- 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
SCOTUS votes tomorrow on tariffs.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 3:41 pm
Posted on 1/12/26 at 3:41 pm
5
Posted on 1/12/26 at 3:46 pm to Ailsa
Sounds like he already knows something
Posted on 1/12/26 at 4:02 pm to Ailsa
I think he’s giving the SCOTUS cover to rule for tariffs.
I’m inclined to think he knows they already will rule in their favor but I can’t be sure.
I’m inclined to think he knows they already will rule in their favor but I can’t be sure.
This post was edited on 1/12/26 at 4:03 pm
Posted on 1/12/26 at 4:20 pm to Robin Masters
Tell me if im wrong but isnt it true that the strategy if they rule against him on this one is just to pick another law or statute that could/does give him the ability to levy tarriffs? Because again, correct me if im wrong, but this lawsuit isnt about whether or not the president has the authority to levy tarriffs but whether he has the authority to do so with the avenue he used?
Posted on 1/12/26 at 4:30 pm to wareagle7298
Agree with you. He seems to almost be setting the stage of “ I told you so.”
I sure hope this decision goes our way. I think how he’s handled tariffs have been a stroke of genius and common sense!
I sure hope this decision goes our way. I think how he’s handled tariffs have been a stroke of genius and common sense!
Posted on 1/12/26 at 4:37 pm to The Tiger322
quote:
if they rule against him on this one is just to pick another law or statute that could/does give him the ability to levy tarriffs? Because again, correct me if im wrong, but this lawsuit isnt about whether or not the president has the authority to levy tarriffs but whether he has the authority to do so with the avenue he used?
Correct. This likely wouldn't stop the putative investments, but any amounts paid under the illegal tariffs would have to be reimbursed unless the court does something very weird/strange to cover for the admin's major error.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 4:39 pm to First Sergeant1
There is a work around on that as SC ruled in favor of something similar in OMB first term but Trump doesn’t want a work around
Posted on 1/12/26 at 5:14 pm to Ailsa
And just like clockwork DJT announces. 25% tariff on any country that does business with Iran.
Makes it harder for SCOTUS to rule against.
Makes it harder for SCOTUS to rule against.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 5:18 pm to Nosevens
Yep, Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 5:19 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Correct. This likely wouldn't stop the putative investments, but any amounts paid under the illegal tariffs would have to be reimbursed unless the court does something very weird/strange to cover for the admin's major error.
There were different tariffs levied against different countries on different basis. Eg, Fentanyl against Canada, México and China; trade imbalances against many; economic security; and national security.
Not an all or nothing proposition either way
Posted on 1/12/26 at 5:52 pm to First Sergeant1
quote:
I think how he’s handled tariffs have been a stroke of genius and common sense!
Wow. This board never disappoints
Posted on 1/12/26 at 5:54 pm to First Sergeant1
What would your opinion be were they to rule against them?
Posted on 1/12/26 at 5:57 pm to eddieray
quote:
Wow. This board never disappoints
Posted on 1/12/26 at 5:58 pm to Jesterea
quote:
What would your opinion be were they to rule against them?
That would simply mean SCOTUS is compromised and would mean nothing about Trump.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 5:58 pm to eddieray
Why are you moonbats fighting against these tarrifs to begin with? Did Kamala tell y’all it was ok? What’s it like to have to change your convictions when Kamala tells you to?
This post was edited on 1/12/26 at 5:59 pm
Posted on 1/12/26 at 5:58 pm to First Sergeant1
quote:
Agree with you. He seems to almost be setting the stage of “ I told you so.”
It's amazing to me that y'all read that and get that out of it.
What he appears to be doing to me is trying to convince the SCOTUS that they have no choice, that he has created a mess so big they can't reverse it even if they want to.
Basically the same ploy the Democrats used and are continuing to use regarding illegal immigration.
But paying all of that money back isn't the SCOTUS' problem and that consideration is not part of their job. The tariffs (at least in this form) are either constitutional or not. How big a mess it will be if they are not should not be part of the decision making formula.
This post was edited on 1/12/26 at 5:59 pm
Posted on 1/12/26 at 6:00 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
That would simply mean SCOTUS is compromised
Posted on 1/12/26 at 6:03 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
That would simply mean SCOTUS is compromised
I honestly can’t tell if this an ironic statement to represent the board or a sincere one that implies nothing Trump does is wrong.
This post was edited on 1/12/26 at 6:04 pm
Posted on 1/12/26 at 6:05 pm to Jesterea
quote:
I honestly can’t tell if this an ironic statement to represent the board or a sincere one that implies nothing Trump does is wrong.
The tariffs are obviously working and are doing a great job for our country. Anyone who claims otherwise is a liar.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 6:06 pm to imjustafatkid
I won’t debate the claim, but you’re saying Supreme Court rulings should be outcome oriented and not oriented on a legal basis?
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News