3 ms·
You’re piling speculation on speculation. First of all, there was no such memo saying the tariffs were “very likely to be overturned.” The Supreme Court decisio
by rayiner 8mo ago
You’re piling speculation on speculation. First of all, there was no such memo saying the tariffs were “very likely to be overturned.” The Supreme Court decision was 7-3, with two Bush appointees voting to uphold the tariffs. The appellate court decision was 7-4, with two Obama appointees and two Bush appointees dissenting. Second of all, there is no evidence that this legal analysis was leaked to Cantor.
- Ajakks 8mo agoWho cares? The Treasury Secretary shouldn't have family profiting off fixing illegal policy the Treasury Secretary enacted. That should never happen. It is wrong, it doesn't explicitly spelled out.
- vel0city 8mo agoCommerce* Secretary. Lutnick is the Secretary of Commerce which implements tariff policy. Bessent is the Treasury Secretary.
- burkaman 8mo agoThe two answers I'm hearing to my question so far are that either this decision was so obvious that anyone could have predicted it without insider information, or that this was a split decision that the administration could not have predicted ahead of time. You're right that maybe there never was any internal memo, just thought this was funny.
- tzs 8mo agoWait...how do we know there was no such memo? We have no reason to believe that if such a memo exists it was used improperly, but I don't see how we could know there is no such memo. BTW you've got an extra Justice on the Supreme Court. Should be 6-3, not 7-3.
- rayiner 8mo ago> but I don't see how we could know there is no such memo. There was no such memo because OLC isn’t full of dummies. Maybe the talking heads on CNN said the case against the tariffs was a slam dunk, but you don’t get split courts at multiple levels for cases that are slam dunks.