Started By
Message

re: SCOTUS Tariff Ruling is in: 6-3 against tariffs.

Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:25 am to
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
476097 posts
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:25 am to
The funniest part about that is when the same people were calling me an idiot divorce lawyer for saying the admin's argument made no sense, I specifically brought up how statutory interpretation is important and it prevented actual DEM attempts to supersede Congressional authority in 2 examples we all hated (vax mandate, student loan forgiveness).
Posted by GoblinGuide
Member since Nov 2017
2101 posts
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:29 am to
quote:

This country is finished

The globalists won


Finished because he went around Congressional authority and stretched a 45 year old law too far? I'm pretty sure the country is tougher than that.
Posted by hawgfaninc
https://youtu.be/torc9P4-k5A
Member since Nov 2011
63323 posts
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:30 am to
Posted by BarnHater
Member since May 2015
8778 posts
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:30 am to
I hope Trump burns it all down.
Posted by No Colors
Sandbar
Member since Sep 2010
13284 posts
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:31 am to
quote:

Why can't he use Congress,


Because congress gave that power to the executive long ago.

Link?
Posted by PurpleCrush
ATL
Member since May 2014
2430 posts
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:33 am to
Now Americans get a tax cut
Posted by tiggerfan02 2021
HSV
Member since Jan 2021
4151 posts
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:35 am to
Not surprised at all with Roberts and Barrett siding with the globalists, but Gorsuch shocks me.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
476097 posts
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:37 am to
quote:

, but Gorsuch shocks me.


If you understood his stance on statutory interpretation, it shouldn't.

The shocking vote was Kav, honestly, but he's typically a proponent of bigger government (with GOP admins at least). I'm curious where he'd have come down if he was the deciding vote.
Posted by MikkUGA
Destin
Member since Jun 2014
2946 posts
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:42 am to
We are not paying the tariffs. When they tell you we are paying the tariffs it means that the overseas company pays the tariff then they raise the price of their product to cover the tariff. If you are not buying the foreign product then you are not paying the tariff.
Posted by Pax Regis
Alabama
Member since Sep 2007
15255 posts
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:44 am to
Damn.

Are refunds owed because if so holy shite.
Posted by RollTide4547
Member since Dec 2024
4577 posts
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:50 am to
quote:

You have no idea what anybody here has or hasn't accomplished, and it's irrelevant to the question anyway.
The ONLY reason for you cocksuckers to be here bloviating like you do is that you're over compensating for the lack of accomplishments in your life. Same with all those guys in high school bragging about all the pooooosie they were getting. None of them were getting any.
Posted by dafif
Member since Jan 2019
8399 posts
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:55 am to
quote:

There are statutes the admin could clearly use. T


I have not read the opinion but an appellate court is required to see if there is a way to uphold the action that was taken so they certainly could've described all of the available options to support Tariffs and there are many

As a specific example of the appellate court responsibility go see Roberts opinion on Obama care where he found it a tax despite the government specifically saying it is not. And it is nowhere mentioned as a tax

This is a disappointing decision but will not change the application of tariffs
This post was edited on 2/20/26 at 11:57 am
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
476097 posts
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:57 am to
quote:

but an appellate court is required to see if there is a way to uphold the action that was taken so they certainly could've described all of the available options to support Tariffs and there are many

The USSC can't go back and change enaction of tariffs to be under a different law entirely.

quote:

As a specific example of the appellate court responsibility go see Roberts opinion on Obama care where he found it a tax despite the government specifically saying it is not. And it is nowhere mentioned as a tax

that's not applicable and never went outside the language of the ACA
Posted by DawgCountry
Great State of GA
Member since Sep 2012
33256 posts
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:57 am to
bless your heart
Posted by dafif
Member since Jan 2019
8399 posts
Posted on 2/20/26 at 12:04 pm to
quote:

that's not applicable and never went outside the language of the ACA


That is simply not true.

Posted by nola tiger lsu
Member since Nov 2007
7352 posts
Posted on 2/20/26 at 12:06 pm to
When people say "globalists", easy to know their IQ is low.
Posted by Timeoday
Easter Island
Member since Aug 2020
22617 posts
Posted on 2/20/26 at 12:11 pm to
quote:

Well yeah.


Now we have SCOTUS deciding what an emergency is. Before long, this decision will be applied to a POTUS and war.
Posted by Bham4Tide
In a Van down by the River
Member since Feb 2011
24684 posts
Posted on 2/20/26 at 12:15 pm to
I gotta tell ya, I see both sides of this.

I’m not surprised.
Posted by udtiger
Over your left shoulder
Member since Nov 2006
115143 posts
Posted on 2/20/26 at 12:51 pm to
quote:

I think eveeryone should read SCOTUS opinions for themselves. The disconnect with what some people say about opinions ("money is speech!") and what's actualyl in opinions is amazing.


Read the decision. It is a decidedly "small c" conservative ruling. Surprisingly brief majority opinion considering the significance of the ruling (Gorsuch's concurrence is much longer).

1) significant that the Court vacated the judgment of the USDC, finding that Court of International Trade had sole jurisdiction - could be useful in immigration cases going forward.

2) the fact that no other president had used IEEPA for tariffs like Trump did should be of no moment. The law either grants the authority, or it does not. Whether anyone has sought to exercise that authority is irrelevant.

3) the "emergency powers tend to kindle emergencies line" is dumb considering that REQUIREMENT of IEEPA is the declaration of a national emergency. Plus, the fact the majority doesn't address whether Trump's EOs declaring the national emergencies were valid is an admission that they lack the authority to speak to it which begs the question of how it can speak to the exercise of the emergency powers.

4) the short shrift given to the foreign policy autonomy of the executive is laughable (essentially, your argument is weak because we say it is - with nothing more)

5) I do like Gorsuch shitting on the liberal 3 for their suddenly constrained approach to executive authority in his concurrence. He smacks Barrett around as well. Actually agrees with the dissent in some aspects, but wouldn't go all the way. His concurrence should have been the majority opinion. Dude is sharp as frick.

6) Barrett was none too happy with Gorsuch's digs at her. Her concurrence was essentially a response to him.

7) Thomas' dissent is basically an endorsement of abrogating the nondelegation doctrine and the jurisprudence in support of it.

8) Kavabaugh's dissent is solid and nails the issue in the first paragraph "like quotas and embargo, tariffs are a traditional and common tool to regulate importation."

I figured this would be 5-4 to knock down the tariffs w/Gorsuch in the dissent (I have no faith in Roberts or Barrett any longer). Gorsuch was much closer to being in the fence that the other 2.
Posted by TenWheelsForJesus
Member since Jan 2018
11319 posts
Posted on 2/20/26 at 12:52 pm to
quote:

What anyone should have expected. They were almost certainly illegal under the particular statute he used.

However...he can just now use a different statute and start the clock again, most likely


I expected not to have a fricked up legal system that says the president has the authority to do something but only if he quotes the right statute.

If I get arrested and the cop quotes the wrong statute for the crime, does that mean he can't arrest me? No, of course not. So, why does this rule only apply to certain laws?

If the president has the authority, then he has the authority. Paperwork shouldn't matter. I know, common sense is way too much to expect from a society who values rules more than results.
Jump to page
Page First 19 20 21 22 23 ... 26
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 21 of 26Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram