re: Goldman Responds To Court Block Of Trump Tariffs: Nothingburger, White House Can Sidestep

quote:

---

I don't think the Court's ruling was silly at all. It will survive appeal all the way through the Supreme Court.

That's great that the tariffs can be imposed through the procedures outlined in the article. Too bad they weren't followed from the beginning.

---

No, it's very silly. You admit Trump has authority to enact tariffs, but only if he files the right paperwork. That's a retarded way to run a country.

If Trump has the authority to put tariffs, then it doesn't matter what law he cites.

"I'm placing tariffs using Sec 3."

"Oh sorry, you do have the authority, but it's actually Sec 6. So, now we have to start all over and waste taxpayer money. No worries though. Another judge will still find a problem even after you fix the paperwork."

Anyone concerned more with paperwork than results is not a serious person. They have to focus on such things because they can't deliver results. It's how the incompetent bridge the gap with the talented.

If you’re arguing some tarriffs will hold, we agree, to be clear. Like those pertaining to natl security interests.

It’s the sweeping 10% across the board type tarriffs specifically that are most likely cooked.

quote:

---

You said he needed due process and would get it. You said he was a maryland man not an ms13 gang member

---

Post where I said ANY of that or admit that you are a scummy liar.

quote:

---

No, it's very silly. You admit Trump has authority to enact tariffs, but only if he files the right paperwork. That's a retarded way to run a country.

---

When you find a better way to run a country other than through the rule of law, let us know.

quote:

---

the rule of law

---

Stick to your day job.

quote:

---

If you’re arguing some tarriffs will hold, we agree, to be clear. Like those pertaining to natl security interests.

---

I'm not arguing any tariffs will hold. I'm saying them not holding is a threat to long held executive powers, such as declaring an emergency.

quote:

---

outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the

---

the "or" word is key. It doesn't have to be a national security threat. And it doesn't have to be a threat.

It can be for economic only, and it only has to be unusual and extraordinary (not an emergency).

Let's pose a hypothetical. This same wine company is selling wine to Iran for distribution. Wine is not missile technology. But the money Iran is making off the wine goes to by centrifuge controls in N Korea. By this ruling, the President can't ban the export of that wine to Iran because it doesn't meet the standard of an emergency.

In the meantime such export controls aren't specifically listed but have long been used. That wine company, today, can not sell wine to Iran under the IEEPA.

quote:

---

It’s the sweeping 10% across the board type tarriffs specifically that are most likely cooked.

---

that... is 99.99% a fact. You can't link "a blanket" imposition to a "fork" that are all the unusual circumstances the Trump admin listed as a defense (listed in my post). It's a square peg in a non-existent hole.

I guess I should be more specific, THIS case isn't getting overturned. Here's specifically why.....



"1. The USCIT was the handpicked court that the Trump DOJ wanted to hear this case.

2. The Trump DOJ spent the last month filing motions to move other tariff challenges to the USCIT for the same reason, including as recently as this week.

3. The 3-0 ruling came from two Republicans and one Democrat appointee.

4. One of the Republicans was Trump-appointed & recommended to him by Trump's own arch-protectionist tariff guru Robert Lighthizer.

5. The court's rationale drew on the nondelegation doctrine and major questions doctrine - two centerpieces of conservative judicial philosophy.

Good luck arguing that this court was stacked against them, or that these were "leftist judges" who were out to thwart the will of the president."



Trump will have to find some other legal means (or congress) to get his sweeping tarriffs to stick long term. If he had an easier means of doingo so, it stands to reason he would've done so in the first place. This was probably his best shot and it didn't work.

But to your question, if you think there's still a chance he'll find some other legal means of doing so, I suppose that's possible (he'll almost certainly try). But I wouldn't hold your breath.

quote:

---

The 10% tariffs are so clearly "non-emergency" that I doubt a stay will be issued regarding them.

---

This is how individuals, companies, and even countries fail; they don't recognize an emergency even when symptoms are ravaging their bodies and their ability to support their own existence. Our exploding trade deficits, taken in conjunction with the associated declining industrial base and related job losses, increasing dependence on foreign produced goods, exploding budget deficits and record total debt load, massively negative Net International Investment position, absolutely are an emergency for both the US economy and the US dollar. This emergency must be immediately addressed from every angle, starting with bring jobs back home and drastically cutting unnecessary govt spending, waste, corruption.

Your certainty that our trade situation is "clearly a non-emergency" is like a deadbeat borrower the day before he becomes functionally bankrupt. He doesn't sense the financial emergency as his debt levels and dependency climb, because it's been working for a long time. Why should today be an emergency? The lenders are still lending and the vendors are still selling. Then a butterfly flaps its wings and his credit is cut off. He finally recognizes the emergency, only after the situation is beyond repair. Yesterday it was "not an emergency" and today he's a beggar. Countries take longer to fail than an individual, but ignoring a financial emergency until credit gets cut off is a fatal error.

quote:

---

I'm saying them not holding is a threat to long held executive powers, such as declaring an emergency.

---

I think you should read the opinion before typing long posts railing against it.

The opinion does not question POTUS's authority to declare an emergency, or his ability to impose certain tariffs to address that emergency.

quote:

---

You learned statutory interpretation in law school under Antonin Scalia?

---

Yes, I did. That's why I started this thread on 4/3/25 starting with the original opinion. In that thread, I initially argued, like you, that the removal order applied to GUATEMALA because of what had been written in the opinion.

Others in the thread pointed out that there was a likely typo in the opinion, because Abrego Garcia and his family had never even lived in Guatemala. Also, if the Guatemala argument had been persuasive, the DOJ would have asserted it. They never did.

So, I researched this thoroughly, like I was taught by Scalia. The holding order prevented deportation to El Salvador AS REQUESTED (Abrego Garcia didn't apply for a holding order re Guatemala).

What else you got smart guy?