Friends, President Trump loves to threaten other countries with tariffs, and usually these threats have something to do with opening access to their markets to American exporters and/or protecting American jobs. Well, today DJT declared that he would levy a 50% tariff on Brazil, and his reasons had nothing to do with U.S. economic interests. His purpose is to defend U.S. social media companies from Brazilian laws and court decisions that effectively force them to practice censorship, AND to protest against the kangaroo court that is now holding former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro in judgement. Trump and Bolsonaro were close allies before the latter lost his reelection bid and was promptly railroaded by the very aggressive and very leftist courts in Brazil. Trump is right that what Brazil is doing is outrageous, but are tariffs the best response to what amounts to an overseas version of lawfare? Wouldn't sanctions make more sense? It's starting to seem like tariffs, or the threat of tariffs, are Trump's "go to" solution to every international problem. He's also in some danger of becoming known as the Boy Who Cried Tariffs... Don't get me wrong: I would love to see Brazil's socialist oppressors held to account, but I'm not sure that tariffs are the best lever to pull, in this particular case. What are your thoughts?
Dr. Waddy from Jack: I think your concerns about his use of tariffs are well taken. I had thought they were productive; now I have some doubts.
ReplyDeleteThe BBC articles state that though President Trump is playing hardball with tariffs that many other countries are doing the same in return. Our stock markets have surged since he paused some tariff enforcement but I would think the market would be expecting that he would resume some of them, due to lack of deals or stubbornness from "infuriated" countries like Japan. Perhaps the market is "making hay while the sun shines"?
Brazil's oppression by its far left regime is yet another confirmation of the assured tyranny states always invite upon themselves when they give the far left power. Using the threat of punishing tariffs to get them to loosen up might work but sanctions may have been as effective in the past as to commend them as the first resort. We'll see if the threat alone has any purchase.
Should we get involved in the politics of another nation which is not an overt threat (yet) to our well being ? Its a legitimate question. Is a far left regime , especially in a big country in the Americas, which sits athwart the South Atlantic, by definition a threat to us? One can make a good argument that it is. Is another Venezuela in the works? Can China's strategic interests be served by a far left Brazil which might seek to actively oppose the Yanqui?
RAY TO DR. WADDY
ReplyDeleteWhat Brazil needs now is a replay of what they had from 1964 to 1985.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: I understood the process for "certifying" a class action suit so that it can proceed is a prolonged and complex matter. But gee, apparently not so with the class action suit on the birthright citizenship issue launched immediately after the Scotus decision ending the misuse of Federal District Court authority to dictate to the President. And gosh, that wasn't very long ago was it!
ReplyDeleteWell, looks like the opponents of President Trump's efforts to end the use of this right to game our immigration system, found yet another far left compliant Federal Court to aid their case. No doubt they will urge this as "precedent".I mean , the recent Scotus reduction of Federal District Court judges to only their geographical jurisdiction did not directly address creative establishment of far reaching precedent by subordinate Federal Judges. Stare decisis is a custom and a tradition though it does pack a defacto legal punch .
Actually, I think changing the Constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship may require a Constitutional Amendment. No doubt it will get to Scotus so we'll see what they think about that. But we may also see them put the quietus to this newly presumed expedition of the process of certifying a class action suit . At what point might continuous toying with our judicial system fulfill the definition of "frivolity" and be subjected to the decided disadvantages which can accrue from such humbug?
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Yeah, and a Federal District Court Judge just slapped a nationwide injunction on the Administration's efforts to stop "birthright citizenship" from being exploited by far leftists to gum up our Immigration Laws. Funny isn't it? When it comes to 2nd Amendment rights these radicals are all for a "living Constitution" which can be molded to their "up to date"desires but let President Trump seek to correct the understandably unanticipated in the 1800s misuse of a post Civil War Constitutional Amendment to correct post Civil War injustice, WELL! "Why, the Constitution means what it says", they bleat. So now in addition to granting a conveniently eased , usually , ehhh, prolonged, "certification" of class action status to this earnest plea, a District Court Judge has presumed far beyond the Judge's geographical jurisdiction to present the President with a roadblock which that Judge should expect, flies in the face of the very recent Scotus decision shortening the leash on venturesome far left subordinate Federal Judges. I expect Scotus will express its displeasure at this, no matter how they MIGHT rule on the lawfulness of "infringing" on that much abused right.
ReplyDelete"By any means necessary" is the ever far leftist credo and they never recoil from reminding us of it. Marx and Lenin would highly approve. Like the criminals they so exalt far leftists delight in "probing" to find weak spots in those democratically enacted strictures they wish to corrupt. If they meet resistance they retreat and unctuously protest "no unjust purpose".
Of course this situation will end up in front of our lawful Scotus and its common sense majority will render a lawful decision.