The Issue: Federal lower-court judges repeatedly blocking President Trump’s policies.
Everyone should take a step back and take a deep breath (“Court KO’s Don tariffs,” May 29).
The president was elected to change the dangerous direction in which we were headed; secure the border, create energy independence, preserve the tax cuts and deport those who are here illegally. In addition, he has tackled the unfair trade imbalance that most Americans did not know even existed.
Opposition to this, plus a panicked reaction from within, only serves to embolden our trade partners to resist and delay the deals which ultimately will occur.
Jerry Chiappetta
Monticello
You would think that at some point in time, Donald Trump would get the message that the judiciary is going to hold fast in interpreting the law.
By blocking the president’s attempts to enact these tariffs, the US Court of International Trade essentially advised Trump that he is required to act as the president and within the boundaries of that office.
Even those of us who are critical of Trump could live with his policies if he made a cursory attempt to comply with the law when trying to attain them.
Lou Maione
Manhattan
The voters did not give Executive Branch powers to the Judicial Branch on Nov. 5, 2024, nor did the Electoral College.
Congress must put a stop to the judicial overreach affecting the Executive Branch’s ability to perform its duties and responsibilities.
Robert Neglia
The Bronx
The lower courts seem to be dictating the law at the moment, ripping up everything Trump introduces.
The district court judges need to prioritize the interest of justice, not politics.
Hans Sander
Gordon, Australia
How can a judge undermine the president?
Judges make their decisions based on what party appointed them.
Tariffs are going to help our country, not set it back. Voters chose Trump; let him do his job as he sees it. Stop tying his hands with ridiculous injunctions, suing him and stopping orders.
If it weren’t for Trump, we’d have another four years of clowns running our government.
Brenda Hodgkiss
Atlantic Highlands, NJ
The Issue: Democratic Party leaders’ $20 million study to address their lack of young male voters.
If the Democratic Party feels it needs an expensive third party to tell them how to convey their message and speak to men, they may want to consider two points from the start (“Dems miss the forgotten man,” May 28).
1) Change the message from ultra-progressive left back to the middle. 2) Answer this question: What is a man? And while we are at it, what is a woman?
Until then, I do not see their current message getting through to me anymore than it is currently.
Sean Kelly
Farmingdale
The Democrats are going to spend $20 million to study why they are losing the younger male voters to the Republicans.
Why should that demographic even matter, when they can count on those other 71 genders to make up that disparity?
Thomas De Julio
Delray Beach, Fla.
The Democratic Party is spending another $20 million to get back men. Why don’t they understand that a man’s mind can’t be bought?
The Democrats lost men because their policies were not advantageous to men’s lives. They saw that Republican men were having a better time. They didn’t want to be taxed to death, and they didn’t relate to Tim Walz.
Real men are conservative, not woke.
J.R. Cummings
Manhattan
Want to weigh in on today’s stories? Send your thoughts (along with your full name and city of residence) to letters@nypost.com. Letters are subject to editing for clarity, length, accuracy, and style.
Leave a Reply