- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
No SCOTUS Ruling on Tariffs Until Next Year?
Posted on 11/11/25 at 5:24 pm
Posted on 11/11/25 at 5:24 pm
I just read that they don't expect SCOTUS to punch Trump in the ballz on tariffs until next year.
Why so long?
Why so long?
14
Posted on 11/11/25 at 5:26 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
Why so long?
$$$
Posted on 11/11/25 at 5:27 pm to Don Quixote
quote:
$$$
The longer they fool around, the more $$$ will have to be paid back.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 5:27 pm to wackatimesthree
Just heard orals. We are in November. There will be a Christmas break and Thanksgiving as well. This is normal.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 5:28 pm to wackatimesthree
Anyone know how they’re leaning?
Posted on 11/11/25 at 5:30 pm to wackatimesthree
Yeah, that’s normal timing. The Supreme Court hears arguments in batches during its term (October - April), then drops the big rulings in late spring or early summer (usually June). The Court might not even start deliberating until sometime early next year. They take months to write and negotiate opinions, especially on politically hot cases, so it’s not slow so much as standard pacing.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 5:33 pm to GeekedUp
quote:
Anyone know how they’re leaning?
I don't think anyone knows for sure, but I can't imagine that they won't strike it down.
Think about it. If they set this precedent, the next Democratic POTUS could claim that Climate Change represented an emergency situation and declare a 100% tariff on all gasoline automobiles and parts for gas cars imported into the country.
And there would be nothing anyone could do about it.
Trump's tariffs are clearly just as much an abuse of presidential powers as that would be.
And if you don't think the next Democratic POTUS would do something exactly like that example, I don't know what to tell you.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 5:35 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
Yeah, that’s normal timing. The Supreme Court hears arguments in batches during its term (October - April), then drops the big rulings in late spring or early summer (usually June). The Court might not even start deliberating until sometime early next year. They take months to write and negotiate opinions, especially on politically hot cases, so it’s not slow so much as standard pacing.
Yeah, I get that that's what they normally do, but I would have thought they would have fast tracked this one given that the more money is collected, the more has to be paid back.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 5:39 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
The longer they fool around, the more $$$ will have to be paid back.
that's the point, it may be why they're delaying the ruling because regardless of the application of the law the SCOTUS cannot decapitate the country and the longer they push it out the more obvious it become why they have to rule for POTUS
This post was edited on 11/11/25 at 5:42 pm
Posted on 11/11/25 at 5:40 pm to wackatimesthree
yeah, makes sense. If they end up striking it down, the longer it drags, the bigger the refund mess. But they almost never fast-track unless there’s an emergency injunction or a looming constitutional crisis. Economic fallout alone doesn’t usually count. They’ll rush if, say, a state’s about to toss people off the voter rolls before an election, or there’s an immediate separation of powers showdown. But something like disputed tariffs just simmers through the normal appeals pipeline unless lower courts freeze enforcement first. There are always some exceptions, but I think this their routine.
This post was edited on 11/11/25 at 5:41 pm
Posted on 11/11/25 at 5:41 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
Think about it. If they set this precedent, the next Democratic POTUS could claim that Climate Change represented an emergency situation and declare a 100% tariff on all gasoline automobiles and parts for gas cars imported into the country.
And there would be nothing anyone could do about it.
Why would you pretend a world exists without political repurcussions?
Posted on 11/11/25 at 5:45 pm to wackatimesthree
Thats a lot of whining for such a short post.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 6:01 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
Yeah, I get that that's what they normally do, but I would have thought they would have fast tracked this one given that the more money is collected, the more has to be paid back.
You are making the assumption that if they do rule that trumps tariffs are in fact unconstitutional that they would retroactively say that all the money brought in by tariffs would need to be payed back to all entities involved. That is incredibly unlikely and almost impossible. Just like proving the 2020 election was stolen (it was) does not mean that we reset to the last day of the first trump admin on all legislation. It would be impossible to reset at this point.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 6:10 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
Why would you pretend a world exists without political repurcussions?
It amazes me how fearful people are of what someone might do. Do what must be done now regardless of what someone or thing might do later. If what you do now is very successful another, especially a politician, would be foolish to upend it.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 6:15 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
Think about it. If they set this precedent, the next Democratic POTUS could claim that Climate Change represented an emergency situation and declare a 100% tariff on all gasoline automobiles and parts for gas cars imported into the country.
Yes. This is possible.
Yes. That's the way the law is written.
quote:
I don't think anyone knows for sure, but I can't imagine that they won't strike it down.
If they do, it won't be because the Trump admin didn't follow the law. They definitely did, and the oral arguments proved that.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 6:41 pm to wackatimesthree
Where did you read this? I heard mid-December, right before the break.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 7:24 pm to wackatimesthree
The more money that is taken in on tariffs, into the billions, the less likely they will rule against the President. If this contributes to reducing the Federal deficit, what’s the problem here?That is the intent of tariffs.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 7:30 pm to wackatimesthree
Trump will win this one, 6-3
Posted on 11/11/25 at 7:33 pm to LuckyTiger57
quote:
The more money that is taken in on tariffs, into the billions, the less likely they will rule against the President
No, that should not affect their ruling at all. It is legal or it isn’t should be the complete and total reason for their ruling. IF they rule against the administration is where things could get shaky.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 7:35 pm to wackatimesthree
Imagine being such a low IQ person you root against tariffs 
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News