Here is my perspective on Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s latest vote: I believe justices should interpret the law, not create new ones. However, in today’s environment, where anyone opposing liberals faces harsh criticism, a conservative judge might notice that their vote won’t ultimately alter the outcome—especially if five justices have already voted in favor. In such cases, they might choose to align with the left to appease them, preserving their credibility for a future ruling where their vote could be decisive. So, Justice Barrett may have voted against the conservatives because she knew her vote wouldn’t change the result, but it could prevent critics from targeting her voting record later. Just a thought.

President Trump has been vocal about his stance on tariffs, and after more than two and a half months in office, countries complaining about their stock markets suffering should have realized he was serious. Why wait until the last minute? They should have come forward earlier to discuss what they needed to do to be exempt from the tariffs. President Trump is not joking; the era of taking advantage of the United States is over.

The EU’s offer is insufficient. They propose eliminating tariffs solely on manufactured goods while excluding agricultural products and failing to address the barriers that hinder many of our products from entering their markets.