Latest news with #judiciary
Telegraph
9 hours ago
- Business
- Telegraph
Trump's tariff drama shows he doesn't understand what America stands for
With his usual idiosyncratic use of capital letters, Donald Trump has pronounced judgment on the court which presumed to halt his tariff programme. If allowed to stand, their decision would, he wrote on his Truth Social platform,'completely destroy Presidential Power'. These 'backroom hustlers', he went on, 'must not be allowed to destroy our Nation'. Presumably the reference to the three judges (one of whom was appointed by Trump himself) as engaging in a sleazy 'backroom' conspiracy was an iteration of the earlier White House claim that these 'unelected judges' were arrogantly abusing their authority by interfering in the policy decisions of the President. This is, in fact, entirely wrong. What Trump regards as his rightful 'Presidential Power' does not permit him to make unilateral changes in tariffs (or in most economic policies) without the consent of Congress. He, or at least some of his advisers, seemed to have been aware of this at the outset because they framed their package of new tariffs as an 'emergency measure' which, in theory, would give the President permission to act without following the normal legislative procedure. This emergency provision was, of course, designed for dealing with wars or natural emergencies of a catastrophic kind. Congress and the federal courts were, traditionally, only to permit this kind of intervention by a President on grounds of national security. So the Trump White House originally declared a 'national economic emergency' and invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, but more recently, perhaps aware that this might be too ambiguous and difficult to defend, changed its designation of the crisis to a 'fentanyl epidemic'. While this term might just conceivably account for the punitive tariffs on Mexico, it is hard to see how it could be applicable to the European Union whose trade advantage with the US might be more to do with the fact that there are more Americans who want to buy European things than there are Europeans who want to buy American things. (Harley-Davidson motorbikes and Levi jeans apparently account for most imports from the US.) The derisive reference to judges as 'unelected' – and thus supposedly without legitimate power to intervene in presidential decisions – shows a total misunderstanding of the role of the judiciary whose function is precisely to interpret the Constitution and decide whether actions taken by the Executive (the Presidency) and the Legislature (Congress) are legal. Being 'unelected' is what, in theory at least, allows judges to make disinterested, non-partisan decisions. That is the great abiding principle of the United States Constitution. This country was to be, the Founders declared, 'a nation of laws, not men'. Ultimate authority over the conduct of national life – and the relationship between government and the citizenry – could never be dependent on the will (or the whims) of any elected politician, but must always be subject to judicial interpretation. The law – and those whose job it was to interpret it – had authority over any individual who held office. The 'Presidential Power' which Trump believes is rightly his was never intended to be absolute – even though he was elected by what he insists was a 'landslide': that no one person should ever have unchecked power was the defining point of the American Revolution. Even if subsequent Court rulings go in his favour and overturn the original judgement which threw the Trump reality tv Tariff Show into further doubt after weeks of backtracking and climbdown 'deals', the principle will stand. It was a Court that put an end to his arbitrary declaration of a new economic policy and it will take another Court to reverse that judgement. The Constitution will hold against the onslaught – just as it did on that infamous January day of Capitol rioting when an exceptionally courageous Vice President, Mike Pence, continued to count the votes that took the presidency away from his own administration. It is quite extraordinary how a document which embodies an inspirational idea can survive even when it is being tested nearly to destruction. But there is one element of American political doctrine which the Trump White House seems to have embraced wholeheartedly – even if it applies it more abroad than at home. Rather bizarrely, the President and his attack dog JD Vance have taken to lecturing other countries with historic democratic traditions (like this one) on free speech. Even as Trump and his breathtakingly aggressive press spokeswoman, Karoline Leavitt, are threatening to banish journalists who ask unhelpful questions, and his administration is attempting to prevent Harvard from admitting foreign students because some unpleasant things have been said on its campus, the White House solemnly declares its concern about the fate of British citizens whose careless tweets have resulted in prosecution. Sending people to prison for inflammatory social media posts is a seriously contentious issue which must be (and has been) exhaustively debated in Britain. That discussion has been held – as would be expected in this most rational of countries – with good conscience and proper deliberation on both sides. But what business does the most authoritarian, bullying, diplomatically obtuse administration in modern American history have inserting itself into this discussion? Considering their own problems at home which, according to the White House, actually constitute a national emergency, why are they intervening in what we ourselves recognise as a serious domestic issue? This would be wildly inappropriate even if Trump's insults and abuse of anyone who contradicts him did not make his passion for other people's free speech absurd. So what is this about? It is a distraction. Nothing more than an attempt to draw public attention away from the international chaos his original tariff plans unleashed, his failure to stop Putin's war in Ukraine or to bring peace to the Middle East, the huge profits made by his family and friends on the crypto gambits he has launched and perhaps finally, what could prove his inability to cut taxes if he cannot ram his tariff programme through. That is the real motivating force behind this selective passion for free expression from a President who just last week shouted at a reporter who asked a disobliging question: 'Don't ever say what you said.'
New York Times
12 hours ago
- General
- New York Times
How Mexico's Vote on Nearly 2,700 Judges Could Empower One Party
Over the past seven years, a leftist political party called Morena has accomplished a remarkable takeover of the Mexican political landscape. It has elected two consecutive presidents, secured supermajorities in Congress, made sweeping political moves that cemented its authority and left the opposition so badly beaten that it is clinging to life. Now, Morena could take one of the most important steps yet in its consolidation of power. On Sunday, Mexicans will head to the polls to elect every federal judge in the nation and many local ones — 2,682 justices, judges and magistrates in all — a first-in-the-nation vote to overhaul the judiciary. Morena leaders said they decided on the election to fix a justice system rife with corrupt judges who served the elite, rather than everyone, and who kept frustrating the party's plans. In the process, they could eliminate the final major check on Morena's power. Many legal and political analysts in Mexico expect candidates aligned with Morena to dominate the election, filling judgeships from local courthouses to the Supreme Court and giving the party effective control over the third branch of government. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
BBC News
21 hours ago
- Business
- BBC News
Mexico judicial reform: Candidate who defended El Chapo runs for office
As drivers sit in traffic near the Bridge of the Americas connecting Mexico with the USA, Silvia Delgado weaves between the cars handing out leaflets."I'm standing for penal judge," she says brightly. "Vote for number 12 on the ballot papers!"Most happily wind down their windows and accept a flyer from her. But in Sunday's rather unique election – the first of two votes by which Mexicans will choose the country's entire judiciary by direct ballot – Silvia Delgado is not an ordinary absent from the short biography on her pamphlets is the name of her best-known client: she was the defence lawyer for the notorious drug lord, Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzmá critics say her past defending the leader of the Sinaloa Cartel should disqualify her from standing as a judge. She gives that idea short shrift."Why should it? For doing my job?" she retorts, her heckles immediately raised at any suggestion of a conflict of interest."For defending people's individual guarantees? For mounting an adequate technical defence for a human being? Why should that make me illegitimate?" she asks. Silvia Delgado has not been convicted of any crime, is not facing any charges and is not under investigation – whether over her links to El Chapo or anything a leading human rights and transparency organisation in Mexico called Defensorxs has included her in a list of 19 "high risk candidates" in the election. As well as Ms Delgado, the list includes a candidate with a drug trafficking conviction and another facing accusations of orchestrating violence against director of Defensorxs, Miguel Alfonso Meza, believes the so-called "high risk candidates" are a danger to the legitimacy of Mexico's justice system:"Someone that has already worked with a cartel, it is very difficult that they get out, even if it was only as a lawyer. It's not even about whether she's a good person or a bad person," says Mr Meza, referring to Silvia Delgado."The Sinaloa Cartel is not only 'El Chapo' Guzman. It is a company that has criminal and economic interests which are being resolved in the justice system. The cartel could pressure her to show loyalty because she has already been their employee."Silvia Delgado visibly stiffens at the mention of Defensorxs and Miguel Alfonso Meza."It's completely stupid," she bristles, claiming she has challenged them to "dig into her past as much as they like". She also dismisses their main accusation that she was paid with drug money and could be compromised if she is elected judge."How can you prove that? I received a payment which was the same as any normal monthly payment which was paid to me by lawyers, members of his legal team. I'm not his daughter or his sister or anything. I'm a professional." Ms Delgado is competing for one of more than 7,500 judicial position up for grabs – from local magistrates to all nine Supreme Court it was under discussion, the judicial reform prompted widespread protests by law students and a strike by workers in the legal system. Its critics maintain that electing every judge in Mexico amounts to the politicisation of the country's justice system."Of course, it's a political attack [on the judiciary]," says Miguel Alfonso Meza."Former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador didn't like to have constraints from the judicial power. When the pressure became too great and the constraints too tight, the only solution they found was to remove all the judges in the country," he reform was passed before President Claudia Sheinbaum was sworn in, but she is a firm supporter of it and polls suggest it has broad approval among the electorate point out that the United States, Switzerland and Bolivia elect many of their judges. But Mexico will become the first country in the world to elect all of them. Markets remain unconvinced with investors fearful of the prospect of the ruling party controlling the presidency, the legislative branch and the Alfonso Meza believes that problems will arise from "the agreements and negotiations judges have to make with political actors… in order to get the support they need to win the elections". One of the 64 candidates seeking a seat on the Supreme Court is Olivia Aguirre Bonilla. Also from Ciudad Juárez, her legal background is in human rights law and as an activist against gender-based violence in the notoriously dangerous border all the candidates, Ms Aguirre Bonilla has had to pay for her campaign out of her own pocket – candidates are banned from accepting public or private funding and forbidden from purchasing advertising spots. As such, she's primarily used social media to push out her 6-point plan from clamping down on exorbitant salaries to opening the Supreme Court hearings to the she acknowledges the criticisms over the potential politicisation of Mexico's justice system, Aguirre Bonilla believes the vote is an opportunity for meaningful change of a collapsed, corrupted and nepotistic judiciary."I think all the citizens in Mexico are politicised, and we're all part of public life," she says."The difference here is that our 'untouchable' legal system – and it was untouchable because it was controlled by the elites, by privilege – for the first time in history will be voted in. It will be democratised through the popular vote."Many people in the judiciary were there through influence and familial connections, Aguirre Bonilla argues, and it lacks the legitimacy of the executive and legislative branches."This vote will grant the justice system true independence as it's not chosen by the President of the Republic but elected by the people of Mexico to represent them." So far, the arguments over constitutionality and legitimacy, over the process and the candidates have been bitter and all eyes turn to the polling stations, particularly on the turnout and abstention rates as indicators of Mexicans' backing for the for Silvia Delgado, the woman who defended Mexico's most wanted drug lord, she just hopes the people of Ciudad Juárez will respect her work enough to allow her to sit in judgement of other criminals who are brought before her.
Washington Post
a day ago
- Business
- Washington Post
Trump blames conservative legal world and one of its leaders for tariffs ruling
President Donald Trump lashed out at the conservative legal movement and one of its prominent leaders, Leonard Leo, on Thursday night, blaming them for the federal court ruling that blocked most of his tariffs this week. In doing so, Trump deepened a schism with an influential community that was crucial to shaping his first term but has increasingly fallen out of favor with the president as he ramps up attacks on the judiciary.
Free Malaysia Today
a day ago
- General
- Free Malaysia Today
AGC to cite Shafee for contempt after ‘Nazi-Germany hearing' jibe
Lawyer Shafee Abdullah said today that the remark was intended to educate the public during an exchange with a reporter, and not to undermine the judiciary. PETALING JAYA : The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) says it will apply to commence committal proceedings against Shafee Abdullah after the lawyer described court proceedings as being like 'a Nazi-Germany kind of hearing'. In a statement, the AGC said the remark made by Najib Razak's lawyer concerned an ongoing case and was a 'serious and unnecessary attack' on the judiciary. 'Although lawyers have the right to challenge the decision of judges through the available legal channels, public statements that tarnish the image of the courts or threaten public confidence in the administration of justice are unacceptable,' it said. 'We will seek contempt of court proceedings to ensure the rule of law, preserve the integrity of the judicial process and protect the court from unnecessary accusations and public pressure.' Yesterday, Malaysiakini reported Shafee's criticism of a court order to temporarily stop all proceedings linked to Najib's royal addendum, where he compared the decision to 'a Nazi-Germany kind of hearing'. Earlier today, the portal quoted Shafee as saying that the remark was intended to educate the public during an exchange with a reporter, and not to undermine the judiciary. He also said the remark was made solely in the context of explaining the meaning and essence of a 'judicial decision'. Najib had obtained leave from the Court of Appeal to begin judicial review proceedings to enforce a royal decree so as to serve the remainder of his jail sentence under house arrest. However, proceedings have been suspended pending the disposal of the attorney-general's appeal to the Federal Court. The Federal Territories Pardons Board announced on Feb 2 last year that Najib's prison sentence in his SRC International case had been halved from 12 years to six, and his fine reduced from RM210 million to RM50 million.
