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

quote:

---

This was the most convincing line of questioning, imo. How is it possible to argue a president can cease all trade with a country using this authority, but not simply impose tariffs on part of it?

---

Yep.
On the one hand, the act would allow Trump "to shut down all trade with another country – but on the other would not allow him to take the much smaller step, in her view, of imposing tariffs. Such a paradox creates an odd donut hole,” as Kavanagh put it.

The lines of attack were so odd.
Were I the plaintiff in this case, I'd hit the "emergency" end of this thing hard. What suddenly qualifies worldwide trade, and a decades old trade imbalance, as an emergency? It seems that is the weakness.
No emergency = No authorization.

Instead, both plaintiff and SCOTUS focused on whether tariffs are a tax, and therefore belonging solely to Congress. Yet, call it a "tax" if you'd like, but there are hundreds of cases of POTUSes regulating trade through tariffs.

That leaves the plaintiffs insisting tariffs do not fall under the broad umbrella of the IEEPA trade "regulation" language. Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Alito blew holes all through that premise.

I thought Trump was in trouble on this thing.
Time will tell.
But now I'm not so sure he doesn't skate through.

These are good lines of inquiry, but they don’t get as much into whether there is an emergency in the first place bc they assume an emergency. As for what Trump will do if he loses, there are other statutes that give the president tariff powers, although not as broadly as the president interprets IEEPA. many observers have suggested he will use those.

quote:

---

Irrelevant

---

It's not irrelevant. That's how legal analysis works. You take the cases that your opponent is relying on and distinguish them if you can. Since the central issue is the lack of explicit authority, it's a very important distinction. If the cases you're relying on to support your argument, all have that explicit authority.

It's extremely relevant. In an actual legal brief, if you've relied on those cases, I would literally go through in my response each case and make this exact argument because that's how legal arguments work.

quote:

---

if a broader umbrella inclusive of tariffs is the authorizing instrument.

---

The other distinction that will hurt this argument is if other statutes that have specific tariff language have similar broad regulatory statements. Again, this would create a distinguishing factor. If all the other cases have broad authority and tariff language and this statue only has broad authority, then that shows Congress did not intend tariff authority with the text of their statue.

*ETA: again, Biden had the same "broader language" argument when he forgave SLs. I'm glad the court didn't adopt that argument then and want the same thing here.

quote:

---

So for example, in contract law, language reasonably subject to multiple interpretations is viewed in the most favorable light for the signer of the contract, not the author/contractor/employer. Similarly, the principle of lenity applies in criminal cases, and deference to civil and intergovernmental cases. No?

---

That depends on the jurisdiction.

What's the relevance to executive authority and legislative limits therein?

Why are you so scared to show your work?

You've made various forms of this comment ITT

quote:

---

but there are hundreds of cases of POTUSes regulating trade through tariffs.

---

I've asked you to show the work like 5 or 6 times by now (including earlier on this page).

quote:

---

... or as was done with the ACA, just make it up on the fly.

---

If they rely on the Major Questions Doctrine, this will not be true in any way.

Again, they literally just did it in a similar case with similar overreaching executive action based on a granting of broad authority with the Biden SL case. Nobody said the USSC made shite up with that ruling.

quote:

---

If they rely on the Major Questions Doctrine, this will not be true in any way.

Again, they literally just did it in a similar case

---

The Devil is in the details there.

quote:

---

Robert’s insist

---

Our educational system has utterly failed us.

quote:

---

The lines of attack were so odd.
Were I the plaintiff in this case, I'd hit the "emergency" end of this thing hard. What suddenly qualifies worldwide trade, and a decades old trade imbalance, as an emergency? It seems that is the weakness.
No emergency = No authorization.

---

Yep. This was the only valid method of attack. They failed completely. Unfortunately Roberts is a moron, so who knows how this will turn out?

quote:

---

Instead, both plaintiff and SCOTUS focused on whether tariffs are a tax, and therefore belonging solely to Congress. Yet, call it a "tax" if you'd like, but there are hundreds of cases of POTUSes regulating trade through tariffs.

---

Yeah this is a nonstarter. Roberts and his obsession with defining what a tax is.

quote:

---

Just as there are Congressional statutes that authorize SL forgiveness specifically, and there are Congressional statutes that authorize tariffs specifically

---

If SCOTUS bases its findings solely on Major Questions Doctrine and denies tariffs are clearly regulation, the basis of which clearly some of the Justices were questioning, then the finding will go against Trump.

quote:

---

Which ironically might save trump from himself.


Nah

---

Well that will suck for you and I. Trumps rich buddies, not so much.