- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
1
Posted on 2/20/26 at 1:43 pm to MemphisGuy
quote:
Well, everyone except for SFP, that is.
The majority opinion is basically what I argued on this board months ago
Posted on 2/20/26 at 1:43 pm to Ag Zwin
quote:
Neither of these are tariffs, counselor.
I just took Thomas’s first two examples, but there’s plenty more. And I would argue a “penalty” of $1,000 falls under the umbrella of taxation.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 1:43 pm to geauxEdO
quote:
The entire basis of Robert’s opinion is that the word “regulate” does not include levying tariffs because only Congress has the power to levy taxes. This is an extremely flimsy argument for two reasons.
A highlight of the Roberts court is just making things up as he goes along.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 1:44 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
A highlight of the Roberts court is just making things up as he goes along.
The irony of this statement is impressive.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 1:46 pm to geauxEdO
Nah, they're 100% right about it. Allowing use of emergency powers to enact a tax means one day somebody like AOC might be able to do the same thing. The Supreme Court ain't there to allow Trump or any other president to do whatever they want.
I want whoever is president to have less power, not more.
I want whoever is president to have less power, not more.
This post was edited on 2/20/26 at 2:01 pm
Posted on 2/20/26 at 1:52 pm to geauxEdO
This is how Roberts rolls. Just look at the Obamacare decision. He is result oriented. Deep State as they come.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 1:54 pm to Brosef Stalin
SCJ once ruled that women killing babies was covered under constitutional laws. They are sometimes bias, three of 4 women in SC have questionable knowledge of anything constitutional
Posted on 2/20/26 at 1:54 pm to geauxEdO
Tariffs are taxes.
Obamacare was/is a tax.
Supreme Court is 1-2.
Obamacare was/is a tax.
Supreme Court is 1-2.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 1:56 pm to Loup
quote:
Nah, they're 100% right about it. Allowing use of emergency powers to enact a tax means one day somebody like AOC might be able to do the same thing. The Supreme Court ain't there to allow Trump or any other president to do whatever they want.
change the law then. Congress gave the President extremely broad powers thru the IEEPA.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 2:18 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
this idea that only Congress can levy tariffs because the Constitution says so, ignores the common practice of delegating certain legislative powers to the Executive branch.
quote:
That power is only delegated via....statute.
quote:
The Founders understood this and established the precedence when it comes to international commerce.
quote:
By passing...statutes.
Statutes, you say. Isn't that exactly what the Congress did, in the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934 (RTAA), The Trade Expansion Act of 1962, and the The Trade Act of 1974? In fact, as far as I can tell Congress hasn't been in charge of Tariffs since 1934. They delegated that authority to the president by passing....statutes. Why are you acting like Congress has been in charge of tariffs all along?
This post was edited on 2/20/26 at 2:20 pm
Posted on 2/20/26 at 2:20 pm to geauxEdO
Tariffs are a part of foreign policy. Only the Executive Branch has authority to exercise decisions regarding foreign policy. The court has no standing or authority to even opine.
SCOTUS just exposed itself as another bunch of activist hacks.
SCOTUS just exposed itself as another bunch of activist hacks.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 2:22 pm to Indefatigable
quote:It's almost like... they wanted to lose.
Such a pointless exercise this was.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 2:24 pm to geauxEdO
quote:
And I would argue a “penalty” of $1,000 falls under the umbrella of taxation.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 2:25 pm to geauxEdO
Posted on 2/20/26 at 2:54 pm to Friscodog
Congress is ate up with keeping their jobs first and foremost. Legislating would cut into valuable fundraising time.....and they need money in their SuperPacs.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 3:01 pm to geauxEdO
quote:
And I would argue a “penalty” of $1,000 falls under the umbrella of taxation.
You can argue all you want.
Not all government revenue is “taxation”.
If the EPA fines you for emissions violations, is that a tax?
If so, is a speeding ticket?
Posted on 2/20/26 at 3:15 pm to Ag Zwin
Fine, Don't Tariff it.
Create licensing for the right to trade. Each license is paid monthly and is based on your country of origin's balance of trade with the US.
See? Regulation instead of a tariff.
It is impressive however the level of knuckling under that not only Roberts but also those on this board have over this ruling. It's asinine on its face.
Simply ask, "Why does the IEEPA even exist?"
or if that's too hard...
"Who created it?" and "does it delegate powers from the Congress to the President?"
This court could have just said, hey, these circumstances don't rise to the level of emergency to have the president make these tariffs active.
Nope, instead they essentially said that the IEEPA doesn't give the president the power to employ tariffs.
So think about what that means, if a country flies another plane into a building in New York, the IEEPA can't be used to increase tariffs. the president can cut off a country completely. But not a tariff.
It boggles the mind how they got this decision. It's like Brown wrote it.
Create licensing for the right to trade. Each license is paid monthly and is based on your country of origin's balance of trade with the US.
See? Regulation instead of a tariff.
It is impressive however the level of knuckling under that not only Roberts but also those on this board have over this ruling. It's asinine on its face.
Simply ask, "Why does the IEEPA even exist?"
or if that's too hard...
"Who created it?" and "does it delegate powers from the Congress to the President?"
This court could have just said, hey, these circumstances don't rise to the level of emergency to have the president make these tariffs active.
Nope, instead they essentially said that the IEEPA doesn't give the president the power to employ tariffs.
So think about what that means, if a country flies another plane into a building in New York, the IEEPA can't be used to increase tariffs. the president can cut off a country completely. But not a tariff.
It boggles the mind how they got this decision. It's like Brown wrote it.
This post was edited on 2/20/26 at 3:17 pm
Posted on 2/20/26 at 3:23 pm to extremetigerfanatic
quote:
So think about what that means, if a country flies another plane into a building in New York, the IEEPA can't be used to increase tariffs. the president can cut off a country completely. But not a tariff.
What does the law actually say?
Posted on 2/20/26 at 4:17 pm to Brosef Stalin
quote:
I think its safe to assume the Supreme Court justices have a better understanding of Constitutional law than anyone on the poliboard
ACB proudly displaying her law degree
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News