COURTS AND PRESIDENTS ARE NOT ALWAYS RIGHT!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

TARIFF RULING!

by Steve Fair

 

The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) delivered a major blow to President Donald Trump last week by ruling (6-3) many of the tariffs Trump has imposed based on a 1977 emergency economic powers law were unconstitutional.  To say Trump was disappointed in the ruling is an understatement.  At a hastily called news conference after the ruling, he denounced the SCOTUS justices who ruled against him as a “disgrace” and announced wide-ranging new tariffs.  Trump used a different law to impose a 10 percent across-the-board tariff.  Three observations:

First, courts don't always get it right.  Courts and judges, at all levels, are made up of people and people are fallible.  They filter all their decisions through their worldview and political philosophy.  Often judges legislate from the bench and use their power to overturn laws and twist the original intent of lawmakers.  The SCOTUS is part of balance of power in America, but it is far from perfect and many of the high court's past decisions have been wrong.

Second, presidents don't always get it right.  No one gets it right all the time, including President Trump.  He could be right about the SCOTUS getting it wrong, but that remains to be seen.  Trump is correct the executive branch has the authority to Impose tariffs.  Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 allow the president to act regarding tariffs under specific, limited, and legally defined conditions.  

In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts said: “we claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs. We claim only, as we must, the limited role assigned to us by Article III of the Constitution. Fulfilling that role, we hold that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.”

Third, the law is subject to interpretation.  There are two types of judicial philosophy: judicial activism, where judges are more willing to overturn laws, precedents and policies to shape social and political change.  Those who subscribe to judicial activism interpret the Constitution as a 'living' document.  That is normally the liberal view.

The second philosophy is judicial restraint.  Judges who subscribe to judicial restraint rule more often on the original meaning of the Constitution and defer to the legislative branch to make the laws.  This is normally the conservative view.  Neither philosophy is perfect, because even in its best day, human judgment is flawed. 

Trump's response to the SCOTUS ruling on the tariffs could impact future cases.  Insulting and degrading people who in the future will likely be ruling on cases you are involved in is probably not a wise strategy. 

Two of the three of the SCOTUS justices Trump appointed to the high court voted with the three liberals on the court and Chief Justice Roberts against Trump's tariff decrees.  Only Justice Brett Kavanaugh (appointed by Trump in 2018) sided with the president.    

It remains to be seem who got this ruling right, but Trump is not be the first president to be surprised by how a justice they appointed ruled.

When tariffs are put in place, they have to comply with the law.  If the law is wrong, then Congress needs to fix it.  Circumventing and dodging the law is illegal, no matter who does it. 

Court rulings are often frustrating and create roadblocks.  Routinely, the legislative and executive branches of government are at odds with the judiciary.  None of the three branches are always right. They all make mistakes. 

THOSE CALLING CONSERVATIVES RINOS MAY BE THE REAL RINOS!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

NOSE HORN!

by Steve Fair

 

President Trump uses the term, "RINO,' on a regular basis.  RINO is an acronym for Republican-In-Name-Only.  It's a derogatory label to describe politicians and activists who allegedly do not hold to true Republican values.  It is often used to disparage politicians who are viewed as too moderate.  Some moderate Democrats are branded DINOs by their Party, but you seldom hear that term.

Name calling and branding political opponents with a label is nothing new.  Two-time presidential candidate Thomas Dewey, who ran against FDR and Truman, did not oppose FDR's New Deal programs, but just promised that Republicans would run them more efficiently.  Dewey and his allies were branded 'Me Too' Republicans, because they agreed with the Democrats.  'Me Too' Republicans were the majority among GOP elected officials and won the Party's presidential nomination up until 1980, when Ronald Reagan upset the applecart. 

This week, President Trump posted on Truth Social Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt is a RINO.  Stitt, who is Chairman of the National Governor's Association (NGA) had released a press release regarding an upcoming governor's weekend in Washington that President Trump said was inaccurate.  Trump had disinvited two Democrat governors and Stitt released a presser saying that Trump had agreed to invite all the governors.  Trump posted: “We will soon have a Governor in Oklahoma who knows how to accurately write a Press Release to the Public, in this case, to state that I invited, not happily, almost all Democrat Governors to the Governor’s Dinner at the White House.  Stitt, a wise guy, knew this, but tried to get some cheap publicity by stating otherwise.” Immediately, two candidates for Oklahoma governor in 2026 (Keating and Drummond) jumped on Trump's bandwagon, saying they agreed Stitt is a RINO.  Three observations:

First, everyone who disagrees with Trump is not a RINO.  Blind loyalty is a dangerous thing.  The president demands blind loyalty.  In today's toxic political environment, anyone who expresses a differing view from Trump is branded a nose horn.  Each citizen has the right to place their registration with which ever political Party they desire.  They don't have to agree with any or all of the tenets of a Party.   Some in the GOP want the Party to impose excommunication, like churches, for the RINOs.  If an elected official doesn't pass a litmus test regarding the platform, they would be booted out of the Party.  Exclusion, not inclusion.  In today's GOP, disagreement with Trump's views are considered heretical and worthy of banishment and shunning.  Group think rules!

Second, much of the RINO talk is political theatre.  Stitt, who is term limited, shrugged off Trump's comments, saying Trump doesn't really mean it.  To the uninformed, who believe everything they see on the news, grandstanding politicians sway public opinion by caricaturing another's position.  That seems the be the case with Trump and Stitt.  Sensationalism and exaggeration rule!

Third, graciousness is dead in politics.  You can make the case it never existed in the world's second oldest profession.  Clearly humility, patience, kindness, gentleness, steadiness and self-control are now considered traits of cowards, and yellow bellies, aka RINOs.  The inability of the GOP to agree to disagree has hurt America.  Instead of working together, the Republicans fight more internally than against the Democrats, resulting in nothing getting done. Name calling and insults rule! 

Today's definition of a RINO seems to be: "anyone who disagrees with Trump." The fact is, many branded RINO are principled people who care about the direction of American and the GOP.  Many have been active in politics before Trump entered the arena and will be around after he is gone.  These nose horns are pro-life, pro second amendment, fiscal conservative, traditional Republicans who don't blindly follow any man.  They aren't 'Me Too' or RINOs.  Those calling them RINO are likely the real RINOs.

IS OKLAHOMA'S DESTINY GROUNDHOG DAY?

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

by Steve Fair

 

On Monday February 2nd (Groundhog Day), Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt delivered his last State of the State address to a joint session of the Oklahoma legislature.  Stitt proposed sending four issues to a vote of the people: (1) a state question to put an annual 3% cap on state spending growth, (2) a state question that would freeze property tax, (3) a state question making the Superintendent of Public Instruction (State School Superintendent) an appointed position, (4) a state question reversing legalized marijuana in Oklahoma.

Stitt also called for the elimination of the Oklahoma Secondary School Activities Association (OSSAA), which drew criticism from the Oklahoma Officials Association (OOA) and others.  The OSSAA is a member driven organization, governed by the 482 school districts that join voluntarily, like a co-op.  Stitt's issue with the OSSAA appears to be their transfer policy for athletics. 

In a clear swipe at Attorney General Drummond, who is running for governor in 2026, Stitt said the McGirt ruling by the US Supreme Court was divisive and created a double standard for citizens in the state.  AG Drummond supports the McGirt decision, while Stitt has been at odds with the tribes over the ruling.    "I challenge Oklahomans to elect people who are committed to these values and protect these simple truths.” Stitt said. 

Three observations:

First, why do Oklahoma voters always have to do the heavy lifting?   Two of Stitt's proposed state question issues could be done by the state legislature without a state question.  Granted, their action wouldn't amend the state constitution, but it would accomplish the same thing.  If every important issue has to go to a vote of people, why have a legislature? 

Has Oklahoma really progressed?  Back in the early 1990s, a rag tag bunch of citizens got fed up with annual tax increases from the Oklahoma legislature and ran a grassroots initiative petition campaign.  Approved by voters in 1992, SQ #640 became a part of the state constitution.  It requires a 75% super majority in both chambers to raise taxes and that has only happened once since 1992.  The legislature hates 640, but it has saved Oklahomans millions of dollars.  Now the governor wants citizens to do what the GOP led legislature won't do- exercise restraint and disciple. 

Second, taking away the right to vote on a statewide elected official is a hard sell.  Oklahoma elects eleven statewide elected executive officials, third highest in the country.  Only Mississippi and North Dakota elect more statewides.  Making some of Oklahoma's statewide offices appointed positions might be efficient, but it transfers power from the people to the governor.   All eleven officials are currently accountable directly to the people.  Consolidation of power is not usually a good idea.

Third, monkeying with property tax is a risky strategy.  Local school districts and county government rely on property tax.  No one likes to pay taxes, but taxes are necessary to provide funding for those entities.  If property tax is frozen or eliminated, that funding has to be made up somewhere else or cuts have to be made.   You can't get blood out of a turnip.  Property tax is the devil we know.  While it might not be the best vehicle to fund schools and county government, it is one we know.  What is the alternative plan to make up the funding property tax provide?  No one seems to know. 

Stitt closed his address by quoting President Reagan's "A Time for Choosing," speech. We have a rendezvous with destiny," the governor concluded.  The truth is Oklahoma is more like the Groundhog Day movie- the more things change the more they remain the same.

OKLAHOMA LAWMAKERS TEND TO MAJOR ON THE MINORS!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

by Steve Fair

 

According to Article V, Section 26 of the Oklahoma Constitution, the state legislature convenes in regular session annually at noon on the first Monday in February. Sessions must adjourn sine die no later than 5 p.m. on the last Friday in May.  A total of 1,578  House bills and 50 House Joint Resolutions were filed before the deadline.  Coupled with the Senate bills, Oklahoma legislators will be considering around 2,500 total bills between now and May. 

Dozens of bills filed this session would expand cooperation with federal immigration authorities, restrict access to public assistance, driver’s licenses and higher education, and limit foreign land ownership for non-citizens.  Five bills were filed that would ban illegal immigrants from receiving in-state tuition at Oklahoma colleges and universities.

Lawmakers also introduced a number of bills that would require Oklahoma employers to verify the citizenship of immigrant employees. Federal law requires employers to complete I-9 forms for all workers, but private businesses in Oklahoma aren’t currently required to use E-Verify to compare those forms to government records. 

House Speaker Kyle Hilbert, (R-Bristow), filed HB#4422, which would require the Oklahoma Department of Human Services to verify the immigration status of applicants for public assistance programs. 

There are at least two bills that address President Trump's recent announcement of the retirement of the penny.  Senate Appropriations Chair Sen. Chuck Hall (R-Perry) is running a bill requiring state agencies that accept cash from an individual to round the amount of the transaction down to the nearest cent that is a multiple of five. Hopefully the unintended consequences for Hall's bill doesn't mirror Michael Bolton's mistake in Office Space.  Three observations:

First, lawmakers file far too many bills.  The number of bills filed has risen steadily in recent years.  Granted many of the bills have little to no chance of becoming law and often the legislator that crafted them know that.  They file those bills to self-promote, grandstand and appeal to their base. The duplication of bills is out of control.  Republican legislative leadership should address the 'throw it on the wall and see if it will stick' practice.  It's a waste of taxpayer dollars.

Second, lawmakers major on the minors.  Fiscal responsibility, the state budget, tax cuts take a back seat to 'policy' bills, that create more government bureaucracy in the name of conservatism.  Spending less tax dollars and delivering more efficient government should be top priority, not symbolic resolutions or measures addressing issues already covered by existing laws.  Some lawmakers introduce bills purely for political posturing and personal attention.  Neglecting the most important high-impact budget tasks exposes misaligned priorities and leads to mediocre results. 

Consider this- since the GOP took the majority in the Oklahoma state legislature back in 2006, Republican leadership has overseen a significant, consistent increase in state spending.  The 2026 state budget is a record $12.59 billion.  

Third, lawmakers need feedback.  Constituents should hold their elected officials accountable.  They should ask hard questions.  They should pay attention to what the legislature is doing.  Good representatives solicit input from their constituents and not just their donors.  Great representatives do it regularly and listen to wise counsel.  Poor representatives ignore those they represent and only pay attention to them on an election year.  The weak rep don't want their views or votes to be questioned and only listen to positive feedback on their performance. 

Will Rogers said when the Oklahoma legislature was in session, 'neither man nor beast, nor property is safe."  Be on guard Oklahoma!