LyrArc Article Gist
An emergency appeal to have the case on the travel ban to the Supreme Court has the disadvantage that of the 8 Justices on the court the ruling could end up at 4 against and 4 in favor. The 4 liberal Justices are unlikely to support it. Another more likely scenario is taking a conventional petition approach and this would mean a decision on whether the Supreme Court hears the case would come by April, and hearings starting in October. By that time Neil Gorsuch could be on the Supreme Court filling Judge Scalia's vacant position- leading to a decision, instead of a tie that leaves the appeals court decision to stop the travel ban in place.

LyrArc Article Gist
Classic DJT letter to Japan. WSJ annotates the letter but its annotation does not say that Japan has used the relationship with the US to its advantage, putting the US companies and industries at a serious disadvantage since 1970's. US Trade Representative under DJT first term 2016-2020 was Robert Lighthizer. Lighthizer was Deputy Trade Representative under Reagan in the 1980's negotiating with a Japan that would concede little. 2024 USTR Jamieson Greer was Deputy Trade Representative under Lighthizer. The Letter starts setting the tone that we have borne Japan's unwillingness to negotiate fairly with patience, ends stating we are ready to act. "It is a Great Honor for me to send you this letter in that it demonstrates the strength and commitment of our Trading Relationship, and the fact that the United States of America has agreed to continue working with Japan, despite having a significant Trade Deficit with your great Country." "We have had years to discuss our Trading Relationship with Japan, and have concluded that we must move away ....Our relationship has been, unfortunately, far from Reciprocal...Goods transshipped to evade a higher Tariff....If for any reason you decide to raise your Tariffs..." ...

LyrArc Article Gist
For a decade America's leaders remained silent on taking action on all fronts including trade on countries that were sources of fentanyl. The largest and most advanced economy in the world did not take action to protect its people when countries acted with impunity on fentanyl flows. That action is being taken now. A 25% tariff will be imposed on imports from Mexico and Canada, an extra 10% tariff on China, till the illegal flow of fentanyl and smuggled migrants from these countries stops. The new president DJT said on Truth Social media- He will impose by executive order on the first day in office tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, “on ALL products coming into the United States, and its ridiculous open borders”, which would not be lifted “until such time as Drugs, in particular Fentanyl, and all Illegal Aliens stop this Invasion of our Country."   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The US Supreme Court has to decide whether the most common method of ending pregnancies can be restricted.

LyrArc Article Gist
The Indian Supreme Court Bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and JB Pardiwala rejected a petition of 14 political parties in India for guidelines to prevent avoidable arrest of political opponents, saying it is asking for special immunity for politicians.

"Ultimately a political leader is also a citizen, and as a citizen he or she is amenable to the same law."

"Once we accept that political leaders stand absolutely on the same footing as citizens of the country, they will face the same due process of law and are not entitled to a higher immunity than what is available under law."

"You (political parties) say there is selective targeting of opposition leaders. But at the same time you say you do not want any special treatment of politicians as they are only citizens of the country, they will face the same due process of law and are not entitled to higher immunity than what is available under law."

LyrArc Article Gist
On Greenland German chancellor Merz takes a different view from that of the Nordic countries.  Merz is looking at it with an open mind and has left it to the German spokesperson to address it.

LyrArc Article Gist
First disrupt the young people's attention and create effects on mental health of long hours spent on social media such as Tik Tok. This results in a loss of literacy on basic knowledge of civics and American history to lower and lower levels. Then let these young people decide who should run the country and its government for the next 4-8 years. The founders never intended this and never anticipated this threat. Congressmen Republican Gallagher of Wisconsin and Democrat Krisnamoorthi of Illinois introduced a bipartisan bill to ban TikTok in the US considering that it was foreign adversary application when its literacy effects are even more a concern. Byte Dance has appealed the law that goes into effect Jan 19, 2025. The appeal is now before a 3 person panel of the Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals of Sri Srinivasan, Neomi Rao, and Douglas Ginsburg. Does Byte Dance have recourse to the First Amendment rights in the US Constitution when the US sees Byte Dance as a foreign adversary controlled internet social media service, is the question before the Appeals Court and next before the US Supreme Court. The US government has shown the judges confidential classified data that shows why it thinks there is foreign adversary influence of some sort.  It is interesting to note that national literacy standards and the ability of average American young people to know enough about American history and civics that is in a dire state today and a key vulnerability for US democracy. This is gravely harmed by social media influence. Only negative effects on mental health of children and young girls has been put forward. Too many hours spent on social media is a negative influence which is why China and now Australia and UK have put restrictions on is use. US has none. India has banned Tik Tok for security reasons. In all situations there are negatives here yet it is an appalling thing that literacy is not the biggest one put forward when it should be for this Nation. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Does a 10% reduction in tariffs on China with the October 30 2025 agreement- made in Busan South Korea at APEC meetings- make a difference for companies relocating from China? It only does for smaller companies who are stuck with Chinese sources. Larger American companies prefer to diversify their supply chain and continue to relocate part of their factories to Vietnam, India and other countries knowing that the tariffs game will end up with allies EU, Japan and India in the 10-15% tariff range as a concession to US for putting up with trade disadvantages and job losses 2000-2025. China's will still be at 47% in comparison and the fentanyl issue causing serious questions to be asked by the American people which have not been grasped in China or even in the US by companies and politicians.   Does it affect the urgency and general shift out of China? The fentanyl issue is unlikely to change and it is likely to do lasting damage to China's credibility to a degree that it not clearly understood in China, and even not fully grasped even in the US today because of the sheer size of the number dead- more young Americans dead from fentanyl than in the Korean, Vietnam and First World Wars combined. Other issues are technology that has been transferred without a proper assessment of the importance to national security, the need to shift the manufacturing base back home that US industries have inadvertently and carelessly shifted to China in the disastrous Bush and Obama years 2000-2016, and for the jobs, the wages, and cost of living concerns when supply chains are outside one's control. This article asks the question about tariffs on India and Brazil as being contradictory and showing a lack of consistency in tariffs. India is compared to China with India facing a 50% tariff because of Russian oil purchases, and Brazil a 100% tariff related to treatment of former president Bolsonaro even though US has a trade surplus with Brazil. One expects that at some point India and the US will come to an agreement that lowers the tariffs in a way that was done with the European Union to bring it closer to 10%. China's tariff to be sure is still around 47% dropping from 57% a concession for rare earths and for the upcoming elections and economic concerns not because of policy intent which has not changed on  strong action for fentanyl which is also part of the Appeal to the People in the DJT base.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
International Court for Trade in New York (Customs Court for New York setup 1970) ruling on tariffs May 29 2025. An obscure NY federal court that few know about has issued a ruling saying tariffs are not legal under emergency powers of the president. In the first term DJT used Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which provides firm legal footing to act in the Nation's interest. This court says there is no emergency not considering the trade deficit of $ 1 trillion and with it a loss of manufacturing technologies lost to other nations a danger. A loss of manufacturing technologies that comes with shipping manufacturing overseas, that makes it impossible to make the ships the US Navy need on time, as not posing  dangers to the Nation.  The administration says unelected judges should not be making such decisions. The Court jurisdiction is to review the decisions of customs officials on import duties. Was the Court in New York City with judges appointed by the president, expected to decide on what presidential decisions in the Nation's interest were legal. Nothing about its history suggests that it was designed to do this. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
It is important to know the cause of 0.3% contraction in first quarter 2025 for US economy. It is says WSJ because of a 5% hit from net exports, the difference between exports and imports, as importers rushed to import more before a tariff deadline. Imports by the US increased by 42% in first quarter 2025. Some include MIchigan Governor Whitmer who supports the tariffs as a way to take back America's industrial base, build factories in the US, say the uncertainty of the way tariffs were implemented is damaging confidence in the economy. For instance could the US have excluded the EU, Japan, UK, India as allies, and focused on China.  The problem with that approach is that it would single out China. It means other nations Japan, South Korea, Germany are not investing in the US, also have used trade for unfair advantage, are not called out. This would put China in an odd position. It is better to call out all who benefited from unfair advantage including China, Germany, Japan South Korea, Taiwan, because this has more credibility, giving all a honest and fair picture that they could then look at themselves in the mirror and correct. In the short run it looks messy, the tariff methods look erratic and back and forth increasing tariffs is also messy and unruy. Yet when every major trading nation knows deep inside that US is only saying it like it is asking only for fairness in trade, it will lead it to negotiate a fair trade agreement with US. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Small airports that are popular- Wichita, Hagerstown, Orlando, Charlotteville, Albany. It is easier to get to these airports and hire a rental car, get your bags, and not have to fight traffic.

LyrArc Article Gist
US Canada relations in a downward spiral after Carney's words about "economic coercion" and China at Davos. In this case it has incensed Luttnick and Bessent. Bessent has called for US to have relations with Alberta. The Liberal Party had run into problems with its attitude towards the US in the western hemisphere under Trudeau. Carney was supposed to fix this but Canada under Carney has sought to stoke Canadian identity as a way to win elections, when throughout  most of its history Canada and particularly after Dominion status has linked its identity to the US. In fact British constitutional expert Ivor Jennings has pointed out that Canada's trade patterns within Canada are an aberration as it would normally trade with its neighbors north to south (Quebec/Ontario with New England) not east to west  (Ontario with Alberta) as it has done when Canada became a separate state in North America. As Carney and DJT engage in tit for tat it remains unlikely that the USMCA will be negotiated and renewed, creating new uncertainty for the Canadian economy that Carney was expected to address with immigration, housing and other problems left behind by Trudeau's Liberals. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A new CBS-New York Times opinion poll in June 2012 shows 44% of those polled approve the job the Supreme Court is performing and about three fourths say the decisions of justices of the court are influenced by their political and personal views. By comparison only 15% approve of the job done by the U.S. Congress in the most recent poll. Only one in eight say the justices make decisions based solely on legal analysis. About 60% say they agree that life tenure for justices is bad because it gives too much power to justices. On the health care law two thirds of those polled say they hope some or all of the 2010 Obama health care law is overturned.

LyrArc Article Gist
A critical part of the Affordable Care Act is the setup of marketplaces or exchanges to let people without insurance buy individual health plans. Some states setup their own exchanges, and some states let the federal government step in and run them. To help the lower middle class and poor the Act provides health subsidies to buy insurance in the exchanges, and 85% of customers in the exchanges qualify for this benefit. The U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-3 in 2015, compared to a tight vote in 2012 on the Affordable Care Act, to maintain the health subsidies. Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, saying "Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not destroy them." Justice Scalia dissented calling it "interpretive jiggery-pokery." Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Jr. dissented. Voting in favor were Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Justice Kennedy dissented in the 2000 case. The challengers petition to the courts was based on a reading of phrases in the Affordable Act which had not occurred to the writers of the law. The reading suggests only people enrolled in state setup exchanges are eligible for subsidies. If the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs the 6.4 million Americans who are enrolled in the federal exchanges would lose the subsidies provided under the law and lose health insurance. And the economic foundations of the Affordable Act would be undermined with insurance companies required to provide insurance to all regardless of pre-existing conditions and subsidies removed, leaving the companies with sicker pool of customers resulting in destabilizing the exchanges and higher premiums. The court ruled in favor of an interpretation that is compatible with the whole law and the intentions of the statute to help the middle class and the poor buy health insurance. The chaos in the insurance markets that would result in going with the plaintiffs because of a careless writing of a phrase, was uppermost in the majority's mind. Chief Justice Roberts emphasized this, saying- "The statutory scheme compels us to reject petitioners' interpretation, because it would destabilize the individual insurance market in any state with a federal exchange and likely create the very 'death spirals' that Congress designed the act to avoid." This case originated with 4 plaintiffs from Virginia who challenged the IRS regulation that said subsidies were allowed regardless of whether the exchanges were run by the state or the federal government, arguing that this was at odds with the particular phrase in the law that was ambiguous about federal exchanges eligibility for health subsidies. Judge Roger Gregory of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virgina, ruled that the phrase was indeed ambiguous, but the IRS was owed deference in its opinion. Chief Justice Roberts made it clear that this was not a case for the IRS, saying "it is instead our task to determine the correct reading." ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Transgender athletes in women's sports case is on January 13, 2026. And whether US president DJT can continue with his tariffs plan.