Reposted by Amy Van Doren
The most shameful thing is how many Dems voted for this terrible bill. Presumably because they wanted to offer performative support for Ukraine. Instead now we're buying diesel from Russia and throttling Starlink for Ukraine, and meanwhile Congress handed Trump a tariff nuke
thebulwark.com
Senate Voting to Give Trump a Tariff Nuke
A bill supposedly aimed at Russia is really an unprecedented new tariff power grab—yet prominent Democrats are backing it.
![The majority’s order grapples with virtually none of this.
Indeed, it does not even acknowledge that the District
Court’s discriminatory-intent finding is reviewed for clear
error. Much of its reasoning rests on its assertion that, even
as to the plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment claim, “the Dis-
trict Court’s analysis departed from Callais.” Ante, at 3.
That is wrong twice over. First, Callais “said not a word
about the standard for Fourteenth Amendment intentional-
discrimination claims.” Caster, 608 U. S., at ___
(SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 4). Instead, Callais
was focused on changing the Court’s law on “exactly what
§2 of the Voting Rights Act demands,” not what the Consti-
tution demands. 608 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 19). Second,
Callais said that its newly fashioned test for §2 disparate-
impact claims is not an intent-based test. It acknowledged
that §2 “does not demand a finding of intentional discrimi-
nation.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 23). It also denied JUSTICE
KAGAN’s charge that the majority’s new test was an intent
test in all but name. Id., at ____ (slip op., at 35). It is hard
to see how the District Court’s finding of discriminatory in-
tent under the Fourteenth Amendment could have de-
parted from an opinion that purported to say nothing about
how to find discriminatory intent under the Fourteenth
Amendment. The Court’s apparently oblivious insistence
to the contrary today cannot be squared with what Callais
said on its face just over one month ago. See id., at ___, n.
5 (KAGAN, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 25, n. 5) (“[T]he major-
ity closes its opinion by suggesting it is not requiring a vote-
dilution plaintiff to present evidence of ‘discriminatory in-
tent.’ Which, if true, would be welcome news” (citation
omitted](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:6h7b2i6ttw3l4t7pvbvxdith/bafkreihd4do2eirxszmxkxmtifhkxrkoyyqj6s2rbmioafbeusioqgwme4)
