- 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
re: Fed Appeals Court rules most Trump tariffs illegal, next step Supreme Court
Posted on 8/29/25 at 7:13 pm to IMSA_Fan
Posted on 8/29/25 at 7:13 pm to IMSA_Fan
quote:
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.
I can't wait to see his truth social melt when the USSC rules against him
1
Posted on 8/29/25 at 7:18 pm to Powerman
quote:
Powerman
quote:
Slow Fanni Pro
If these two are bumping their gums you can rest assured this is a nothing burger. Haven’t been right about jack shite in 2025.
Bums.
This post was edited on 8/29/25 at 7:19 pm
Posted on 8/29/25 at 7:20 pm to texag7
We didn't start the thread but feel free to cry about it
Posted on 8/29/25 at 7:24 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:my argument was spelled out quite plainly.
So is your argument
You suggest an unconstitutional remedy to an act you consider unconstitutional IE you are a flaming hypocrite and your pearl clutching over the cheeto is hilarious
Posted on 8/29/25 at 7:24 pm to Powerman
You won't like the outcome from the delaying tactic, rest assured.
Posted on 8/29/25 at 7:25 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
He doesn't get to add executive authority (or agency, to use your term) outside of the limits of the particular statute.
The specific case cited said that he could suspend, modify, or increase any tariffs on a country that was basically gouging the US via reciprocal tariffs
Thats the defining characteristic of what countries have been doing to us for decades. The case law has been settled. This case, like so many others on immigration, firings, reorganizations, eliminating agencies are way outside their boundaries (also established by Congress)
Posted on 8/29/25 at 7:25 pm to UncleFestersLegs
quote:
You suggest an unconstitutional remedy to an act you consider unconstitutional IE you are a flaming hypocrite and your pearl clutching over the cheeto is hilarious
Glad you have chosen to not participate in the relevant discussion.
Posted on 8/29/25 at 7:27 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:how many semate votes are required by the constitution to convict?
Glad you have chosen to not participate in the relevant discussion.
Posted on 8/29/25 at 7:29 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
The specific case cited said that he could suspend, modify, or increase any tariffs on a country that was basically gouging the US via reciprocal tariffs
Using this specific statute? There is a history using this specific statute to issue tariffs?
*ETA: I just realized you were quoting Field v. Clark, which discussed a statute specifically authorizing tariffs. That discussion has little relevance to the one being had today.
This post was edited on 8/29/25 at 7:34 pm
Posted on 8/29/25 at 7:30 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:'
Because then he'd be violating the law.
Oh, Ok.
Like Vaccine Mandates, using fascism to censor your political opponents, forgiving student loans, illegally spying on your political opponents, illegally targeting Christian and Catholic people? And if I included O's 8 years, my goodness, I would need a long time to list all of the times the D's have skirted, ignored and otherwise violated the law.
And yet, here you are.
Please list the times PDJT has actually violated the law post any BS-Lawfare ruling and not come out constitutionally victorious in the end?
Posted on 8/29/25 at 7:35 pm to Speckhunter2012
quote:
Like Vaccine Mandates
The Biden Admin did not continue them after the USSC case
quote:
using fascism to censor your political opponents
Which Supreme Court case was ignored?
quote:
forgiving student loans
The Biden Admin did not continue the illegal policy after the USSC case
quote:
illegally spying on your political opponents
Which Supreme Court case was ignored?
quote:
, illegally targeting Christian and Catholic people?
Which Supreme Court case was ignored?
quote:
Please list the times PDJT has actually violated the law
The presupposition being discussed is Trump ignoring a Supreme Court ruling.
Posted on 8/29/25 at 7:35 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Using this specific statute? There is a history using this specific statute to issue tariffs?
The prez is the judicially recognized agent of any tariff law
And as part of any tariff law, he was given the authority to modify tariffs HE DEEMED sufficiently retaliatory against the US
Which they all have been. For decades
Posted on 8/29/25 at 7:38 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
The prez is the judicially recognized agent of any tariff law
The entire question being discussed is if this law is a "tariff law"
Back to my earlier post
quote:
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.
If the limits of this statute do not make it a "tariff law", then the Executive has no authority to issue tariffs pursuant to the law. That would be the executive acting outside of its statutory limitations.
This post was edited on 8/29/25 at 7:39 pm
Posted on 8/29/25 at 7:42 pm to RobbBobb
Jesus man. The refute to your point is in what you wrote.
It’s about duties. Dumbass Trump cited trade imbalances. Those are not duties which is what was expressly cited.
quote:
if he found another country's duties were "reciprocally unequal and unreasonable
It’s about duties. Dumbass Trump cited trade imbalances. Those are not duties which is what was expressly cited.
Posted on 8/29/25 at 7:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:oh goody
Back to my earlier post
quote:
Could the Senate go to 60 for removal?
Posted on 8/29/25 at 7:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The entire question being discussed is if this law is a "tariff law"
Which specific law? Because this ruling combined 2 separate cases
Posted on 8/29/25 at 7:47 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
Which specific law? Because this ruling combined 2 separate cases
2 cases, but the same dispute
quote:
This case involves the extent of the President’s authority under IEEPA to “regulate” importation in response to a national emergency declared by the President
Posted on 8/29/25 at 7:49 pm to VABuckeye
quote:
It’s about duties. Dumbass Trump cited trade imbalances.
You might want to sit this one out
quote:
On April 2, 2025, President Trump declared a separate emergency concerning "a lack of reciprocity in our bilateral trade relationships, disparate tariff rates and non-tariff barriers, and U.S. trading partners' economic policies that suppress domestic wages and consumption, as indicated by large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits."
Posted on 8/29/25 at 7:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
Even the majority did not hold that the statute does not permit the Executive to impose any tariffs whatsoever.
Thus, the majority did not hold that the statue is not "a tariff law."
Thus, the majority did not hold that the statue is not "a tariff law."
This post was edited on 8/29/25 at 7:55 pm
Posted on 8/29/25 at 8:38 pm to slackster
Will the courts invalidate the trade deals? You know Boasberg would love a chance to throw a giant turd in the punchbowl.
Page 4 of 9
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News