Willick argues the Supreme Court’s tariffs ruling put the Court’s Democratic-appointed justices in a bind: after resisting “major questions” limits during the Biden years, they helped stop Trump’s tariffs under the same kind of broad delegation. He leans on Gorsuch’s concurrence to call the pivot out, then shrugs that politics influences everyone, and claims the institution still has a workable cross-party centre.
“Dissenting in past major questions cases, the court’s liberal members have argued that broad statutory language granting powers to executive officials should be read for all it is worth. Yet, now, when it comes to the IEEPA’s similarly broad language granting powers to the President, they take a more constrained approach.”
Neil M. Gorsuch
“Times and circumstances change, and the executive is better able to keep up and respond than Congress.”
Elena Kagan
“Does anyone believe that if President Kamala Harris used IEEPA to tariff fossil fuel-related imports as part of a declared climate emergency, each of the court’s liberal justices would have ruled against her?”
Jason Willick
“The Supreme Court, like any government institution, is composed of people, and people are influenced consciously and unconsciously by politics and other sympathies.”
Jason Willick
“The court’s political middle is still wide enough for the institution as a whole to act independently of either party.”
Jason Willick
😬🤨🧐Willick says Gorsuch is right: liberals backed broad executive power for Biden but joined him to block Trump’s IEEPA tariffs, exposing partisanship — yet the 6-3 split shows the Court can still check either party. 🙄🚨⚠️#Sceptical #HighlyDoubtful #NotBuyingIt #CherryPicking #ThinCase
