Latest news with #YaleLawSchool
The Hindu
4 hours ago
- Business
- The Hindu
‘Time of Great Opportunity' for U.S. and India: Usha Vance
The U.S. India relationship is in a phase of 'great opportunity', U.S. Second Lady Usha Vance has said. Ms. Vance, whose parents are from Andhra Pradesh, said that she had a personal relationship with India as she had family ties to the country and had visited India as she was growing up. 'So that's always been a relationship that I've personally thought of as very important,' Ms Vance said, during a Monday evening discussion at the U.S.-India Strategic Partnership Forum's (USISPF) Leadership Summit in Washington DC. 'The way that I think about it more broadly is I think this is a time of great opportunity. And I think if my husband [ U.S. Vice President J. D. Vance] were here, he'd say the same thing,' Ms Vance said, adding that historically , the two countries' goals and needs had not always been in alignment. Ms Vance suggested, however, that in the next four years and beyond there was an opportunity, which she linked to the people to people ties. The relationship has generally enjoyed strong bipartisan support in Washington. India and the U.S. are in the throes of negotiating the first phase of a Bilateral Trade Agreement, with U.S. trade negotiators in India this week for talks. U.S. President Donald Trump had threatened to impose 'reciprocal tariffs' on the U.S.'s trade partners, with India being subject to a 26% rate , potentially. During the discussion with USISPF Chairman John Chambers, which did not venture further into political topics, Ms. Vance spoke about how she met her husband at Yale Law School, their family's recent visit to India and their interactions with Prime Minister Narendra Modi. She also spoke about her program to promote reading among children in the U.S.
New York Post
3 days ago
- Politics
- New York Post
J.D. Vance sabotages self with attack on Supreme Court
If the British coined the term 'too clever by half,' Vice President JD Vance might own the political update of 'too smart by 99%.' And Donald Trump might wonder at what point he asks his veep: please stop helping — at least when it comes to Trump's greatest legacy and biggest asset, the Supreme Court. Vance recently offered his own take on the 'role' of that body, in particular Chief Justice John Roberts' 'profoundly wrong sentiment' that the judiciary exists to 'check the excesses of the executive.' Advertisement The vice president finger-wagged that this was 'one-half' of the job; the 'other half' was to stop a 'small but substantial number' of courts from telling 'the American people they're not allowed to have what they voted for,' namely 'immigration enforcement.' Also, to be 'extremely deferential' to the 'political judgment' made by 'the people's elected president of the United States.' Vance did at least preface his comments with a warning that they may prove 'inflammatory' — before inflaming away. Logical fallacies Students of law — or of, well, grade school — no doubt quickly picked up on the first problem. Advertisement The foundation of the U.S. system is the constitutional separation of powers, checks and balances. Congress has the purse. The executive has the sword. Advertisement The judiciary's power is to settle 'all Cases' and 'Controversies' 'arising' under the Constitution and other laws. Far from being 'profoundly wrong,' Chief Justice Roberts's sentiment was profoundly basic. To have a court that jumps to the will of a president or a changeable voting majority is to have . . . Venezuela. Vance, a Yale Law School graduate, surely would have disapproved of the court's rubber-stamping Joe Biden's student-loan forgiveness or vaccine mandates — even though Biden won an election. Advertisement Students of logic will find in the veep's comments an impressive array of logical fallacies, from the straw man to the false dilemma. Chief Justice Roberts didn't, as Vance suggests, claim 'checking' was its main role, or single out the president. The chief uncontroversially noted that the role of the court was to 'obviously decide cases, but in the course of that, check the excesses of Congress or the executive.' Nor did he suggest lower courts were immune from checks. He probably didn't feel it necessary, given that every opinion the high court issues is a review of something a lower court did. A significant number of its recent decisions brushed back activist judges — allowing the administration to proceed, among other things, in removing independent agency heads, freezing grant money, and ending the temporary protected status program for Venezuelans. As for immigration, the court has continued to give the president the usual wide latitude — with the basic requirement of due process. Political malpractice Advertisement Which brings us to students of politics, who will recognize these comments as political malpractice. The most enduring legacy of the first Trump term was the cementing of a conservative Supreme Court majority that continues to thoughtfully transform the legal landscape. Religious freedom. The end of Roe v. Wade. Advertisement The major-questions doctrine. The end of Chevron deference. Reining in the bureaucracy. Second Amendment rights. Advertisement Presidential immunity. And the question of what legacy emerges from Trump's second term rests squarely in the hands of that same court. Trump is proving to be the most energetic executive in decades, challenging the establishment to rethink the status quo on everything from the federal workforce and government grant making to the power of independent agencies. Most of these questions are destined for the justices — the same people Vance and others in Trump's orbit have taken to badgering. Advertisement Vance fashions himself shrewd and likely thinks his comments serve the multiple purposes of proving loyalty to his boss, whipping up the base, and (not so) subtly warning the court of backlash if it fails to rule as he'd prefer. The vice president might consider that jurists are well-versed in the art of clever arguments; they know what he's doing. Or that they aren't easily intimidated — see the Brett Kavanaugh hearings. But they can get irritated and annoyed, and less motivated to do much beyond basic requirements. How helpful is that? And Vance might consider that his criticism is essentially a slap at the president's judgment in appointing these justices and other lower-court judges (who occasionally rule against him) in the first place. The temptation by Vance and other officials to let loose on the courts will grow as more issues ripen and the administration wins some and loses some (like this week's tariff case). Trump has so far refrained from going full-frontal on the judiciary, a political instinct that has served him well, given the stakes. At some point, he might suggest that the vice president leave the politics to the guy actually in charge of the executive branch. From The Wall Street Journal.
The Herald Scotland
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Neither Trump nor Vance want the Supreme Court to do its job
Vance is not politically ignorant like Trump is, but he sure acts as if he learned nothing in his time at Yale Law School. While Trump opposes things that stand in his way, Vance has an ideology of how he wants to shift the balance of power within our federal government, but only when Republicans are in power. Trump has surrounded himself with voices that insist the presidency is in a stronger position than it is, and as a result, the courts are being strained when he exceeds his authority. JD Vance is wrong about the role of the presidency For Vance, the executive branch is the motor meant to power our federal government. This goes against what conservatives have historically understood, which is that Congress is the branch that ought to power our government, despite some administrations giving in to the temptation of executive rule. "You cannot have a country where the American people keep on electing immigration enforcement and the courts tell the American people they're not allowed to have what they voted for," Vance recently told New York Times opinion columnist Ross Douthat on the "Interesting Times" podcast. To him, an electoral victory means the American people elected that administration to act with impunity for four years. This is a majoritarian view in which the American people give broad mandates to the politicians they elect, rather than those elections being reflections of the choices in front of Americans. Opinion: Don't call me a Republican. I'm a conservative. Trump and his MAGA GOP aren't. As I have argued before, the people do not elect a president because they trust whatever that individual's whims are for four years, but rather because they trust that person within the framework of American government more than the alternative. I highly doubt the vice president would be making the same argument of an executive mandate in the case of former President Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness scheme. Vance doesn't actually believe these arguments (he's far too intelligent to). It's simply partisan politics. Trump's administration is causing unnecessary conflict The vice president's view ties in perfectly with his hostility to the courts. "I think that the courts need to be somewhat deferential," Vance said on the podcast. "In fact, I think the design is that they should be extremely deferential to these questions of political judgment made by the people's elected president of the United States." The job of the Supreme Court is to settle what the law is, rather than make political judgments. In this sense, Vance is correct that political matters should be left to the discretion of the executive branch. However, that is not what is happening with the Trump administration's deportation plans. Opinion: GOP keeps pretending Trump has a mandate. Americans are clearly saying otherwise. While there are some legitimate examples of activist judges hindering the administration's deportation actions, the ones that have made broader headlines involve the administration's legally sketchy decisions. Thus far, the Trump administration has launched a hostile collision course with the courts by: Reinterpreting a 1798 wartime statute to consider illegal immigrants as foreign invaders. Mistakenly deporting a suspected gang member to El Salvador, though he had an American court order against being removed, and refusing to facilitate his return - despite a court order demanding the administration do so. Signed an executive order ending birthright citizenship, a constitutionally protected policy upheld by several court precedents. Repeatedly questioning whether suspected illegal immigrants are entitled to due process before being deported. Called for the impeachment of a judge who ruled against Trump. The Supreme Court has been way too active It is not simply a matter of political judgment for the court to block policies that run afoul of the law. You would think that an administration that believes in deference to the executive branch would act in good faith with the court, but that is not what has happened. Instead, the Trump administration has worked with open contempt for both the judicial branch and the Constitution. An administration looking for deference on any number of policies should at least act like it cares about what the Constitution says. The Supreme Court is not meant to be in the news this much, and one of the reasons it is is because of this administration's very aggressive view of the executive branch. When an administration runs afoul of the law as much as Trump's has, the Supreme Court gets bogged down in the political world, where it is not meant to be. When an administration forces the Supreme Court to routinely rule on its policies, it politicizes the judicial branch in ways that it was never meant to be. Both in their rhetoric and in their attempted policies, White House officials are stressing the role of the judicial branch. As I've written before, Congress isn't helping the problem with inaction, but Trump is taking a far more active role in the erosion of our federal government than any other recent president. One can argue about the merits of the chief justice's statements about the administration and its rhetoric, and there are debates to be had. However, the fact that Roberts even feels the need to comment publicly on the Trump administration's bad faith says a lot about where the court is. The Trump administration has raised the temperature in the power struggle between the judicial branch and the presidency, and White House officials complain when judges meet them at the rim to check against their power. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.
USA Today
7 days ago
- Politics
- USA Today
Vance is doing his best to help Trump tear down the Supreme Court
Vance is doing his best to help Trump tear down the Supreme Court | Opinion I highly doubt Vice President JD Vance would be making the same argument of an executive mandate in the case of Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness scheme. Show Caption Hide Caption Supreme Court hears arguments on judges' block on Trump birthright EO The justices heard arguments on whether its ok for judges to universally block President Donald Trump's birthright citizenship executive order. The story of President Donald Trump's second term thus far is the stress that he and his allies are placing on the American judicial system, including the Supreme Court. Nobody has done more to instigate that fight than Vice President JD Vance, who has been openly critical of the Supreme Court, particularly statements made by Chief Justice John Roberts on the role of the court to check the executive branch. Vance is not politically ignorant like Trump, but he sure acts as if he learned nothing in his time at Yale Law School. While Trump opposes things that stand in his way, Vance has an ideology of how he wants to shift the balance of power within our federal government, but only when Republicans are in power. Trump has surrounded himself with voices that insist the presidency is in a stronger position than it is, and as a result, the courts are being strained when he exceeds his authority. JD Vance is wrong about the role of the presidency For Vance, the executive branch is the motor meant to power our federal government. This goes against what conservatives have historically understood, which is that Congress is the branch that ought to power our government, despite some administrations giving in to the temptation of executive rule. 'You cannot have a country where the American people keep on electing immigration enforcement and the courts tell the American people they're not allowed to have what they voted for,' Vance said in a recent interview. To him, an electoral victory means the American people elected that administration to act with impunity for four years. This is a majoritarian view in which the American people give broad mandates to the politicians they elect, rather than those elections being reflections of the choices in front of Americans. Opinion: Don't call me a Republican. I'm a conservative. Trump and his MAGA GOP aren't. As I have argued before, the people do not elect a president because they trust whatever that individual's whims are for four years, but rather because they trust that person within the framework of American government more than the alternative. I highly doubt Vance would be making the same argument of an executive mandate in the case of Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness scheme. Vance doesn't actually believe these arguments (he's far too intelligent to). It's simply partisan politics. Trump's administration is causing unnecessary conflict Vance's view ties in perfectly with his hostility to the courts. 'I think that the courts need to be somewhat deferential,' Vance previously said. 'In fact, I think the design is that they should be extremely deferential to these questions of political judgment made by the people's elected president of the United States.' The job of the Supreme Court is to settle what the law is, rather than make political judgments. In this sense, Vance is correct that political matters should be left to the discretion of the executive branch. However, that is not what is happening with the Trump administration's deportation plans. Opinion: GOP keeps pretending Trump has a mandate. Americans are clearly saying otherwise. While there are some legitimate examples of activist judges hindering the administration's deportation actions, the ones that have made broader headlines involve the administration's legally sketchy decisions. Thus far, the administration has launched a hostile collision course with the courts by: Reinterpreting a 1798 wartime statute to consider illegal immigrants as foreign invaders. Mistakenly deporting a suspected gang member to El Salvador, even though he had an American court order against being removed to, and refusing to facilitate his return (despite a court order demanding he do so). Signed an executive order ending birthright citizenship, a constitutionally protected policy upheld by several court precedents. Repeatedly questioning whether suspected illegal immigrants are entitled to due process before being deported. Called for the impeachment of a judge who ruled against him. The Supreme Court has been way too active It is not simply a matter of political judgment for the court to block policies that run afoul of the law. You would think that an administration that believes in deference to the executive branch would act in good faith with the court, but that is not what has happened. Instead, the Trump administration has worked with open contempt for both the judicial branch and the Constitution. An administration looking for deference on any number of policies should at least act like it cares about what the Constitution says. The Supreme Court is not meant to be in the news this much, and one of the reasons that they are is because of this administration's very aggressive view of the executive branch. When an administration runs afoul of the law as much as Trump has, the Supreme Court gets bogged down in the political world, where it is not meant to be. When an administration forces the Supreme Court to routinely rule on its policies, it politicizes the judicial branch in ways that it was never meant to be. Both in their rhetoric and in their attempted policies, the Trump administration is stressing the role of the judicial branch. As I've written before, Congress isn't helping the problem with their inaction, but Trump is taking a far more active role in the erosion of our federal government than any other recent president. One can argue about the merits of Roberts's statements about the administration and its rhetoric, and there are debates to be had. However, the fact that the Chief even feels the need to comment publicly on the administration's bad faith says a lot about where the court is. The Trump administration has raised the temperature in the power struggle between the judicial branch and the presidency, and they complain when judges meet them at the rim to check against their power. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.
Bloomberg
21-05-2025
- Business
- Bloomberg
Bloomberg Surveillance: S&P Slowdown
Watch Tom and Paul LIVE every day on YouTube: Bloomberg Surveillance hosted by Tom Keene & Paul Sweeney May 21st, 2025 Featuring: 1) Stuart Kaiser, Head of US Equity Trading Strategy at Citi, discusses how China-US tariff news supports stocks and why we could continue to see shocks this year. Investors are becoming cautious due to the economic outlook and policy uncertainty, with fractious US budget negotiations also a concern. 2) Brian Belski, Chief Investment Strategist at BMO Capital Markets, talks about why he expects more gains for stocks and remains bullish on the S&P. Wall Street was heading for a lower open as momentum from the US stocks rally continues to fizzle out, with S&P 500 futures sliding 0.5% after a recent rally. 3) Stephen Roach, Senior Fellow, Paul Tsai China Center at Yale Law School, on the playbook of US and China in trade negotiations and why a persistent uncertainty shock will likely freeze business decision making. China's Commerce Ministry threatens legal action against anyone enforcing US restrictions on Huawei chips, escalating the tech dispute. Despite the tensions, Chinese officials express their wish to improve relations, 4) Marta Norton, Chief Investment Strategist at Empower, on the defiant US economy and whether a new tax package could be a long-term positive for markets. Traders are betting that long-term Treasury yields will surge due to concerns over the US government's debt and deficits, fueled by President Donald Trump's tax-cut bill. 5) Lisa Mateo joins with the latest headlines in newspapers across the US, including a WSJ story on downtown becoming the new uptown when it comes to real estate for New York's wealthiest, and Washington Post's story on how some of the NFL's top players could be headed to the Olympics.
