- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
re: Fed Appeals Court rules most Trump tariffs illegal, next step Supreme Court
Posted on 8/29/25 at 6:38 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 8/29/25 at 6:38 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I doubt that.
Doubt what you want.
Remove him and there would be violence.
2
Posted on 8/29/25 at 6:42 pm to deltaland
quote:
SCOTUS will likely uphold Trump will be neutered on trade without congressional action. America loses once again
I don’t know enough about constitutional law to give a worthy opinion here, but this would absolutely crush Trumps momentum going forward. Tariffs are a huge part of his platform.
How has this not been decided already in our past?
Posted on 8/29/25 at 6:44 pm to Robcrzy
quote:
Nobody else is reporting this
I got a push notice on my phone from CNN saying the same thing.
Posted on 8/29/25 at 6:44 pm to tide06
quote:
Remove him and there would be violence.
Maybe by a small faction of crazies.
Normal people will not be upset if he's punished for ignoring the Constitution and acting overtly illegally.
That's the sort of treason the Founders installed the removal clause to punish, literally.
This post was edited on 8/29/25 at 6:45 pm
Posted on 8/29/25 at 6:45 pm to supadave3
quote:
How has this not been decided already in our past?
I don't think any President has ever tried to use this law, or a similar one, in a manner that Trump has.
Posted on 8/29/25 at 6:46 pm to ifyoubuildit
quote:legal scholar wondering if the remedy for violating the constitution should be violating the constitution
67. I thought you were a legal scholar? You sure act like one.
Posted on 8/29/25 at 6:47 pm to slackster
The democrats are going to keep pushing until the silent majority crushes what’s left of the party, like a little brother who keeps hitting his older brother until he gets his arse kicked.
Posted on 8/29/25 at 6:48 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:from what I could gather on the tvs at the gym this applies to the early tariffs imposed under "state of emergency " regarding fentanyl at the border or wtfe it was
confused. The court is letting them stay in effect
Posted on 8/29/25 at 6:52 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That's the sort of treason the Founders installed the removal clause to punish, literally.
You apparently don’t know what treason or literally mean.
You also apparently don’t know anyone in the intel community or you would have a very different view of where we are, how close we came to kinetic violence had Butler gone differently or what the consequences for another attempt to remove Trump on spurious grounds would very likely be.
Posted on 8/29/25 at 6:54 pm to tide06
quote:
You also apparently don’t know anyone in the intel community or you would have a very different view of where we are, how close we came to kinetic violence had Butler gone differently or what the consequences for another attempt to remove Trump on spurious grounds would very likely be.
Blatantly violating the Constitution is the opposite of spurious. You can't minimize how much of a big deal this would be.
Again, a small number of crazies who are likely already removed from reality may act irrationally and on brand.
Normal people will see this as highly illegal and borderline treason, in the Constitutional, not criminal, sense.
Posted on 8/29/25 at 6:57 pm to SlowFlowPro
Man your such a frickin toad
Posted on 8/29/25 at 6:57 pm to supadave3
quote:
this would absolutely crush Trumps momentum going forward.
It would be the best thing that could possibly happen to him.
The courts would stop the idiocy before it became obvious how bad an idea the tariffs are and the cult members would interpret the ruling just like they already are...that it's the Deep State picking on Trump rather than Trump violating the Constitution. So they (y'all) would be all galvanized and pumped up.
Or alternatively, fricking Congress could just get off their asses and implement the tariffs legally. Then it doesn't matter what a court says.
I don't know what the benefit of having both houses of Congress is when you just let the POTUS sit around signing EOs that will only last until Democrats get in the WH again.
Posted on 8/29/25 at 6:58 pm to UncleFestersLegs
quote:
from what I could gather on the tvs at the gym this applies to the early tariffs imposed under "state of emergency " regarding fentanyl at the border or wtfe it was
That would be my guess as well.
I mean, look...you had to know that was a blatant attempt at a loophole.
You had to know that someone would try to call him on it.
Posted on 8/29/25 at 6:59 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Blatantly violating the Constitution is the opposite of spurious. You can't minimize how much of a big deal this would be.
quote:
Could the Senate go to 60 for removal?
quote:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Posted on 8/29/25 at 7:02 pm to UncleFestersLegs
So is your argument:
1. Trump ignoring the Supreme Court wouldn't violate the Constitution?
2. That violation would only be spurious?
3. Violating the Constitution by ignoring the Supreme Court would not be seen as a big deal by the majority of the country?
1. Trump ignoring the Supreme Court wouldn't violate the Constitution?
2. That violation would only be spurious?
3. Violating the Constitution by ignoring the Supreme Court would not be seen as a big deal by the majority of the country?
Posted on 8/29/25 at 7:03 pm to tide06
quote:
Remove him and there would be violence.
We'll just throw all the J6 figs back in jail then
Posted on 8/29/25 at 7:04 pm to slackster
The decision was 7-to-4. The dissent, which was joined by the court's chief judge, is well-reasoned. Time will tell.
Posted on 8/29/25 at 7:06 pm to Aubie Spr96
quote:
Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution vests the power to lay and collect tariffs with Congress.
ummmmm
quote:
The Supreme Court held that the challenged provision "does not, in any real sense, invest the president with the power of legislation." Rather, because the provision required the President to suspend duty-free treatment for certain goods if he found another country's duties were "reciprocally unequal and unreasonable," it made the President "the mere agent of the law-making department." Thus, the Court explained, the challenged provision called upon the President not to make law, but simply to execute a law enacted by Congress.
Try Again. Because according to the Supreme the laws have already been made. The prez is the agent of the law, not the individual members of Congress
Posted on 8/29/25 at 7:09 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
The prez is the agent of the law,
Only within the limits of the particular statute.
He doesn't get to add executive authority (or agency, to use your term) outside of the limits of the particular statute.
Posted on 8/29/25 at 7:11 pm to slackster
Trump can’t really ignore the decision on this one. He can’t force companies to pay taxes they are not legally required to pay.
Page 3 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News