- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- 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
Tariff authority
Posted on 2/20/26 at 5:01 pm
Posted on 2/20/26 at 5:01 pm
This is the only person you need to listen to when it comes to the tariffs, the economy and the law.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.This post was edited on 2/20/26 at 5:02 pm
6
Posted on 2/20/26 at 5:04 pm to MikkUGA
Yea but we are all going to die now because the woke arse supreme court's stupid decision
Imagine paying into your 401k for decades and when you want to retire you're told that the money you willingly paid into was not available. Kind of the same concept except with SS they were directed to pay into it. They deserve that money
Imagine paying into your 401k for decades and when you want to retire you're told that the money you willingly paid into was not available. Kind of the same concept except with SS they were directed to pay into it. They deserve that money
This post was edited on 2/20/26 at 5:14 pm
Posted on 2/20/26 at 5:04 pm to MikkUGA
quote:
This administration will invoke alternative legal authorities to replace the IEEPA tariffs."
Why didn't they just do this in the first place?
Or, months ago when it was clear that this would not work, why didn't they admit their mistake and use the statutes that Bessent is referring to in that quote?
Posted on 2/20/26 at 5:07 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Or, months ago when it was clear that this would not work, why didn't they admit their mistake and use the statutes that Bessent is referring to in that quote?
Didn't the USSC say what they *could* do, regarding the various sections?
If so, maybe they came at it sideways on purpose.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 5:08 pm to MikkUGA
They always had a plan. Plus, takes away any Lib talking point about the SC always siding with Trump.
Will be out of the news by EOD today.
Will be out of the news by EOD today.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 5:09 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
Didn't the USSC say what they *could* do, regarding the various sections?
The USSC referenced statutes referenced in the briefing and arguments by the parties, which likely overlap with the ones Bessent is referring to, which are options that were stated by posters on this board (including me) months ago.
Which, again, brings us back to the question:
quote:
Or, months ago when it was clear that this would not work, why didn't they admit their mistake and use the statutes that Bessent is referring to in that quote?
Posted on 2/20/26 at 5:10 pm to SlowFlowPro
Bc they are reactive and full of shite.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 5:15 pm to MikkUGA
"We messed up and will now implement our contingency plan so as to not embarrass ourselves any further" 
And then business continues on as we've done it for the last what is it now... 11 months?
And then business continues on as we've done it for the last what is it now... 11 months?
Posted on 2/20/26 at 5:17 pm to SlowFlowPro
They did it in order to watch you melt.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 5:21 pm to MikkUGA
How the court could say that the Trump Administration couldn’t use this one law to impose tariffs but did not rule on what should happen with tariffs already taken in makes no sense and is crazy. They waited what around six months to give a ruling that they could have given in less than a week considering they didn’t touch on the biggest question after the court answered the biggest question left after is this legal. Insane! It just makes this ruling feel filthy and political no matter if it was intended to be or not.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 5:22 pm to SlowFlowPro
Our favrite ghey just dunked on SFP
Posted on 2/20/26 at 5:22 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
which are options that were stated by posters on this board (including me) months ago.
Which, again, brings us back to the question:
quote:
Or, months ago when it was clear that this would not work, why didn't they admit their mistake and use the statutes that Bessent is referring to in that quote?
Well somebody has to feed the constitutional lawyers every once in awhile
Posted on 2/20/26 at 5:31 pm to Figgy
quote:
We messed up and will now implement our contingency plan so as to not embarrass ourselves any further"
Dumb take. They knew there was a chance and they have other options. He can now also impose an embargo at will. That was laid out in the ruling. It’s a stupid loophole that the paid off judges found.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 5:56 pm to SDVTiger
quote:
Our favrite ghey just dunked on SFP
Not at all
Posted on 2/20/26 at 5:57 pm to hogcard1964
quote:
They did it in order to watch you melt.
That plan was a bigger fail than the actual tariff implementation as a serious policy then
Posted on 2/20/26 at 5:59 pm to RollingwiththeTide
quote:
How the court could say that the Trump Administration couldn’t use this one law to impose tariffs but did not rule on what should happen with tariffs already taken in makes no sense and is crazy.
That question was not before the court and that's not their job. Figuring that out. Is the administration's job and constitutional role.
quote:
They waited what around six months to give a ruling that they could have given in less than a week considering they didn’t touch on the biggest question after the court answered the biggest question left after is this legal. Insane! It just makes this ruling feel filthy and political no matter if it was intended to be or not.
Holy shite
They issued this ruling relatively quickly compared to when the policy was enacted. Often it takes 3 to 5 years to get to the Supreme Court and they got here within a year with a full ruling.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 6:03 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
why didn't they admit their mistake and use the statutes that Bessent is referring to in that quote?
to drive people like you crazy.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 6:12 pm to rileytiger
quote:
They knew there was a chance and they have other options
It was a given that this ruling would happen. I don't care that Trump is implementing tariffs. He'll be within his rights to do so once they get their crap together. I do care that they were so sloppy with how they fought this battle. This was avoidable had they gotten it right from the get-go. Which never should've been in question but here we find ourselves.
quote:
It’s a stupid loophole that the paid off judges found.
Now we have deflection to Justices being on the take because they ruled against him. More drama. More deflection. More questions from people convinced that whenever they don't get their way that the system is entirely broken. The system may very well be broken but it isn't because you didn't get your way. Had he got a friendly ruling today you never ever would've heard him level these accusations to multiple justices.
I don't really care what Trump does as long as it is legal. I like the majority of what he's done and trying to do. He and his team need to clean things like this up and continue going to work. Which will happen soon enough. Then it's back to business.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 6:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
This issue should have been put on an even faster track because the outcome would be a massive ruling affecting a lot of areas. They can’t just hang out for months to give us a ruling that they probably came to pretty quickly once it was taken up and discussed.
The tariffs already taken in will have to be litigated again when they could have just felt which it all at once. As much as this affects then speed should have paramount and let’s get the whole issue out of the way. A lot of untangling will have to be done now because SOCTUS did not put the proper importance on the issue they should have and treated this case with the utmost urgency and speed.
The tariffs already taken in will have to be litigated again when they could have just felt which it all at once. As much as this affects then speed should have paramount and let’s get the whole issue out of the way. A lot of untangling will have to be done now because SOCTUS did not put the proper importance on the issue they should have and treated this case with the utmost urgency and speed.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 6:19 pm to RollingwiththeTide
quote:No. Thsts exactly how opinions should be. Narrow as hell and limited to the case at hand.
How the court could say that the Trump Administration couldn’t use this one law to impose tariffs but did not rule on what should happen with tariffs already taken in makes no sense and is crazy.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News