re: Things Aren't Looking Great For Trump In Supreme Court Tariff Arguments

quote:

---

I've already explained this to you multiple times

---

quote:

---

The term youre looking for is "heavily subsidizes."

---

No, OWN. It is a yes or no question. It completely obliterates your idiotic false equivocation. Do you know what country TSMC is headquartered? IT'S NOT EVEN AMERICAN

quote:

---

Trumps having the US buy stock in Intel is socialist

---

You are dense. We've already covered this. That is a different topic than the tariffs genius. OMG

quote:

---

How can he impose the tariffs he is imposing...Constitutionally?

---

Ask SCOTUS

quote:

---

What does that have to do with tariffs???? NOTHING

---

Both are parts of his comprehensive collectivist/redistribution strategy.

quote:

---

You appear to be confused about what the argument was about today. It was not if tariffs are affective economic policy. The dispute was about if the executive branch can use IEEPA to unilaterally set tariffs on imports from over 100 countries.

I listened to the arguments off and on through the morning and it seems pretty clear that a majority of the justices think Trump's actions were unconstitutional.

I think we can all agree that the President, regardless of his party, should not get a pass when he issues orders that are clearly unconstitutional.

---

I might be overly pedantic here - but the Administration is not arguing that the President has the Constitutional power to set tariffs. The Administration admits it does not have that power. So why are you and others saying the tariffs are "unconstitutional"? The issue is whether Congress gave the power to tariff to the Executive in certain situations and whether those situations exist.

it is a question of statutory interpretation - not a question of Constitutional law.

Or am I missing something?

I always ask tough questions. Why wouldn’t the scotus?

Section 301 was designed to eliminate unfair foreign trade practices that adversely affect U.S. trade and investment in both goods and services. Under Section 301, the President must determine whether the alleged practices are unjustifiable, unreasonable, or discriminatory and burden or restrict U.S. commerce. If the President determines that action is necessary, the law directs that all appropriate and feasible action within the President's power should be taken to secure the elimination of the practice.

Congress has already given the president the authority. Others can be invoked as well.

Similar to Section 232, tariffs enacted through Section 301 investigations have previously received judicial backing. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in September upheld Trump’s use of Section 301 to impose tariffs during his first term.

Given such precedent for Section 232 and Section 301, there is reason to believe the Trump administration will be even more aggressive in pursuing such avenues for new tariffs.

“I think initially I would expect to see more heavy reliance on Section 232 and 301,” said Kelsey Christensen, an international trade attorney at Clark Hill.

supply chain dive

Trump has already won.

quote:

---

The administration has argued that the president’s utilization of IEEPA to impose tariffs is justified due to national emergencies Trump has declared related to trade deficits and fentanyl trafficking.

---