- 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
Trump has an alternative plan if SCOTUS rules the current ones unconstitutional.
Posted on 1/9/26 at 3:17 pm
Posted on 1/9/26 at 3:17 pm
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. No tariff opinion for now.
quote:
After the bar admissions, the entire session is over in a matter of minutes. The court has indicated the possibility of opinions next Wednesday, an argument day. So perhaps we’ll get tariffs then. Or not.
More opinions could come also in the second week of the January sitting.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/01/no-tariff-opinion/
4
Posted on 1/9/26 at 3:19 pm to Ailsa
There were always other options. Nobody is arguing he can't issue tariffs. That's not the issue before the court.
If the admin loses, the question is why they went with the aggressive-creative route instead of the tried, true, and available options? It would be a huge misstep for very little, if any, reason.
If the admin loses, the question is why they went with the aggressive-creative route instead of the tried, true, and available options? It would be a huge misstep for very little, if any, reason.
Posted on 1/9/26 at 3:22 pm to SlowFlowPro
Is SCOTUS delaying a ruling so he can't enact the alternatives?
Posted on 1/9/26 at 3:23 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If the admin loses, the question is why they went with the aggressive-creative route instead of the tried, true, and available options? It would be a huge misstep for very little, if any, reason.
It was not a misstep. The Trump administration takes the position that they are not constrained by law or the constitution. Sometimes the courts agree on a specific issue, but often they disagree. The pattern is always to first assert that there is no law or limits. Following the law is the fallback position.
Posted on 1/9/26 at 3:23 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
the question is why they went with the aggressive-creative route instead of the tried, true, and available options?
What does that matter, in a legal sense?
Posted on 1/9/26 at 3:24 pm to TBoy
quote:
It was not a misstep. The Trump administration takes the position that they are not constrained by law or the constitution. Sometimes the courts agree on a specific issue, but often they disagree. The pattern is always to first assert that there is no law or limits. Following the law is the fallback position.
Keep o0n kooking, kook.
Posted on 1/9/26 at 3:31 pm to BugAC
quote:
What does that matter, in a legal sense?
Everything.
This is why Biden didn't "ignore the Supreme Court" with the SL forgiveness stuff when he went to another authority once his initial route was ruled illegal.
This thread explains it re: Biden
Same thing would apply to Trump with tariffs.
Posted on 1/9/26 at 3:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Everything.
So he "aggressively" enforced his duties as POTUS is the argument you would bring before SCOTUS?
Posted on 1/9/26 at 3:38 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If the admin loses, the question is why they went with the aggressive-creative route instead of the tried, true, and available options? It would be a huge misstep for very little, if any, reason.
I think you're not looking at this strategically. The administration knows that no matter what, Dems are going to sue. That leaves two options, go all in on the tried an true option from the start as you suggested or try the more creative option first. Now if he goes tried and true route first and he eventually loses in the SC, the creative route is probably shut down fairly quickly.. On the flip side, by going aggressive out of the gate, he's tied the matter up in court for a year.. If he loses, and pivots to the tried and true, it will more than likely still get tied up in court but the advantage is that he's bought himself at least 2 years time.
Posted on 1/9/26 at 3:38 pm to TBoy
quote:
The Trump administration takes the position that they are not constrained by law or the constitution.
The Trade Act of 1974 disagrees with you.
Posted on 1/9/26 at 3:41 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
There were always other options. Nobody is arguing he can't issue tariffs. That's not the issue before the court.
If the admin loses, the question is why they went with the aggressive-creative route instead of the tried, true, and available options? It would be a huge misstep for very little, if any, reason.
Your take lacks nuance. The Supremes could rule, say, 80% in favor of the admin and 20% against, for example.
Posted on 1/9/26 at 3:43 pm to Ailsa
They’re delaying because it’s a cluster. If you say he didn’t authority then you have to return the money the govt. accumulated to the people who paid the tariffs. I think they want to say it’s unconstitutional, but realize it would create chaos at this point.
Posted on 1/9/26 at 3:59 pm to TBoy
quote:
The Trump administration takes the position that they are not constrained by law or the constitution. Sometimes the courts agree on a specific issue, but often they disagree.
You could be talking about any prosecutor, politician or judge in the USA. The amount of unconstitutional behavior resulting in civil or criminal charges against Americans does not concern prosecutors, politicians, or judges in the very least. They realize just a very few, I mean an extremely very few, will ever be able to afford an appeal or have their appeal even heard by a higher court so they just continue with their unconstitutional behavior.
WORD!!
There is an anti-dote for TDS. Get ya some.
Posted on 1/9/26 at 4:00 pm to TBoy
There you go again with your retarded fig stuff. 
Posted on 1/9/26 at 4:07 pm to BugAC
quote:
So he "aggressively" enforced his duties as POTUS is the argument you would bring before SCOTUS?
Well aggressive and creative increases your chance of being illegal. That's what you seem to have missed within the discussion.
Posted on 1/9/26 at 4:08 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
quote:
Now if he goes tried and true route first and he eventually loses in the SC,
He wouldn't, though.
Hence the "Tried and true" part.
quote:
On the flip side, by going aggressive out of the gate, he's tied the matter up in court for a year.. If he loses, and pivots to the tried and true, it will more than likely still get tied up in court but the advantage is that he's bought himself at least 2 years time.
Bought himself 2 years time to what? Repay all the tariff revenue and cause chaos for 2 years?
Posted on 1/9/26 at 4:09 pm to SaintsTiger
quote:
The Supremes could rule, say, 80% in favor of the admin and 20% against, for example.
How do you rule one act is 80% legal and 20% illegal when the question comes down to a binary issue of delineated authority?
Either he has the authority granted from that specific Congressional act, or he doesn't.
This post was edited on 1/9/26 at 4:10 pm
Posted on 1/9/26 at 4:11 pm to Ailsa
They're not going to rule against Trump on this.
Posted on 1/9/26 at 4:39 pm to BugAC
quote:
The Trade Act of 1974 disagrees with you.
Let me guess. An actual law is the fallback position if the present course is found unconstitutional.
That is exactly what I said.
Posted on 1/9/26 at 4:40 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It would be a huge misstep for very little, if any, reason.
Just think what Trump would be capable of if he was half as smart as SFP.
This post was edited on 1/9/26 at 4:41 pm
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News