Posted on 05/30/2025 6:20:37 AM PDT by LibertyFound
There is no other way to say it: liberal judges are waging unrestricted lawfare against President Trump.
First, they protected illegal immigrants from deportation—literally sheltering criminals from justice.
Now, they’re protecting foreign governments and multinational corporations from President Trump’s tariffs.
Case in point: yesterday, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled the tariffs were illegal. Today, a second court followed suit.
This is not surprising. Wall Street is engaging in total warfare against President Trump. Why? Because Wall Street profits tremendously from the trade deficit—to the tune of over $1.2 trillion per year. If President Trump is successful, this gravy train comes to an end.
Wall Street makes money through arbitrage with the price of labor between US & foreign countries, and then the deficit creates demand for USD which is primarily satisfied by selling stocks & bonds.
These Wall Street mavens should look in to falling dominoes to see what will happen in the end. All the money they made will be worthless no matter what currency they try to switch it to or in whatever country. The proceeds from making all the economies interconnected.
Follow the $$. Ultimate hypocrites. Treason, in a word.
Has anyone tracked how public pensions have benefited from such?
Or IRAs and 401K? We’re all making bank from this.
.
“Case in point: yesterday, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled the tariffs were illegal. Today, a second court followed suit.”
That particular part is not a “case in point”.
The court is not part of Wall Street. The nine judges are appointed for life by the presidents with concurrence of the Senate. Two were appointed by Trump and the other seven fairly evenly divided between Bush & Reagan appointees and Obama & Biden appointees. All have some background in law as it relates to international trade, in government capacities and/or in private practice as lawyers.
Trump’s EO used the wrong legal basis - “national emergency”, when it could have and should have used the Section 301 of a trade law passed in 1974, which gives the president broad powers regarding “unfair trade practices”.
Our Nation is filled with TRAITORS
I believe only three judges made the decision.
One of the three judges, Jane Restani, "a Reagan pick" is a nataive San Franciscan, a Berkeley grad and likely a Democrat.
There are rules that require a balance of Democrats in the full CIT. I suspect that Reagan was required to pick a Democrat to maintain a balance on the full CIT.
LOL, is there ANY subject where you don’t bring up Ukraine?
in the 1990s into the 2000s and even to this day, couple of entrepreneurial guys with an idea and an equity loan on their pick up truck could go to a convention and dig up a Chinese job shop that could fabricate that product, often for less then the price of raw materials anyplace else, and sell it into the US market and make bank.
I personally visited tons of aggressive , growing consumer and lifestyle products companies whose only physical assets were a 10,000 sq ft warehouse on the cheap side of town and an online, direct sale distribution network.
A lot of these companies have become pretty big and influential and they are going to fight Trump tooth and nail on tariffs because Trump is killing this business model .
One of the things the appeals court can do is to return it to the trade court requiring a hearing by the full court.
The one thing that Trump’s lawyers can do meanwhile is to have execute a new EO founded on the 1974 trade law, Section 301, as better legal justification for the tariff measures Trump is taking. That will then be challenged and go to the trade court but with a better chance of that court not deciding against it.
I agree. When the only money being made in the country is investment bankers - THAT is a problem. They are not increasing the wealth of the nation as Adam Smith would say. They are just moving paper around.
As I remember unions were very anti-free trade as it was a threat to them. They could have part of the blame - being too greedy in their wage demands left Wall Street with looking for labor that was cheaper.
This was especially damaging in the 1990s when critical strategic decisions were being made in manufacturing businesses that were having a really tough time in the bad business climate following the end of the Cold War and who were already facing stiff competition from lower cost foreign manufactures.
The Clinton Administration was an absolute disaster in this regard and was actively helping China make broad based inroads into the US across the board at the expense of domestic companies and institutions of all kinds. It is really hard ton overstate how much damage 8 years of the Clintons did to this country.
By the 2000s, the offshoring had become so pervasive that most companies had to have a "China strategy" to maintain commercial and investor relations viability an a lot of knowledgeable people in the defense and manufacturing sectors were having. serious concerns about the loss of strategic domestic production capability.
Yes I heard Clinton was specifically to blame, although it doesn’t seem like Bush W did anything to stop any of it. For example, despite finding out about Chinese theft of naval technology, Bush did nothing to punish them. He could have done something to curtail trade with them. And the start of it all was under Nixon who opened up relations with China.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.