- 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
0
Posted on 11/7/25 at 4:49 pm to lepdagod
quote:
nfortunately(fortunately for the American people)for Trump they are about to be enforced
By who?
Posted on 11/7/25 at 5:28 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Where do these "suggestions and rumors" originate?
quote:
Roberts' Obamacare finding, ruling, and rationale was as contorted as any in the history of the court. It came ~7yrs after the scum bucket's SOTUSCJ appt.
Backstory: Roberts and his wife adopted two infants ~ 2000. The details of the adoption (country of origin of the children, agency used, etc.) have never been made public.
Posted on 11/7/25 at 6:04 pm to Padme
Something that just struck me today, if tariffs are not just de facto taxes. But are, by ruling of SCOTUS, explicitly taxes, would that also make the rulings of government bureaucrats that increase the cost of items also explicitly enacting taxes?
Posted on 11/7/25 at 7:22 pm to RogerTheShrubber
Posted on 11/7/25 at 7:29 pm to Padme
Countries can impose any tariffs or restrictions on us and the President cant respond?
Just insane. Almost like the majority of DC wants us to feel pain.
Just insane. Almost like the majority of DC wants us to feel pain.
Posted on 11/7/25 at 8:51 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Whomever might benefit from his compromise. Regardless, Roberts' Obamacare finding, ruling, and rationale was as contorted as any in the history of the court. It came ~7yrs after the scum bucket's SOTUSCJ appt. Backstory: Roberts and his wife adopted two infants ~ 2000. The details of the adoption (country of origin of the children, agency used, etc.) have never been made public. There was suggestion of irregularities in the adoption process. Rumor is the children were born in Ireland but adopted via a Latin American process, If true, such irregularities would raise questions under both Irish and U.S. adoption law. Rumor is the aberrant adoption process gave political leverage/blackmail concerning Roberts. One would presume, as the kids are now in their mid-20's, such leverage would carry less weight. But that is the dark explanation for Roberts behavior as SCOTUSCJ.
Interesting. Thanks. Yeah, I agree about him not being a reliable vote for those in favor of constitutional originalism or preserving the republic. But to me, compromised in this context seems to imply someone is pulling strings. I didn’t know that about his family situation.
But what’s weird about him is that sometimes he makes the right decision and other times he doesn’t. I’ve heard it told that he doesn’t want the court to lose legitimacy and he makes decisions based on that. But then it must be asked, in whose mind is he worried about the court losing legitimacy. That can only be because of the left.
Posted on 11/7/25 at 9:47 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Yet, call it a "tax" if you'd like, but there are hundreds of cases of POTUSes regulating trade through tariffs.
Cite them. Cite any of them. I'm no historian, but according to the CAFC opinion being appealed here, there is only ONE case of a President enacting a tariff where the statute used did not explicitly provide POTUS with tariff authority as well as the authority to regulate trade.
Even Article I of the Constitution views these as separate powers. In two different paragraphs, Congress is first given the power to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imports and excises" and in a later paragraph the power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations".
The power to regulate trade and the power to impose tariffs are two separate powers.
The one example of a President using the word "regulate" to include a tariff power was President Nixon using the old Trading With Enemies Act, a WWI era statute that had similar language as the IEEPA. The CCPA (which is the predecessor court to the CAFC) ruled that Nixon's tariffs were allowed under that statute, but only because the tariffs he imposed were limited in time, and did not exceed the tariff rates already set by Congress.
The IEEPA was passed to replace TWEA, and was intended to be more limited than the powers authorized by TWEA.
This is why I agree with the opinions of both the ITC and CAFC being appealed here. It is possible the IEEPA authorizes POTUS some limited tariff power, but there is no way it authorizes the sweeping tariff power Trump has assumed
This post was edited on 11/7/25 at 10:09 pm
Posted on 11/8/25 at 1:18 am to SDVTiger
quote:
So if this gets struck down do they clowns expect the funds to be returned?
Or you just have Congress pass this the legal way like it should have been done in the first place
Posted on 11/8/25 at 1:36 am to Breesus
quote:
Trump should disband the IRS and every single federal agency not mandated by law by Congress tomorrow
The regulative state is massive. It’s also mostly 100% necessary. You can watch a legal compliance law class on YouTube. It will explain a lot.
Posted on 11/8/25 at 6:36 am to jeff5891
quote:
Or you just have Congress pass this the legal way like it should have been done in the first place
If the current tariffs get stricken. I don't think they can be saved by Congressional action or by POTUS relying on a different statute.
I could be wrong on this, but the way I see it is if the current tariffs are illegal, then the no longer have any effect, and money has to be returned. New tariffs can be imposed, and those tariffs may be identical to the current tariffs, but they can't be used to retroactively legitimize the old tariffs.
But most importers would just apply for a credit on future tariffs rather than a refund.
Posted on 11/8/25 at 6:48 am to lepdagod
quote:
The rules the rules… they apply when their enforced…
quote:
they are about to be enforced
I’m cool with that if we do that for everything.
Posted on 11/8/25 at 6:49 am to jeff5891
quote:
Or you just have Congress pass this the legal way like it should have been done in the first place
The funds would still have to be returned and then we start over from square one
Posted on 11/8/25 at 6:57 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Well, fortunately that bit is not true
The funds would still have to be returned
Posted on 11/8/25 at 6:58 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Well, fortunately that bit is not true
If the tariffs are ruled improper, the whole scheme has to unwind. The government doesn't get to keep property it seizes via illegal acts.
Posted on 11/8/25 at 7:01 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:There are six ways to Sunday unwinding could be avoided. You know that. Hell, one of the methods was even part of the plaintiffs arguments.
If the tariffs are ruled improper, the whole scheme has to unwind. The government doesn't get to keep property it seizes via illegal acts.
Posted on 11/8/25 at 7:09 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
There are six ways to Sunday unwinding could be avoided.
If they lose the case, that scheme is over.
quote:
Hell, one of the methods was even part of the plaintiffs arguments.
The government would have to enact new tariffs with these laws and start over
Posted on 11/8/25 at 7:36 am to the808bass
quote:
would that also make the rulings of government bureaucrats that increase the cost of items also explicitly enacting taxes?
Only if the government is collecting money from those decisions.
Posted on 11/8/25 at 7:43 am to Chancellor
quote:
Robert’s insist that tariffs are a tax on the American people, and a tax needs to come From Congress
Roberts is correct.
No it’s not. “Tax” is a defined term.
A tariff is a charge imposed on a foreign country for imported goods. It may increase the price of those goods but it’s not a “tax”.
Posted on 11/8/25 at 7:56 am to the808bass
quote:
Something that just struck me today, if tariffs are not just de facto taxes. But are, by ruling of SCOTUS, explicitly taxes, would that also make the rulings of government bureaucrats that increase the cost of items also explicitly enacting taxes?
Just think of all of the agency regulations that have caused price increases and by default tax increases. Possibly hundreds of thousands. Will they all be struck down?
Page 28 of 29
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News