Is a November election landslide possible?

 

Gordon Weil

November’s congressional elections may follow a predictable script.

But there could be another scenario, turning an expected squeaker into a landslide.

According to conventional thinking, the elections are contests for a few seats that could tip the balance to the Democrats, giving them a good chance of winning the House and the possibility of a Senate victory.

This thinking inevitably focuses on relatively few elections in scattered swing states or districts.  The Republicans, heavily committed to backing their leader, focus on holding their slim but effective congressional majorities.  The Democrats count on declining presidential popularity to hand them enough seats to gain control.

The elections are clearly about Trump.  His impact factors into virtually every primary and general election.  Strategists assume the status quo will generally survive in most contests with Trump’s political fate determined in marginal seats. 

For Trump, the elections are personal.  He worries that a Democratic House majority will impeach him for a third time.  A man who likes to set “never before in history” records, he doesn’t want this one.

His strategy calls for countering the usual mid-term election losses of an incumbent president’s party.  He believes that erecting obstacles to voting will reduce the number of likely Democratic voters, especially the poor and minorities.  He also pushes for redistricting to tilt political demographics his way and prepares to claim fraud, if the GOP loses.

He punishes Democratic states by cutting funding and launching ICE invasions, creating incentives for them to flip to his side.   Though he has alienated some voting groups, he may write them off as being concentrated in states where he wouldn’t win in any case.  He plays to the prejudices of voters who could protect his majority. 

But there is an alternative scenario.  Suppose his falling poll ratings indicate a widespread national rejection of Trump’s style and substance.  The sagging approval ratings for his presidential performance and almost all his key policies suggest this possibility.  While he could hold his MAGA core, he might face outright nationwide opposition.  

Trump has openly offended women, Blacks, Hispanics and other groups.  His anti-minority beliefs have brought the exclusion of female and Black military leaders, the erasing of American history about slavery and racial discrimination, arrests of people because of the color of their skin, killing Americans and ignoring the Constitution. 

Voters, alarmed by his narrow national policies and bellicose foreign gambits, might now turn out in large enough numbers to transform a campaign for swing seats into an opposition landslide, burying his efforts to tamper with the electorate. 

The split between progressive and moderate Democrats could matter less than their common opposition to Trump.  Still, an upsurge in support for progressives could be a sign of motivated opposition to MAGA.  And if conservative Republicans can win while opposing Trump, that could also weaken his control.

While this is far from assured, indicators could forecast the final outcome.  Take Maine’s June 9 Democratic Senate primary to pick an opponent to GOP Sen. Susan Collins’ sixth term bid.   

Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer anointed Gov. Janes Mills as most likely to be able to unseat Collins.   Mills is a moderate, but would be the oldest first-year senator in American history.  Normally, she would have a lock on the nomination.

But progressive Graham Platner, a Sanders-endorsed oyster farmer, is popular.  While his life story raises questions, polls indicate he is popular and could defeat both Mills in the primary and Collins in the general.   The latest poll, though of uncertain accuracy, surprisingly shows that about one-fifth of Maine voters are socialists.

Normally, Mills would seem a good fit for Maine.  Platner’s showing could represent the signal that a strong response to Trump is popular.  Interestingly, the Trump-oriented candidate in the Maine GOP governor’s primary currently trails, despite massive early spending.

Another marker may be the May 19 GOP House primary in Kentucky’s 4th congressional district.  Incumbent Thomas Massie, a strong conservative, is Trump’s most notable GOP House critic.  The president recruited a MAGA loyalist to oppose Massie.

A Massie win could encourage other House GOP candidates to put some space between themselves and Trump.  If Massie loses, Trump will have reasserted virtually absolute domination over the Republicans.  Massie has been highly popular, so this race has significant potential to turn into a Trump referendum.

Look also at the Texas GOP Senate primary on Tuesday, March 3, where the winner could face a tough general election.  In the Democratic race, a progressive faces a moderate.  A progressive win could be a sign that Democrats see Trump as vulnerable nationally not just in swing elections.

Possibly relevant postscript:  Last week in a UK special parliamentary election, the Greens (progressive) won, defeating Reform (MAGA, having pushed traditional Conservatives aside), with Labour (Democrats) third.  This was a Labour district.

 

Trump plays games with Congress

 

Gordon L. Weil

President Trump’s State of the Union Address took on many characteristics of the schoolkid’s game of checkers.

In that game, if your piece reaches the other side of the board, the piece is “kinged.”   Trump wants himself or his policies to be kinged.  Each of his proposals or actions is a piece that could go all the way to become a king. 

While he extols the success of some of his policies, none has moved even halfway across the board, because they all lack majority approval.  His claims for historic success don’t match the record. 

“Our nation is back: bigger, better, richer and stronger than ever before,” he asserted.  But the Wall Street Journal reported: “Polls find that Americans are unhappy with Trump’s handling of the economy.”  It noted that “last month, voters gave the president low marks when asked if he cares about ‘people like you’….” 

The Address was the latest version of the Trump campaign speech.  According to him, everything positive was his doing; everything negative was the Democrats’ fault.  Many voters may want less partisanship, but compromise was not part of Trump’s message, any more than concern for average people.  Trump’s a salesman, who seeks to convince people of his product’s merits.

He made his case was by selling America First nationalism as patriotism.  The U.S. Men’s Ice Hockey Team, the Olympic champions, allowed themselves to be put on display.  Republican legislators chanted, “USA, USA!”

But an American victory on Olympic ice only momentarily overshadowed ICE killings of Americans.  Trump has controlled illegal immigration, but at the cost of his policy being severely degraded by the crude abuses of individual rights by hastily trained ICE agents.  He has had to retreat, hoping to calm public ire.

Still, he tried to embarrass the Democrats.   “If you agree with this statement, then stand up and show your support. The first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens. Not illegal aliens,” he said.  Many Democrats remained seated.  The Constitution assures equal treatment to all, not only citizens.  And Americans in Minneapolis weren’t protected.

While polls are not as accurate as often claimed, they can identify trends.  On average, polls show about 60 percent of people are dissatisfied with Trump.  Given the history of the president’s party usually losing House seats in mid-term elections, that could well mean that next year’s Address will find him introduced by a Democratic House Speaker.

Seated before him were four Supreme Court justices, just after the Court had rejected his use of tariffs.  In his ruling, the Chief Justice was thought to have signaled that the courts are set to be less compliant to Trump than Congress.  

But Trump loves tariffs.  Though they are not working, he suggests that they can produce enough income to replace the income tax.   This is pure fantasy.  What is real is that they are fueling some inflation.

On all other issues, voters rate Trump negatively.  His tax reform has increased the deficit but not helped average people.  He seems to believe that tariff revenues will solve spending problems, but he overpromises.  Meanwhile, people have a tough time making ends meet.  A soaring stock market may work for the wealthy, but not for most voters.

The Democratic policy is based on the hope that Trump will defeat himself.   The party lacks a coherent alternative and a single, charismatic spokesperson.  Presidential candidate posturing and the phony rivalry between progressives and moderates who can work together for a common goal are both blocking a positive policy.

The party’s response to Trump’s Address showed that a unifying and forceful alternative is possible.  It came from newly elected Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger.  Coming after the lengthiest State of the Union Address ever, it may have only been viewed by Democratic loyalists.  Her theme was affordability.  It is worth watching.

As usual, Trump confidently asserted verifiable untruths, often misstating the country’s economic conditions as he found them and as they stand today.  “In his speech tonight, the president did what he always does: he lied,” Spanberger said.  Trump’s problem is that people are increasingly aware of the gap between his claims and the truth.

There’s a long way to go between the State of the Union Address and November’s congressional elections.  Now it’s clear he faces increasingly skeptical federal courts and risks the end of GOP control of Congress.

Trump cannot afford to lose GOP support, because the Democrats and non-aligned voters say they strongly oppose him.  Republicans cheered his words and appear to remain loyal, but defections by only a relative few could swing the elections.

He may become a lame duck after the elections.   It could begin even sooner if some congressional Republicans increasingly see their abject loyalty to him as a political disadvantage. 

 

Tariffs failing as Court cracks down

Gordon L. Weil

The big news was that the Supreme Court ruled that most of President Trump’s tariffs were levied illegally.   He so badly wants them to work, that he is trying again in a more limited way, but Congress could limit or stop him.

The real news is that the tariffs aren’t working to achieve his objectives.  In fact, they are hurting American consumers and the economy.  Nothing shows this more clearly that the desperate defense put up by Kevin Hassett, director of the government’s National Economic Council.

Trump had favored him to take over Fed leadership, but was forced to look elsewhere.  Hassett, an extreme Trump loyalist, embodied the notion that the president can control the independent Fed.  His obvious risk to Fed independence was more than Republicans and Democrats could accept. 

Last week, Hassett proved their judgment correct.  He wildly and incorrectly defended Trump’s tariffs in the face of evidence they weren’t producing promised results.

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York published a report showing that over the course of 2025, Trump’s tariff increases had mostly hit American consumers and businesses, amounting to a tax increase.  Hassett attacked the report, deriding it as not being worthy of an introductory economics class.

When import tariffs are increased, somebody pays them.  Trump believed that foreign producers would swallow the cost, enabling them to maintain their market share.  He saw their increased burden as punishment for underselling U.S. producers.  If they opted to pass their costs on to American purchasers, higher-cost U.S. production would become competitive.

The report showed that nearly 90 percent of the Trump tariff cost had been passed on to Americans, leaving only a small impact on foreign producers.   After attacking the study, Hassett then admitted the tariffs had caused “a slight increase” in U.S. prices.

But Hassett stuck with Trump’s optimistic view.  Even admitting that tariffs caused price increases, he argued that the benefits outweighed those costs.  After all, imports would be reduced, and American manufacturing would gain and add good-paying factory jobs.  Well-paid workers would be able to pay the higher prices of American products.

Hassett and, by implication, Trump were wrong on all counts.  Not only was the country spared his misguided Fed leadership, but Congress could come to understand that one of the key pillars of the president’s policies simply does not work.

Imports grew as companies stockpiled goods before the tariffs went into effect.  Then, they could be reduced while the resulting import goods were sold off and would stay down as U.S. production picked up.

Not so.  As reported by the New York Times, “U.S. imports grew last year, and the trade deficit in goods hit a record high …, as Mr. Trump’s policies scrambled trade but did not halt it.”   In fact, the deficit in goods, the object of trade battles, swamped the improved U.S. exports of services, not much affected by the tariffs.  Trump pays little attention to services.

Did the added tariff protection increase American manufacturing as Trump and his man Hassett predicted?  Not according to the manufacturers.  Their index showed that factory activity contracted during 2025.  Only in one month under Trump was there any growth.

What about manufacturing employment, which should produce more well-paid workers if the tariff policy works?  The manufacturers employment index fell by more than 10 percent, and the Times reported over 80,000 fewer workers.  The result was less employment in slimmed-down manufacturers.

The president is banking on Trumpenomics beginning to produce positive results before the November elections.  It’s likely that his biggest economic issue is affordability, a word he sometimes has difficulty saying.   That problem will only dissolve if consumer prices moderate.  Not all their levels are caused by tariffs, but tariffs give no sign of helping.

The truth has always been that most countries are not staging economic assaults on the U.S.  To the degree that the Chinese state economy has exploited American demand for cheap goods, Trump’s tariff policy has cut trade with China.   But it has simply moved to other low-cost countries like India, Mexico and Vietnam.

Trump likes to give the impression that the U.S. can be self-sufficient and is doing other countries a favor to trade with them.  Maybe it can do without French champagne, but it can’t do without Canadian electricity.

He continually claims the U.S. economy is booming, though the national economy slowed last year.  It is working well for the top 10 percent, relatively little affected by tariffs.  They also drive a climbing stock market, whose performance appears to be a prime Trump indicator of national prosperity.

He tries to jawbone average people into believing their economy is great and getting better.  He depends on the effect of tariffs to make his case, but Trumpenomics is not working.  The voters may provide a better economic index in November. 

Trump overreaches, replacing leadership with threats

 

Gordon L. Weil

It all boils down to “common good” versus “liberty” – the community interest against individual interests.

In his farewell New York Times column, David Brooks suggested that the growth of individual freedom has become an end in itself, undermining the sense of a national community.

President Trump did not invent this development, but he took advantage of it and nourished it. He could hate his political opponents, making compromise impossible. 

Last week, at the Munich Security Conference, the same thinking was starkly applied to the world community.

The U.S. favors nationalism for itself and advocates it for others.  It promotes the same selfish concept of compromise abroad as at home:  we will treat you decently if you agree to follow our demands, which are admittedly made in our own best interests.

After World War II, the U.S., as the world’s greatest power, became the center of the political system based on agreed rules.  The so-called “rules-based order” was meant to place agreed limits on the behavior of nations in their relations with one another.  From an American viewpoint, it could serve to keep the U.S. out of other people’s wars.

The U.S. backed international organizations that were meant to enforce the rules and create conditions favorable to them.  The prime example was the United Nations, created under American auspices.  It also supported the European Union that could bind France and Germany into a relationship making it impossible for them again to war against one another.

On the domestic level, the Democrats and Republicans might differ, but they could find compromises that met the public’s interest in stable and reliable government.  Both parties respected the understandings that had grown up around the constitutional system.

On the international level, the rules-based system expanded and cooperation grew.  American security was served both by its help to others and their dependence on it for the maintenance of the system.

Nationalism was regarded as a threat to peace and should be replaced by joint action.  This concept faced serious challenges as nations and individuals began to enjoy the benefits of the rules-based order and prosperity.  It was something like the person who stops taking their medication because they think themselves cured, only to relapse.

The UN quickly faltered as the Soviet Union rejected its influence.  The EU had proclaimed supranationalism as its goal, with nations conceding powers to a central agency.   But nationalism began to grow again, keeping Europe half-finished.  In the extreme case of Hungary, the challenge is boldly asserted.

Trump’s America First policy means that U.S. power, used to enforce the rules-based order, would be deployed to seek American advantage wherever it could be obtained even by force or the threat of force.  The U.S. would pay only lip-service to UN reform and scorn the EU in the hope that their national interests would return its members to American subservience.

A year ago, Vice President JD Vance had taken an aggressive and threatening tone in addressing the Munich conference.  His approach did not work.  This year, Secretary of State Marco Rubio sent the same message but sugar-coated it with meaningless and faintly racist assurances of common outlook.  His approach did not work.

Trump had overreached, replacing leadership with menace.  He became an overt fellow traveler of Russian President Putin, Europe’s obvious adversary.  He threatened the independence of Canada, America’s neighbor and closest ally.  He attacked the EU.  He freely invaded Venezuela and bombed Iran.

But the ultimate issue that told the world that Trump’s America could not be trusted was his demand to be given or to take Greenland, part of the Kingdom of Denmark.  That country has been a committed American ally and was willing to accept a major U.S. role in Greenland.  But Trump’s cold aggression gave Europe a permanent chill.   Rubio could not warm it up.

The results may not be his desired world of small nations leaving its future to the US, China and Russia.  Europe has been given the incentive to find common ground on building a common defense under a common policy and in building a more efficient and less bureaucratic EU.

Similarly, on the national level, Trump has also overreached.  He has lost his popularity on all major issues but most notably on immigration, his hallmark.  He mistakenly believed that opposition to excessive immigration meant that most Americans wanted to expel immigrants who would undermine white political domination.  His approach did not work.

At home, Trump could turn to seeking practical solutions instead of pursing his personal agenda.  If he doesn’t, after 2028, they could begin taking his name off buildings.

Cooperation and compromise have become dirty words for authoritarians, nationalists and the MAGA movement.  They fail to understand that nations and individuals can freely decide on acting together to pursue common interests.

The best Ameriann president -- wealthy, famous

 

Gordon L.Weil

One president changed everything.

Among the wealthiest people in the country, he had come to the presidency after having achieved a national reputation and gained broad name recognition.  He owned profitable economic entities and even said he did not want to keep his presidential salary.

He was elected with a clear majority of both the popular vote and the electoral vote.  He was his own political party.   He was so popular that many supporters asked him to serve a third term as president.  He was widely honored, and many public places carried his name.

He believed in a strong presidency.  His Supreme Court appointees would back his views on the powers of the presidency.  He respected the powers of the Congress, but he sought to draw clear lines between the executive and legislative branches, defining the checks and balances between the two.

He understood that his presidency gave him the opportunity to overhaul the federal government from what he regarded as institutional weakness that had left it unable to deal with issues of the day.  He believed he had been given a special responsibility for this task, setting the government  on a new course.

He asserted his exclusive right to control foreign policy and there would be no doubt about his full authority as commander in chief.  He also sought to ensure that the states would not prevent the federal government from carrying out what he saw as its broad responsibilities.  He issued executive orders and vetoes.

Though not an elegant writer, he used the media to convey his views widely.  He wanted to communicate directly with the people without being filtered by others.

Though some might see this as a description of Donald Trump, it applies to another president. His name was George Washington.

The description above might fit Trump, but there’s one big difference.  Washington’s approach to governing was centered on his commitment to creating and leading institutions that served public needs and hopes.  Trump’s agenda is purely personal, and his approach reflects his will to impose his own beliefs and values on the country.

This week the U.S. celebrates his birthday.  The holiday remains officially “Washington’s Birthday,” though commerce has turned it into Presidents Day.  Each year on the occasion, I write about the person whom I consider to be the greatest American president. 

Washington’s most comprehensive statement on the federal government came in his Farewell Address, issued when he announced he would not seek a third term.  In effect, his statement was his political will to his country.   Viewed today, some of it is outdated, while public policy must now address some situations that he did not contemplate.

Much of the Address is devoted to an attack on the emerging political parties.  While he invited debate and wanted to learn from it, he argued that political parties would exist for their own purposes, sacrificing the national interest.  In modern terms, he opposed both parties and partisanship.

On parties, he wrote: “They are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the Power of the People, & to usurp for themselves the reins of Government….” 

On partisanship, he noted: “It serves always to distract the Public Councils and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot & insurrection.” 

Though he favored a strong president, he insisted on the separation of powers.  He warned those entrusted with governing “to confine themselves within their respective Constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the Powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form of government, a real despotism.”

Not only did he discuss the federal government, but he confronted a practical political issue.  He declared, “there must be Revenue—that to have Revenue there must be taxes—that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient & unpleasant.”  In his view, government must gain public acceptance of taxes to meet public needs, not merely cut them.

Often seen as only a two-dimensional historic figure, he was a man of great political skill and foresight.  King George III, his adversary, was reported to have said that he could be “the greatest man in the world” for declining a third term.

His Address showed his foresight and was directed to other citizens, people he regarded as his equals.  He would soon return to their ranks.  He wrote that he had tried to avoid making mistakes, but he was modestly aware of “the inferiority of my qualifications.”  This self-awareness is missed today.

 

Exposure of Epstein elete could cost their tax breaks

Gordon L. Weil

It’s not what you know, it’s who you know.

And Jeffrey Epstein was somebody you ought to know.  He was well connected.

He liked young girls and exploited them sexually for his own pleasure and for his friends’ enjoyment.  It was no secret, and he used access to the young women to attract business and personal contacts.

His collection of friends and contacts was his biggest asset.  The more he had, the more he seemed to get. Now, many of these people face negative, public scrutiny for their association with a convicted pedophile.

The Epstein affair has now risen to become a major international scandal.  It has implicated men who enjoyed the luxury and sex that Epstein provided.  Some either gave him or received inside economic and political information that could make them money or increase their standing.  He subsidized or stole from others.

He readily joined the elite world populated by the rich and famous.  People associated with others like themselves form social circles, some of which overlap.  Taken together these circles form the elite, with its members enjoying the company of one another, luxury, access to income and, for some, sex.

In recent years, much attention has been focused on the gap between the wealthiest and everybody else.  The rich, benefitting from tax breaks and their network of contacts have grown even more wealthy.  They own so much of the economy that they fuel the growth in the consumer and stock markets.

Claims by Presidents Biden and Trump that the economy is thriving are based on the stunning performance of a relatively few people while the vast majority struggle with affordability.  Billionaires like Trump fail to understand the problems of average wage earners, because the lives of average people are so far from their own experience.

The circles around Epstein might have gone unnoticed, except for his illegal use and trade in young women.   He may have thought himself immunized from punishment because of his elite status.   He was formally charged in 2005 with child prostitution, though he got off lightly.

Even after his arrest and conviction, he was allowed to serve his short sentence mainly in his own business office and that may have convinced his elite that he had achieved a special, elevated status making him worth continuing to cultivate.  People of wealth and intelligence could have chosen to research his case and walk away.  Few did.

Some who took part in Epstein-sponsored sex opened themselves to his blackmail or control.   Others could claim, possibly correctly, that they had done nothing illegal or that they were ignorant of some aspects of his life.  They might gain financially from information or contacts he provided without being aware of how he gained his insights.   The elite fed on its myths.

While he may have been a savvy investor, his great influence probably came from gaining the confidence of people who paid him handsomely for his advice.   He had complete control of one billionaire’s financial affairs, from which he derived hundreds of millions.  He was caught stealing from the man and had to repay a substantial sum.  But he barely lost a step.

By the time he faced new sex trafficking charges in 2019, members of his elite no longer wanted to be closely associated with him and risk of being implicated in his unseemly affairs.  While many probably were not involved in illegal actions, his famous “friends” nonetheless argued that they hardly knew Epstein.

As the Epstein investigation papers were pulled into the public, they showed that the claims of arms-length contact were false.  The problem for some of the most prominent was less their association with Epstein than their lies about it, including falsely suggesting only limited contact with him.   Their coverups became their main problem, not Epstein himself.

There was an historic precedent showing that such lying extracts a high price.  President Richard Nixon’s downfall resulted more from his lies about Watergate than from the actual break-in and related campaign activity.  Much damaging information might never have emerged if he had told the truth promptly; he might even have survived in office.  His lesson was not learned.

For example, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick lied when he said he had not met Epstein after 2005.  While there’s no evidence that Lutnick did anything illegal, he knowingly misinformed investigators about a later visit to Epstein’s private island.

The wealth gap may survive until average people force politicians to reduce favoritism in government tax and other policies.  The character of the economic and social elite has been revealed by the Epstein affair, and this revelation may ultimately contribute more to bringing reform than attacks by progressives, no matter how well-intentioned. 

With increasing popular concern about Epstein’s billionaire friend in the White House, the timing couldn’t be better.

  

Presidential racism, Impeachment and the Clinton's retreat

 

Gordon L. Weil

Racism

President Trump is responsible for posts from the White House on his Truth Social. 

He has lowered communications on his site to the level of the street.  The presidency has been stripped of the respect it needs and deserves.

A racist post from the White House about former President Obama and his wife Michelle was uploaded to Truth Social.  Trump has refused any responsibility for it and would not apologize to the Obamas and the American public.

He allowed his in-house propagandist to excuse the post, then supported her obvious lie.  He insults our intelligence.

Both the post and his reaction are evidence that Trump is a racist. 

No rational person, much less a national leader, would allow such a post and refuse to apologize for it.  That raises the question of whether Trump can be considered a rational person.  

BTW, scientific theory, based on DNA, suggests that we may all descend from an African female, known as “mitochondrial eve.”    

Impeachment vote

Impeaching federal officials requires a majority of the House of Representatives.  If the Democrats take control of the House after this November’s elections, they might impeach Trump for a third time.  That goes a long way to explaining his efforts to maintain GOP House control.

If he were impeached, the Senate would almost certainly be unable to muster the two-thirds needed to convict him.  That would not deter Democrats who could seek to embarrass him, while forcing him to focus attention on his trial rather than on new initiatives.

For a person so clearly concerned about how others see him, a third impeachment would assure him a negative verdict in presidential history.  That could appeal to frustrated Democrats.

The outcome would also further devalue impeachment, which is fast becoming nothing more than a symbolic vote of no confidence in the president.   While impeachment may become part of the political woodwork, it will end up changing little.  With almost no possibility of the conviction of any president, perhaps politicizing impeachment is its best use.

Court delays

The Supreme Court has moved quickly to issue procedural orders allowing Trump to pursue many of his disputed actions until it renders final decisions.  The president gets months of leeway to act before there’s any risk that the Court will halt some of his policies.  Meanwhile, the district courts keep issuing adverse decisions for later Supreme Court review.

Trump’s use of emergency powers to justify raising tariffs has already been rejected in two courts’ detailed rulings. During a hearing, Supreme Court justices questioned his use of the law. 

But the Court has not issued its decision, allowing the tariffs to apply.   While there’s a broad expectation that the Court will rule against the president, its delay defies explanation.  It is undoubtedly giving Trump more time to prepare fallback measures if he loses.

The Court’s excuse might be that it has so many major cases that its decision-making must obviously slow down.   If so, that makes the case for enlarging the Court.

Years ago, the Court made 200 decisions a year.  Now, it barely reaches 70 rulings.  With more justices it could dole out the work to more hands.  It should then be possible to work somewhat faster.

Enlargement does not require court packing.  Instead, as I have previously proposed, Congress could create temporary slots.  Justices would be added to the usual nine and could move from a temporary seat to a permanent place as older justices left the Court.  This would be a temporary solution that could be made permanent after its effect was tested.

Temporary slots have been used for the Supreme Court and courts of appeal.  Right now, they are being used for federal district courts.

Clintons decide to testify

Bill and Hilary Clinton declined to testify before the House committee looking at the Epstein revelations.  As a result, the Republican-dominated committee geared up to find them in contempt of Congress.

Congress has no prosecutorial powers, so its contempt finding would go to the Justice Department for action.   Congress might score political points, believing that the Justice Department would not proceed to prosecution.

But with Trump allies controlling Congress and Trump himself directing the Justice Department, the Clintons could envisage being formally charged with contempt, leading to a trial.  So, they decided to head for cover by withdrawing their refusal to testify. 

Their decision reflected the political reality of dealing with a system dominated by your political opponent.  Trump is dedicated to partisanship, retribution and the destruction of his presidential predecessors.  His loyal, if unprincipled, appointees cater to his wishes.

In the end, as many others in the Epstein files may be finding, it may be better to accept a short-term hit to your political reputation than to face conviction of guilt by association – or worse.