Author: TSA Press

Speaking
during
CITE’s
X
Space
discussion
on
the
new
amendment
bill
on
Thursday,
Prof 
Moyo,
who
was
involved
in
constitutional
reform
processes
in
the
past
25
years, 
framed
the
debate
as
one
that
must
move
beyond
slogans
and
confront
what
he
termed
the
“mischief”
the
Bill,
approved
by
Cabinet
last
week
and
gazetted
by
Parliament
this
week,
“seeks
to
cure.”

Prof
Moyo
said
he
participated
in
both
the
people-driven
constitutional
exercise
that
produced
the
2000
draft
constitution
under
the
Constitutional
Commission
and
the
later
political
compromise
between
Zanu
PF
and
the
two
MDC
formations
that
culminated
in
the
2013
Constitution.

“It
is
my
considered
view
that
the
Constitution
of
Zimbabwe
Amendment
No.
3
Bill
represents
a
profound
recalibration
of
our
country’s
democratic
or
political
architecture,”
he
said.

“The
foundational
question
of
my
intervention
this
morning
is
based
on
this
question
that
I
pose:
What
is
the
motivation
or
mischief
that
the
bill
is
addressing?
It’s
not
just
dropping
into
our
midst
or
body
politic
like
manna
from
heaven.
It
is
a
response
to
a
particular
situation
or
mischief
which
motivates
it.
And
to
have
a
meaningful
debate,
I
think
it
is
important
to
unpack
or
understand
that
mischief.
In
my
view,
the
mischief
being
addressed
by
this
bill
is
twofold.”

The
first
“mischief,”
he
argued,
lies
in
the
origins
of
Zimbabwe’s
executive
presidency.

According
to
Prof
Moyo,
the
current
system
of
directly
electing
a
powerful
executive
president
traces
back
to
the
1987
constitutional
amendment,
enacted
during
a
period
when
the
ruling
establishment
anticipated
the
consolidation
of
a
one-party
state.

“When
this
system
was
introduced
at
that
time,
it
was
in
anticipation
of
the
establishment
of
a
one-party
state,”
he
said.

“The
1987
amendment
was
enacted
with,
explicitly
the
intentions,
of
establishing
a
one-party
state
in
our
country.”

However,
the
anticipated
one-party
dispensation
did
not
materialise.

By
2000,
the
government
initiated
a
constitutional
review
process
to
address
what
Prof
Moyo
described
as
“structural
consequences
flowing
from
the
1987
changes.”

The
2000
draft
constitution
proposed
a
hybrid
arrangement
that
would
have
restored
a
prime
minister
drawn
from
the
parliamentary
majority
as
head
of
government,
while
retaining
a
president
as
head
of
state
with
reduced
powers.

Unlike
that
draft,
the
2013
Constitution
retained
the
executive
presidency
largely
intact.

“The
2013
constitution
did
not
even
attempt
to
address
the
issues
related
or
rooted
in
the
1987
amendment,”
Prof
Moyo
said.

“Instead,
it
retained
the
presidency
created
in
1987
in
anticipation
of
a
one-party
state,
but
this
time
under
a
constitutional
framework
for
a
multi-party
democracy.”

The
result,
Prof
Moyo
argued,
has
been
an
enduring
structural
contradiction.

“The
constitution
enacted
in
2013
presupposes
the
existence
of
a
multi-party
democracy.
But
the
executive
presidency
inherited
without
even
a
single
amendment
was
enacted
anticipating
that
by
1990
there
would
be
a
one-party
state,”
he
said.

“The
fact
that
this
was
retained
in
2013
by
a
constitution
whose
framework
anticipates
a
multi-party
democracy
naturally
led
to
a
self-evident
structural
breakdown,
exemplified
by
the
scourge
of
disputed
presidential
elections
and
the
toxicity
associated
with
it.”

The
proposed
Bill
seeks,
among
other
changes,
to
transform
the
system
of
electing
the
president
by
moving
from
a
direct
popular
vote
to
an
indirect
election
through
Parliament,
while
also
extending
the
national
electoral
cycle.

Prof
Moyo
maintains
that
this
would
reduce
the
“perpetual
conflict
mode”
that
has
characterised
Zimbabwean
politics
for
decades.

The
second
“mischief”,
he
argued,
concerns
the
short
electoral
cycles
inherited
from
colonial
constitutional
models.

“Over
the
years,
countries
such
as
Zimbabwe
adopted
four
or
five-year
terms
of
office
for
the
executive
and
legislature,”
he
said.

“The
period
is
too
short
and
tends
to
perpetuate
permanent
election
modes,
with
the
next
election
starting
immediately
after
the
last,
breeding
populism,
exacerbating
societal
divisions,
ethnic
divisions
and
leading
to
bureaucratic
inefficiency.”

He
cited
comparative
data
from
several
African
Commonwealth
countries,
arguing
that
shorter
terms
have
often
incentivised
divisive
rhetoric
and
undermined
long-term
planning
in
fragile
institutional
contexts.

“Traditional
enemies
or
grievances
of
the
people
that
fueled
the
nationalist
struggle,
hunger,
poverty,
disease,
ignorance,
are
difficult,
if
not
impossible,
to
address
within
shorter
election
cycles,”
he
said.

Prof
Moyo
contended
that
by
amending
sections
92,
95(2B),
143(1)
and
158(1)
of
Zimbabwe’s
Constitution,
the
Bill
addresses
these
two
structural
problems
without
dismantling
the
fundamental
architecture
of
government.

“It
does
so
not
by
altering
the
structure
of
government
or
its
fundamental
institutions,
but
principally
by
transforming
the
system
of
electing
the
president
and
the
duration
of
the
national
election
cycle,
which
affects
only
two
branches
of
government,”
he
said.

He
dismissed
arguments
that
executive
authority
must
always
be
exercised
through
direct
election.

“Those
who
say
executive
power
is
derived
from
the
people
and
therefore
you
must
have
direct
elections
must
confront
the
reality
that
judicial
power
is
also
derived
from
the
people,
but
the
people
do
not
directly
elect
the
judges,”
he
said.

However,
Prof
Moyo’s
defence
of
the
Bill
stands
in
sharp
contrast
to
mounting
criticism
from
constitutional
law
experts
and
legal
scholars
who
argue
that
the
proposals
collide
with
entrenched
constitutional
safeguards.

Section
328(7)
of
the
Constitution
provides
that
changes
to
presidential
term
limits
require
approval
through
a
referendum.

Moreover,
even
where
term
limits
are
extended,
the
Constitution
stipulates
that
such
amendments
should
not
benefit
an
incumbent
unless
subjected
to
an
additional,
person-specific
referendum.

Critics
argue
that
altering
the
system
of
presidential
election
and
extending
terms
of
office
risks
violating
both
the
spirit
and
letter
of
these
protections.

They
contend
any
changes
affecting
presidential
tenure
must
not
only
pass
through
Parliament
with
a
two-thirds
majority
but
also
secure
approval
in
a
national
referendum.

Prof
Moyo,
claims
the
debate
must
shift
from
suspicion
to
structural
analysis.

“This
constitutional
reform
package
directly
tackles
the
two
situations
I
have
outlined,”
he
insisted.

“The
question
is
whether
we
are
prepared
to
confront
the
structural
contradictions
we
inherited,
or
whether
we
continue
to
manage
symptoms.”

Speaking
at
the
national
launch
on
Wednesday,
United
States
Deputy
Chief
of
Mission,
Phillip
Nervig,
said
the
rollout
marks
a
decisive
moment
in
decades
of
U.S.–Zimbabwe
cooperation
on
HIV.

The
injectable
drug,
developed
by
U.S.
pharmaceutical
company
Gilead
Sciences,
will
be
administered
twice
a
year
and
is
expected
to
improve
adherence,
particularly
among
young
women,
pregnant
and
breastfeeding
mothers
and
other
at-risk
populations.

“LEN
represents
the
cutting
edge
of
HIV
prevention
science.
Already
in
use
in
the
United
States,
as
well
as
in
Zambia
and
Eswatini,
LEN
offers
Zimbabwe
an
historic
opportunity
to
sustain
its
remarkable
progress
in
controlling
the
HIV
epidemic
by
reducing
new
HIV
infections,”
Nervig
said.

Over
the
next
three
years,
the
United
States
plans
to
prevent
more
than
9,000
new
infections
through
lenacapavir.

“These
are
not
just
numbers.
These
are
Zimbabwean
children,
men
and
women
saved
who
will
be
protected
from
HIV
and
will
continue
to
pursue
their
dreams,”
Nervig
added.

The
United
States
remains
the
largest
donor
to
Zimbabwe’s
health
sector
and
has
provided
more
than
US$1.9
billion
in
taxpayer
funding
to
combat
HIV
and
AIDS
in
the
country.

The
support
has
helped
Zimbabwe
surpass
the
UNAIDS 95-95-95
targets,
a
global
benchmark
that
measures
the
percentage
of
people
living
with
HIV
who
know
their
status,
are
on
treatment,
and
have
achieved
viral
suppression.

Nervig
said
U.S.
support
is
now
evolving
under
the
America
First
Global
Health
Strategy,
with
an
emphasis
on
measurable
results
and
sustainability.

“Through
the
America
First
Global
Health
Strategy,
the
United
States
is
helping
countries
to
achieve
self-reliance,”
he
said.
“Together,
we
can
end
HIV.
I
am
confident
that
as
the
Government
of
Zimbabwe
takes
even
more
leadership,
an
AIDS-free
generation
is
within
our
reach.”

Dr
Mavedzenge
added
that
the
central
objective
of
the
proposed
Amendment
Bill
is
to
extend
President
Emmerson
Mnangagwa’s
term
of
office
without
a
referendum
or
seeking
approval
from
citizens,
in
violation
of
Section
328
of
the
Constitution.

Making
a
detailed
legal
critique
of
the
proposed
amendment
bill,
Dr
Mavedzenge
said
it
was
both
legally
and
politically
problematic,
while
dismissing
several
of
the
proposed
changes
as
deliberate
distractions.

“There
are
a
raft
of
propositions
that
are
contained
in
this
constitutional
bill.
It
is
my
respectful
view
that
a
lot
of
those
other
proposed
amendments
are
just
an
attempt
to
divert
our
attention
from
the
real
thing,”
he
said.

“The
real
thing
is
that
the
Bill
seeks
to
extend
the
president’s
term
of
office
without
holding
a
referendum.”

The
Bill
proposes
amending
Section
95(2B)
of
the
Constitution
to
increase
the
presidential
term
from
five
years
to
seven
years
and
to
allow
the
incumbent
to
remain
in
office
beyond
2028
until
2030.

Dr
Mavedzenge
said
the
issue
is
not
merely
political
but
fundamentally
constitutional.

“President
Mnangagwa
and
his
and
the
proponents
of
this
bill
implement
the
Constitution
without
following
due
process,”
he
said,
rejecting
claims
that
the
amendment
is
motivated
by
governance
efficiency
or
harmonisation
concerns.

Instead,
Dr
Mavedzenge
argued
that
the
real
driver
of
the
Bill
was
internal
ruling
party
politics.

“The
purpose
is
to
manage
Zanu
PF’s
internal
succession
crisis.
So
our
national
constitution
is
being
mutilated,
just
as
we
saw
how
the
constitutional
institutions
were
subverted
under
President
Mugabe
in
order
to
deal
again
with
an
internal
succession
battle.
And
that
led
to
the
2017
military
coup,”
he
said,
referring
to
the
events
that
ended
the
rule
of
the
late
former
President
Robert
Mugabe.

“I
think
it
is
important
for
Zimbabweans
to
keep
that
at
the
back
of
their
minds,
that
the
real
purpose
behind
this
bill,
this
planned
constitutional
coup
is
to
simply
manage
the
internal
Zanu
PF
succession
processes.”

Dr
Mavedzenge
centred
his
argument
on
Section
328(7)
of
the
Constitution,
which
sets
out
when
constitutional
amendments
must
be
subjected
to
a
referendum.

“Section
328
subsection
7
of
the
Constitution
lays
down
a
very
clear
framework
for
deciding
whether
an
amendment
to
the
Constitution
should
be
done
after
a
referendum
or
not,”
he
said.

“The
framework
is
this,
if
an
amendment
seeks
to
A,
change
a
term
limit
provision,
and
B,
has
the
effect
of
extending
the
length
of
time
that
a
person
may
hold
a
position,
then
the
amendment
must
be
subjected
to
a
national
referendum
and
cannot
benefit
the
incumbent.”

The
Bill
‘clearly’
satisfies
both
these
conditions
spelt
out
in
Section
328(7),
said
Dr
Mavedzenge.

“The
bill
presented
before
us
seeks
to
amend
Section
95
subsection
2B
of
the
Constitution
by
increasing
the
term
of
office
for
the
president
from
five
to
seven
years,”
he
said.

“This
is
not
my
interpretation.
It’s
what
is
written
in
the
bill,
to
increase
the
term
of
office
for
the
president
from
five
to
seven
years
and
to
allow
the
current
president
to
continue
in
office
beyond
2028
until
2030.
This
is
what
is
in
the
bill.”

The
central
dispute,
he
explained,
turns
on
whether
Section
95(2B)
is
a
“term
limit
provision”
within
the
meaning
of
Section
328.

“The
short
answer
is
yes,” 
Dr
Mavedzenge
said.

The
constitutional
expert
said
much
of
the
public
debate
had
been
clouded
by
“propaganda,”
meant
to
“precisely
mislead
and
confuse
people”
by 
suggesting
that
only
Section
91(2)
constitutes
a
term
limit
provision.

“Section
328
defines
a
term
limit
provision
as
follows.
And
I
want
to
quote,
because
I
think
when
we
have
a
situation
where
people
are
attaching
their
own
definitions
to
things,
we
need
to
quote
the
exact
provisions
of
the
constitution,”
Dr
Mavedzenge
said
as
he
turned
to
the
constitutional
text.

“A
term
limit
provision
is
a
provision
of
this
Constitution
which
limits
the
length
of
time
that
a
person
may
hold
or
occupy
office.”

He
stressed
that
a
term
limit
is
not
solely
about
the
number
of
terms
but
the
length
of
time.

“It
is
critical
to
clarify
that
a
term
limit
provision
is
not
about
the
number
of
times
that
a
person
may
hold
office
necessarily,
but
the
length
of
time
that
a
person
may
occupy
the
office,”
he
said.

“Section
95(2B)
defines
the
length
of
time
the
president
can
occupy
that
office.
It
sets
the
term
at
five
years.
I
don’t
know
why
there’s
confusion
about
this.”

To
drive
the
point
home,
Dr
Mavedzenge
said
if
you
ask
any
Zimbabwean
in
any
village,
or
street
when
elections
in
the
country
are
due,
they
will
tell
you
every
five
years.

“Why
do
we
hold
elections
every
five
years?
It
is
because
the
term
of
office
for
the
President
is
limited
by
Section
95(2B)
to
five
years,”
he
said.

He
rejected
arguments
that Section
91(2)
of
the
Constitution governs
the
five-year
cycle.

“We
do
not
hold
elections
every
five
years
because
of
Section
91(2)
because
there
is
nothing
in
Section
91(2)
which
says
elections
are
due
every
five
years,”
he
said.

Section
91
of
the
Constitution
is
titled
“Qualifications
for
Election
as
President
and
Vice
President”
while
Section
91(2)
states:
A
person
is
disqualified
for
election
as
President
or
Vice-President
if
he
or
she
has
already
held
office
as
President
under
this
Constitution
for
two
terms,
whether
continuous
or
not,
and
for
the
purpose
of
this
subsection
three
or
more
years’
service
is
deemed
to
be
a
full
term,

“That
particular
provision
goes
on
to
say
a
person
is
disqualified
for
election
as
president
if
he
or
she
has
already
served
as
president
for
two
terms,”
Mavedzenge
explained.

“But
two
terms
of
what?
You
can
only
answer
that
question
if
you
go
to
Section
95,
which
is
the
matter
of
presidential
term
limits.”

He
argued
that
Section
91(2)
merely
elaborates
on
the
two-term
cap
and
clarifies
how
a
“term”
is
calculated.

“Section
91(2)
is
explaining
and
expanding
on
the
term
limit
that
is
defined
in
Section
95,”
he
said.

“So
Section
95
is
the
cathedral
for
presidential
term
limits
in
Zimbabwe.
It
is
the
primary
provision
that
limits
the
term
of
office.”

Section
95 
of
the
constitution,
titled
Term
of
office
of
President
and
Vice-Presidents
reads:

95
(1)
The
term
of
office
of
the
President
or
a
Vice-President
commences
on
the
day
he
or
she
is
sworn
in
and
assumes
office
in
terms
of
section
94(1)(a)
or
94(3).

(2)
The
term
of
office
of
the
President
or
a
Vice-President
extends
until

(a)
he
or
she
resigns
or
is
removed
from
office;
or
(b)
following
an
election,
he
or
she
is
declared
to
be
re-elected
or
a
new
President
is
declared
to
be
elected;
and,
except
as
otherwise
provided
in
this
constitution,
their
terms
of
office
are
five
years
and
coterminous
with
the
life
of
Parliament.

Dr
Mavedzenge,
said
to
suggest
otherwise, 
is
to
ignore
both
constitutional
structure
and
judicial
precedent.

“It
does
not
need,
in
Professor
Moyo’s
language,
a
rocket
scientist,
to
know
that,
because
we
have
elections
every
five
years.
The
President
cannot
go
beyond
five
years,”
he
said.

He
cited
jurisprudence
from
the
Constitutional
Court
to
buttress
his
argument.

“In
Max
Mupungu
versus
Minister
of
Justice,
the
Constitutional
Court
has
already
identified
Section
95
as
a
term
limit
provision
at
pages
50
and
51
of
the
judgment,”
he
said.

Dr
Mavedzengee
also
referenced
a
previous
case
of
Jealous
Mawarire
versus
the
President
of
Zimbabwe,
then
Robert
Mugabe.

“In
that
matter,
the
Constitutional
Court
again
indicated
that
the
term
of
office
is
limited
to
five
years.
It
is
limited
to
five
years.
So
you
can’t
create
any
fiction
around
that
in
light
of
existing
jurisprudence
in
the
country,
but
also
practice.”

For
him,
the
combined
effect
of
constitutional
text,
structure,
and
case
law
leaves
little
room
for
ambiguity.

Beyond
the
legal
arguments,
Mavedzenge
warned
of
the
broader
democratic
consequences
of
amending
term
limits
without
popular
approval.

“When
people
are
planning
a
coup,
they
first
deploy
propaganda,
precisely
to
mislead
and
confuse
people,”
he
said.

“We
have
seen
this
in
Zimbabwe.
Whenever
electoral
coups
have
been
planned,
the
first
attempt
was
to
criminalise
opposition.
The
first
attempt
was
to
mislead
Zimbabweans
into
believing
that
the
opposition
is
some
kind
of
a
creature
that
should
never
be
allowed
to
take
over
power.”

He
drew
parallels
with
the
narrative
that
preceded
the
2017
military
intervention.

“Fast
forward
2017,
when
a
coup
was
being
planned,
we
were
told
that
the
purpose
of
this
whole
operation
is
to
remove
criminals
around
the
president.
The
same
tactics
are
being
deployed
here.”

Describing
the
proposed
amendment
as
a
“planned
constitutional
coup,”
Mavedzenge
said
the
Constitution
risks
being
reduced
to
an
instrument
of
factional
power
struggles
rather
than
a
supreme
law
reflecting
the
will
of
the
people.

“Our
national
constitution
is
being
mutilated
and
if
we
normalise
this
kind
of
manipulation,
we
undermine
the
very
foundation
of
constitutionalism,
that
those
who
exercise
public
power
must do
so
within
strict
legal
limits,”
he
said.

This
morning,
the
nine
Supreme
Court
justices
spent
170
pages

whacking
the
crap
out
of
each
other.
Also,
they
declared
Trump’s
“emergency”
tariffs
illegal,
which
everyone
who
listened
to

oral
argument
knew
was
inevitable.
The
Constitution
gives
Congress
the
right
to
enact
levies,
and
the
International
Emergency
Economic
Powers
Act
(IEEPA)
does
not
authorize
the
president
to
unilaterally
enact
a
constantly
shifting
scheme
of
tariffs
based
on
whoever
fails
to
genuflect
sufficiently
on
any
given
day.

No
shit,
dude.

Trump:
“So
I
put
on
a
30%
tariff,
which
is
very
low.
I
got
an
emergency
call
from
I
believe
the
prime
minister
of
Switzerland.
She
was
very
aggressive
…
I
didn’t
really
like
the
way
she
talked
to
us,
so
instead
of
giving
her
a
reduction,
I
raised
it
to
39%.”

—

Aaron
Rupar
(@atrupar.com)

2026-02-10T21:18:04.389Z

The
only
real
question
was
how
long
it
would
take
them
to
publish
the
opinion
and
how
ugly
it
would
be
—
with length
of
time
between
argument
and
opinion
correlating
directly
with
cumulative
vituperation.

In
the
event,
it
took
almost
four
months,
enough
time
for
Justice
Kavanaugh
to
barf
out
four
pages
insisting
that
Trump

does,
too
have
the
power
to
shout
emergency
and
do
whatever
he
wants,
plus
59
pages
explaining
how
this

does
not
contradict
the
major
questions
doctrine.
The
Calvinball
rule
the
conservative
justices
dummied
up
to
restrain
Democratic
presidents
is
alive
and
well,
he
insists
…
just
not
when
a
Republican
is
in
the
White
House.

Chief
Justice
Roberts,
who
wrote
the
majority/plurality
opinion,
spent
much
of
it
slagging
Kavanaugh
for
parroting
the
Trump
administration’s
arguments
uncritically.

“The
central
thrust
of
the
Government’s
and
the
principal
dissent’s
proposed
exceptions
appears
to
be
that
ambiguous
delegations
in
statutes
addressing
‘the
most
major
of
major
questions’
should
necessarily
be
construed
broadly,”
he
sniffed,
adding
that
the
government’s
briefs
are
“echoed
point-for-point
by
the
principal
dissent.”

The
major
questions
doctrine,
and
its
freckle-faced
sibling,
the
non-delegation
doctrine,
animate
the
entire
order.
Chief
Justice
Roberts,
along
with
Justices
Barrett
and
Gorsuch
agree
that
Congress
could
not
possibly
have
given
Trump
tariff
authority
without
saying
so
with
their
full
chest.
The
three
liberal
justices
refused
to
join
in
the
part
of
the
holding
based
on
shit
conservatives
just
made
up
to
ensure
that
the
EPA
couldn’t
rein
in
polluters,
although
they
agreed
with
the
part
about
there
being
no
secret
proviso
in
IEEPA
that
gives
the
president
the
power
to
screech
tariffs
into
existence
on
social
media.

This
prompted
a
45-page
lecture
from
Justice
Gorsuch
on
the
sacred
virtues
of
the
major
questions
doctrine.
Indeed,
none
of
his
female
colleagues
were
spared;
Gorsuch
heaped
extra
scorn
on
Justice
Barrett
for
suggesting
that
one
might
infer
a
congressional
delegation
of
authority
from
context.

Barrett
crafted
her
own
concurrence,
mostly
as
a
response
to
Gorsuch’s
attack.

“If
JUSTICE
GORSUCH
thinks
that
we
should
forgo
the
most
natural
reading
of
a
statute
because
it
is
preferable
for
Congress,
rather
than
the
President,
to
make
big
decisions,
that
way
lies
‘a
lot
of
trouble’
for
the
textualist,”
she
sighed.

Justice
Kagan
has
clearly
had
quite
enough
of
Gorsuch
patronizingly
douchesplaining
HOW
TO
LAW
GOOD.

“Given
how
strong
his
apparent
desire
for
converts,
see
ante,
at
2–26,
I
almost
regret
to
inform
him
that
I
am
not
one,”
Justice
Kagan
wrote
in
a
dissent
joined
by
Justices
Sotomayor
and
Jackson,
adding
that
“I’ll
let
JUSTICE
GORSUCH
relitigate
on
his
own
our
old
debates
about
other
statutes,
unrelated
to
the
one
before
us.”

Justice
Thomas
spent
17
pages
peering
into
the
psyches
of
the
Framers
to
divine
their
thoughts
on
the
president’s
right
to
levy
tariffs
—
Shocker,
they’re
for
it!
—
padded
with
dozens
of
cites
to
his
own
prior
writings.

And
Justice
Jackson
chimed
in
to
add
that,
if
you
want
to
go
spelunking
to
determine
legislative
intent,
the
proper
inquiry
doesn’t
begin
in
the
1770s
but
in
the
1970s
when
IEEPA
was
passed.

It
was
a
slugfest,
with
the
Court’s
conservatives
bludgeoning
each
other
over
the
issue
of
whether
the
locus
of
power
should
be
in
the
unitary
executive,
or
the
Court
itself.
Why

shouldn’t
the
conservatives
take
this
opportunity
to
block
any
law
or
executive
action
they
don’t
like
when
they
have
a
6-3
majority?

Jesus,
Brett,
get
with
the
program!

And
meanwhile,
no
justice
explained
how
to
unwind
this
mess
and
refund
the
$200
billion
in
tariffs
paid
by
American
companies
and
consumers
—
although
Kavanaugh
cited
the
chaos
as
a
reason
to
let
Trump
keep
violating
the
law
forever.
Probably
something
they
should
have
considered
before
they
let
the
president
collect
them
for
a
year,
even
after
lower
courts
said
it
was
totally
illegal?

Anyway,
here’s
the
president
with
his
very
rational
response.