Walmart Made in China Cartoons

What the "blank"?

One year in, Trump's Gorsuch nomination may be his longest lasting legacy

Judge Neil Gorsuch shakes hands with Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy after being sworn in as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, accompanied by Louise Gorsuch (C) and U.S. President Donald J. Trump in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, U.S., April 10, 2017. REUTERS/Carlos Barria - RTX34YQB

April 10 marks one year since Justice Neil Gorsuch was officially sworn in as the 101^st associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.  It’s been a year of fulfilled promises.  We now know that President Trump kept perhaps his most important campaign promise by nominating a successor to Justice Scalia who would carry on his legacy.  And for Justice Gorsuch himself, it has been a year of fulfilling the promise of his confirmation hearings: that he would be a judge committed to fairness and independence, deciding cases on the basis of the law and the Constitution rather than politics or personal feelings.
One of the most striking features of Gorsuch’s first year on the Court is his demonstrated commitment to the constitutional principles he articulated during his confirmation hearings.  In his opinions as well as oral arguments, Justice Gorsuch has repeatedly invoked familiar themes.
For example, the theme of commitment to the laws as passed by our elected representatives permeated Gorsuch’s confirmation hearings.  He recalled difficult decisions as a circuit judge requiring him to apply laws with which he disagreed.  When senators criticized some of his legal conclusions, he explained that it is for Congress to change a law, not the courts.  In Gorsuch’s view, a judge’s job is to “try to understand what the words on the page mean.  Not import words that come from us.  But apply what you, the people's representatives, the lawmakers have done.”
Already Justice Gorsuch has carried out that commitment.  In his first day of oral arguments, the junior justice redirected discussion of a law so complex and poorly drafted that Justice Alito wondered aloud whether it had been written by someone “who takes pleasure out of pulling the wings off flies.”  Instead of succumbing to the temptation to “fix” the law by effectively rewriting it, Gorsuch challenged both parties to follow the plain text of the statute.  In his dissenting opinion in the case, he explained that—rather than having the courts “tweak” statutes to make them work more efficiently—“the business of enacting statutory fixes [is] one that belongs to Congress and not this Court.”

At oral argument in a redistricting case, Gorsuch suggested jokingly that the lawyers hadn’t yet addressed “the arcane matter, the Constitution,” and cited several constitutional amendments that shed light on discussion.

Justice Gorsuch has similarly returned the Court to fundamental constitutional questions when the analysis proposed to the Court lacked constitutional moorings.  This was illustrated clearly in two cases argued last October.  At oral argument in a redistricting case, Gorsuch suggested jokingly that the lawyers hadn’t yet addressed “the arcane matter, the Constitution,” and cited several constitutional amendments that shed light on discussion.  In a second case examining whether an immigration law was unconstitutionally vague, he challenged both sides to ground their own arguments in the Constitution itself rather than judge-invented doctrines or tests.
Perhaps the most repeated constitutional theme at Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing was his concern about a line of cases requiring courts to give administrative agencies significant deference in lawsuits.  Twice already, Gorsuch has objected to the Court deciding not to hear cases that would challenge the outsized role of administrative agencies and reconsider the practice of giving agencies an extra thumb on the scale.
As the country watched a year ago to learn more about the man who was nominated to be the next justice, they saw an articulate, thoughtful, and principled judge explain his approach to judging and to the law.  A year later, it has become clear that Neil Gorsuch is as excellent a justice as we had hoped he would be. 

Lost amid all the 'noise' over Scott Pruitt is the very real damage Obama's EPA did to rural communities

The far left will stop at nothing in their efforts to derail the presidency of Donald Trump. Still bitter about the outcome of 2016, the left claims much of their outrage toward the president is driven by his unpredictable personality, but ideological opposition to his administration’s reform-minded agenda is the real root of their anger.
Nowhere is this more evident than the furor surrounding Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  Trump’s opponents have seized on a number of recent unflattering news stories involving Pruitt and his agency. While admittedly not the best public relations for Pruitt, his “real sin is that he is one of Mr. Trump’s most aggressive reformers,” as the Wall Street Journal editorialized last week. President Trump expressed a similar sentiment over the weekend when he tweeted praise for his EPA chief’s “bold actions” and “record clean Air & Water while saving USA Billions of Dollars.”
Since taking office last year, Pruitt has boldly carried out the president’s campaign promises. In October, he moved to repeal Obama’s Clean Power Plan regulations, ending the War On Coal and providing a shot in the arm for coal country that had been decimated.
Pruitt and Trump issued an executive order doing away with the Obama-era Waters Of The United States (WOTUS) that sought to impose new regulations on every miniscule body of water in this country.  And Pruitt encouraged Trump to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, an accord which the UN itself admitted last year was largely symbolic, but whose damage to American businesses would have been real.
Environmental protection remains a priority: under Pruitt’s leadership, $100 million dollars have been awarded to Flint, Michigan, to upgrade the drinking water and to clean up sites contaminated with hazardous substances and pollutants – known as “Superfunds” – has been prioritized.
Pruitt’s “scandals” are exaggerated for political expediency: never mind that the Obama EPA spent just as much, if not more, than Pruitt’s team, according to a recent Fox News report.  Or that Lisa Jackson, Obama’s EPA chief, was caught using the email alias “Richard Windsor” to communicate with people outside the government. Or that one Obama-era EPA employee was caught downloading and watching pornography on the job. These issues prompted no outrage from Hill offices, and one questions if Congressional inquiry could possibly be politically motivated, or if left-wing outrage is a one-way street.

These millions of Americans who lost their jobs, their towns, and their livelihood voted to undo the EPA’s destruction, and Scott Pruitt is doing just that.

The left also knows that opposing Trump and Pruitt will curry favor with Tom Steyer, the San Francisco billionaire taking a bigger and bigger role in the public policy debate. Already having pledged $30 million dollars of his vast fortune to help elect identically ideological environmentalists, Steyer has now embarked on a publicity stunt to impeach the president, spending millions on television and digital ads.
Lost amid all the noise is the extreme damage the previous EPA did to rural communities. My work takes me to small, energy-rich towns around the country.  These are the places where America gets its power, where multiple generations of energy workers live and worship and raise their families.  Places where the champions of the eco-left would not deign to visit.  These towns survived dot.com bubbles and housing crashes because the majority had steady, good paying jobs in coal mines or oil fields.
These proud towns went from prosperity to poverty during eight years of EPA regulatory action as unemployment became rampant, and with it, myriad hardships: shuttered stores on main street, depleted education funds, increased opioid use.  Families broke apart as moms and dads moved from their beloved hometowns looking for work.  The very fabric of their communities – neighbors, schools, churches, little league, diners, town squares – destroyed in less than a decade.
The ideologues of the previous EPA believed they were punishing “the fat cats” as Obama liked to call rich people who didn’t vote for him, or “millionaires and billionaires” in Bernie Sanders lexicon, or “big oil” according to the eco-left. But who they really punished were the forgotten men and women in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, New Mexico, Alaska, and Louisiana, among others.  These millions of Americans who lost their jobs, their towns, and their livelihood voted to undo the EPA’s destruction, and Scott Pruitt is doing just that.  His punishment will be severe: the eco-left, in conjunction with their elected patrons in Congress and media allies, will persecute him relentlessly.   
Our message to Administrator Pruitt: American energy workers who are going back to work thank you. The American economy thanks you. And please remember these wise words: if you want a friend in Washington, get a dog. 

Trump attacks Mueller 'witch hunt' as WH source calls investigation 'out of control'

President Trump reacted angrily Monday to news that federal agents had raided the office and home of his personal attorney, Michael Cohen -- calling the action "disgraceful" and describing special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation as "an attack on our country."
Before a White House meeting with top military advisers, Trump took several minutes to blast the raid and the Mueller probe.
"It's a disgraceful situation. It's a total witch hunt," said Trump, who claimed that he had "given over a million pages in documents to the special counsel. They continue to just go forward ... and I have this witch hunt constantly going on for over 12 months now. Actually it's much more than that. You could say right after I won the [2016 Republican] nomination it started."
Trump also accused Mueller's investigators of being "the most biased group of people [with] the biggest conflicts of interest" and said Attorney General Jeff Sessions "made a terrible mistake for the country" when he recused himself from overseeing the Russia investigation last year.
A source close to the White House told Fox News' John Roberts that the raid showed that the Mueller investigation "is out of control" and was a "demonstration of bad faith" on the part of the special counsel.
"What in the name of God is Mueller doing?" the source told Roberts. "He wants to take down the President."
Cohen's attorney, Stephen Ryan, said Monday's raid was conducted by the U.S. Attorney's office in Manhattan and was based at least partly on a referral from Mueller.
"The decision by the U.S. Attorney's Office in New York to conduct their investigation using search warrants is completely inappropriate and unnecessary," Ryan said in a statement. "It resulted in the unnecessary seizure of protected attorney client communications between a lawyer and his clients."
A source close to the White House also agreed with Trump's take on the alleged bias of Mueller investigators, saying that "the hiring of all those Clinton people for Mueller’s team was not an accident. It was done to bring down the president."
SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER'S TEAM HAS ONLY ONE KNOWN REPUBLICAN
In February, Fox News reported that most of the 17 confirmed attorneys on Mueller's team were registered Democrats or made Democratic political donations.
A source close to the Trump legal team told Fox News' Catherine Herridge that the raid on Cohen was "aggressive" and designed to "squeeze the president." The source, who has knowledge of talks between Mueller and the president's legal team, added that the raid "puts a fork in" the prospect of Trump agreeing to be interviewed by the special counsel.
Still, the existence of a referral from Mueller's office to the Manhattan U.S. Attorney suggests that the matter isn't related to Russia.
Under Justice Department regulations, Mueller is required to consult with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein when his investigators uncover new evidence that may fall outside his original mandate. Rosenstein then would determine whether to allow Mueller to proceed or to assign the matter to another U.S. attorney or another part of the Justice Department.
Cohen has more recently attracted attention for his acknowledgment that he paid Daniels $130,000 out of his own pocket just days before the 2016 presidential election. Cohen has said neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Daniels and he was not reimbursed for the payment.
Several former officials at the Federal Election Commission have said the payment appears to be a violation of campaign finance laws, and multiple Washington-based groups have filed complaints with the FEC, urging it to investigate.
There have been few signs that Mueller was interested in investigating the payment, though. One Mueller witness, former Trump aide Sam Nunberg, recently connected the special counsel with the payment, saying in an interview on MSNBC last month that prosecutors had asked him about it.
Trump answered questions about Daniels for the first time last week, saying he had no knowledge of the payment made by Cohen and he didn't know where Cohen had gotten the money. The White House has consistently said Trump denies the affair.
"Why don't I just fire Mueller?" asked Trump, repeating a reporter's question to him Monday night. "Well, I think it's a disgrace what's going on. We'll see what happens, but I think it's really a sad situation when you look at what happened.
"And many people have said, 'You should fire him.'" Trump added. "... So we'll see what happens ... this is a pure and simple witch hunt."

China's Xi promises to cut auto import tariff, warns against ‘Cold War’ mentality

China's President Xi Jinping appeared to strike a conciliatory tone during a speech Tuesday where he promised to cut China's auto import tariffs and ease restrictions on foreign ownership in its auto industry as tensions play out with Washington over tariffs.
Xi made no direct mention of the dispute with President Donald Trump but pledged to open China's markets further and improve conditions for foreign companies. He warned against having a "Cold War" mentality, which he called outdated, according to Bloomberg.
“We will take the initiative to expand imports,” Xi said during his keynote speech at the opening of the Boao Forum for Asia, China Plus News reported. "China does not seek trade surplus; we have a genuine desire to increase imports and achieve greater balance of international payments under the current account," he said.
Xi said Beijing will "significantly lower" tariffs on auto imports this year and ease restrictions on foreign ownership in the auto industry as soon as possible.
China charges total duties of 25 percent on most imported cars -- a 10 percent customs tariff plus a 15 percent auto tax. Since December 2016, Beijing also has charged an additional 10 percent on "super-luxury" vehicles priced above $200,000.
The U.S. bought more than $500 billion in goods from China last year and now is planning or considering penalties on some $150 billion of those imports.
China has pledged to "counterattack with great strength" if Trump decides to follow through on his latest threat to impose tariffs on an additional $100 billion in Chinese goods -- after an earlier announcement that targeted $50 billion.
Vishnu Varathan, head of economics and strategy for Mizuho Bank in Singapore, told Reuters, “By and large it appears that the speech is more conciliatory than it is pugilistic with respect to how their approach to the U.S. is."
Xi tried to position China as a defender of free trade and cooperation in response to Trump's "America first" calls for import restrictions and an overhaul of trade deals to make them more favorable to the United States.
"China's door of opening up will not be closed and will only open wider," said Xi at the forum on the southern island of Hainan.