- 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: No SCOTUS Ruling on Tariffs Until Next Year?
Posted on 11/12/25 at 5:54 am to dgnx6
Posted on 11/12/25 at 5:54 am to dgnx6
quote:
Bush and Clinton cut tariffs without Congress so why can’t Trump impose tariffs? The precedent was already set.
This is one of my things. Not sure the legal aspect though of “two wrongs don’t make a right”
I personally think the tariffs have done well. They have been too low so far too long and unwinding those bad decisions has been painful.
That said I have an inherent distrust of government, and I’m concerned about presidential overreach and the volatility that could come every 4 years. Trump’s roll out was horrible as well.
On the other hand Congress routinely fails to act, and when they do, it’s in their own interest due to lack of term limits.
The court doesn’t care about any of that, but I wanted to vent to my baws.
1
Posted on 11/12/25 at 5:59 am to GeekedUp
We’re very much heading for Democrat’s “Green Utopia” the next time they take office if the SCOTUS refuses to strike this down
Posted on 11/12/25 at 6:00 am to dgnx6
quote:
Bush and Clinton cut tariffs without Congress
Link?
quote:
The precedent was already set.
I have a feeling it wasn't
Posted on 11/12/25 at 6:03 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
Yes. That's the way the law is written.
But the law is not written in a way to include tariffs, hence why the text doesn't include the word....tariff
quote:
If they do, it won't be because the Trump admin didn't follow the law. They definitely did, and the oral arguments proved that.
You need to read up on Gorsuch's line of questioning. He skewered the admin legally
Posted on 11/12/25 at 6:05 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
Going to be great when Trump has to issue full trade embargos for negotiation purposes instead of simply tariffs.
Trump has other avenues to tariffs other than IEEPA. If the USSC rules he used the wrong law and he then doubles down on using the wrong law in the way you posted, it would be cutting off his nose to spite his face, hurting us further. That would be retarded. Trump isn't a retard.
Posted on 11/12/25 at 6:28 am to Y.A. Tittle
The climate argument is ignorant.
How about this one. What if the president got in power and decided to stop ANY products coming in the country.......oh wait the president ALREADY has that power.
10 of trillions of trade deficits is a huge danger to our country, and taking away the power of tariffs would leave us helpless.
How about this one. What if the president got in power and decided to stop ANY products coming in the country.......oh wait the president ALREADY has that power.
10 of trillions of trade deficits is a huge danger to our country, and taking away the power of tariffs would leave us helpless.
Posted on 11/12/25 at 6:30 am to trinidadtiger
quote:
and taking away the power of tariffs
The Supreme Court isn't doing this, generally.
Trump has/had multiple other clear options that would not be subject to review. He chose a statute that does not specifically authorize tariffs, and he's trying to use implication and creative textual reading (while ignoring the actual text) to contort the statute he chose into authorizing tariffs.
Posted on 11/12/25 at 6:33 am to wackatimesthree
1) this is not uncommon. January is the earliest you will likely get a ruling (and they may go all the way to end of term)
2) I suspect they will wait as the tariffs are the leverage Trump is using to get permanent trade agreements. He should have the vast majority of them in place by Spring.
2) I suspect they will wait as the tariffs are the leverage Trump is using to get permanent trade agreements. He should have the vast majority of them in place by Spring.
Posted on 11/12/25 at 6:37 am to Warboo
Agreed.
You know I keep asking this question and dont get an answer. If tariffs are a "tax" to the people when they buy products.......how exactly are you going to track down the 330 million people and discern what they bought and what they are owed????
Here is what they have done with price fixing in the past. Coke and Pepsi decide collectively to raise the price from a buck to a buck fifty. The retailer simply continues to apply 20% markup so he makes an extra ten cents. Govt fines the snot out of Coke and Pepsi for the 50 cents. Know who they give it to......the retailer, the same one who profiting from the price fixing.
All mute, the court will let the Don eat
You know I keep asking this question and dont get an answer. If tariffs are a "tax" to the people when they buy products.......how exactly are you going to track down the 330 million people and discern what they bought and what they are owed????
Here is what they have done with price fixing in the past. Coke and Pepsi decide collectively to raise the price from a buck to a buck fifty. The retailer simply continues to apply 20% markup so he makes an extra ten cents. Govt fines the snot out of Coke and Pepsi for the 50 cents. Know who they give it to......the retailer, the same one who profiting from the price fixing.
All mute, the court will let the Don eat
Posted on 11/12/25 at 6:57 am to wackatimesthree
The average time from argument to decision on the Roberts court has been about 90-110 days.
Posted on 11/12/25 at 7:08 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If the USSC rules he used the wrong law and he then doubles down on using the wrong law in the way you posted
What I said is literally what the plaintiffs argued before SCOTUS that he could do.
These chicken littles whining about what Dems might do for climate change in the future don't seem to understand that what they are arguing can be done is exactly what Dems would do if they win this case. Instead of tariffs, they'll just issue full embargo. Just like they, and John Roberts and the other leftists on the court, argued Trump could still do.
Posted on 11/12/25 at 7:10 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
What I said is literally what the plaintiffs argued before SCOTUS that he could do.
It would be legal, but, as I said, it would be cutting off his nose to spite his face.
He's not a retard, so he wont' do this.
Posted on 11/12/25 at 7:11 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
Why so long?
Hugh Hewitt said they don't want a direct conflict with Trump. Hewitt said rulings will be set up that push decisions down to lower courts whereupon the other side will file suit and the lower court will rule, appeals and back to the Supremes. And then rinse and repeat. All the way through Trump's term.
Posted on 11/12/25 at 8:55 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
I just read that they don't expect SCOTUS to punch Trump in the ballz on tariffs until next year.
Why so long?
According to google AI, SCOTUS usually votes on the cases shortly after they are heard. Then one justice from the majority is picked to write an opinion. That opinion is then published many months later. After all they are government workers who cannot be fired. You should not expect them to work efficiently.
Posted on 11/12/25 at 8:56 am to rstamp1
quote:
. I think he also realizes he has gone too far on tariff’s because he has been rolling some back the last few weeks. Now he has said he’s will be reducing some tariffs on items like coffee
And thats ok.... better too much and cut back later than not get all you can.
Besides, much of the "extreme " tariffs were simply used as leverage.
Posted on 11/12/25 at 9:02 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
money is collected, the more has to be paid back.
If there is a way to word the ruling and make it go into effect then, and not back dated, then they will.
If I were Trump, I'd get it shoved thru congress now, so all his tariffs stay in place
Posted on 11/12/25 at 9:13 am to ChatGPT of LA
[quote]if I were Trump, I'd get it shoved thru congress now, so all his tariffs stay in placedetails.
He should have been doing this since "Liberation Day" announce the tariffs while simultaneously getting Congress to make them statutory. The bill could even allow POTUS the power to raise and lower tariffs based on negotiations with other countries.
He should have been doing this since "Liberation Day" announce the tariffs while simultaneously getting Congress to make them statutory. The bill could even allow POTUS the power to raise and lower tariffs based on negotiations with other countries.
Posted on 11/12/25 at 9:15 am to Warboo
quote:This is my question - what happens to the Biden steel tariffs?
You are making the assumption that if they do rule that trumps tariffs are in fact unconstitutional that they would retroactively say that all the money brought in by tariffs would need to be payed back to all entities involved. That is incredibly unlikely and almost impossible.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News