometimes, you have to punch a bully in the face.
1 Like
Do they have other options for those services? If not, they’d just be shooting themselves in the foot, kind of like us tariffing coffee, etc.
China is only a few generations removed from millions of people starving to death. They’re much tougher than Americans.
2 Likes
I’m sure India will be pitching their companies.
1 Like
Thanks, I really know nothing about the specific services America provides China.
ETA, nevermind, I see Matt explained it.
Exactly
1 Like
And Trump is one of the weakest creatures ever to spoil this Earth.
India, Europe, Singapore, Korea, Australia, Canada…
They could easily roll out the red carpet for American experts too. The tariffs would be on American companies.
1 Like
Holy hell!
Bully. Your move, China.
1 Like
China’s an authoritarian regime; what if they just banned the sale of semi-conductors to the US?
They don’t (yet) control Taiwan, which is the linchpin.
1 Like
Senate Dems are finally stepping up and doing something. Sens Blumenthal and Schatz are refusing to allow unanimous consent for Trump nominees, forcing a full process on all of them.
This should’ve been a Day One initiative. I’m glad it’s happening, but it appears to be happening without any leadership from Schumer who is shrinking more every day.
2 Likes
Wow.
Expansion is a terrible idea.
The workload argument misses the point of the supreme court. They are the final interpreter of the constitution, not the final arbiters of justice in specific matters.
More justices voting would make them less, not more efficient.
Impeaching the ones you disagree with…destroys the institution.
Expanding the membership, same.
Constitutional ammendments limiting term is a great idea. Size of court…nope.
2 Likes