re: Robert’s insist that tariffs are a tax on the American people, and a tax needs to come

quote:

---

I'm curious how Thomas votes. He's been rejecting his textualist roots lately towards what appears to be partisanship. If he sides with the admin I think it will be safe to say he's no longer a textualist.

---

Yep. It's kinda like the war powers act. President can take immediate (emergency) actions, but has to go back to congress at some point. The tariff delegation seems pretty broad, and that may be what undoes it. Congress should write better laws.

quote:

---

There are all kinds of fees imposed on domestic and foreign entities without congressional approval, that are not considered taxes. There are also fees and expenses imposed on American citizens, and foreign visitors, that are not considered taxes.

---

Give some examples

quote:

---

Name an economist thats says tarrifs are not a tax?

---

Tariffs are a tax on imported foreign goods.

quote:

---

I don’t think Thomas has ever clearly voted against Trump’s interests in a SCOTUS decision

---

His random and irrelevant dissent about Jack Smith's appointment was kind of a red flag

quote:

---

I provided you the text of the case to show that your argument about the temporary nature of the emergency was an important issue in the ruling.

---

You provided an opinion. It's not worth ferreting through individual submissions or rationale.
I provided you with the text of the law.

quote:

---

You posted a link to Ashlen who is a flaming leftist

You clearly follow her

---

Shhhh.

The adults are talking.

quote:

---

Why focus on whether a tariff is a tax? J

---

Because the admin is trying to "imply" the tariff authority, but if it's a tax, then they will require more than just the implication and will need more explicit statutory authorization. Because the executive can't just manufacture taxes willy nilly, due to the Constitutional issues presented.

quote:

---

Just stick to the question of whether Congress gave the President the power to tariff at all in the IEEPA.

---

The "tax" issue is a digression of that issue. I think it's being blow up by people being "clever" making the ACA ruling reference (as I predicted yesterday in real time) and wont' be a significant factor in the decision. It's going to be a Major Question Doctrine decision, I bet, which won't need this level of pedantry.

quote:

---

Robert’s

---

Douche Canoe Statist.

quote:

---

You posted a link to Ashlen who is a flaming leftist

You clearly follow her

---

I will say this, though.

One of us knows who this person is. One of us has no clue.

Which one is likely to be the follower?

quote:

---

You provided an opinion.

---

Yes, the opinion on the Biden student loan scheme that mirrors this tariff argument rhetorically-legally.

You're trying to distinguish the two with this "temporary" argument, so I asked you to support it within the text of the prior ruling. That's how this works.

You don't logically get to say a prior case is inapplicable and then rely on non-relevant arguments about that case

quote:

---

I provided you with the text of the law.

---

Which does not include the word "tariff"

It uses broad language similar to the authority granted by the HEROES Act.

The Trump admin relied on similar interpretation without textual support as the Biden admin did.

I believe the court will strike down the Trump admin's actions for the same reasons as they did the Biden's admin's actions, because the two cases are quite similar legally.