- 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
re: Trump is not happy about SCOTUS and tariffs
Posted on 11/9/25 at 9:23 am to IvoryBillMatt
Posted on 11/9/25 at 9:23 am to IvoryBillMatt
Your understanding of basic policies that would improve the nation’s economy longterm is far more comical, TEMU VOR
2
Posted on 11/9/25 at 9:23 am to udtiger
quote:
Doubtful
If the tariffs are ruled illegal, then the taking was also illegal.
Why would the government get to keep money it seized illegally?
Posted on 11/9/25 at 9:24 am to SlowFlowPro
Because the Judiciary never considers basic common sense in its rulings, much like you
Posted on 11/9/25 at 9:27 am to udtiger
quote:
He's not wrong
He is though… he describing two different things… he believes the words “trade” and “tariff” are interchangeable or synonymous in the context of what he’s attempting to do
Posted on 11/9/25 at 9:28 am to Rip Torn
quote:
Because the Judiciary never considers basic common sense in its rulings, much like you
a. This isn't true. You're effectively arguing that if the government can create a policy/regulation/scheme so broad in scope, that even if it's illegal it has to remain in effect. frick all that.
b. You didn't answer the question. Do you support the government being able to keep property that it seized illegally? I don't. frick all that, too.
It's not a trick question or a framed question. It's the heart of the issue being discussed. If these tariffs are ruled illegal, then the seizure is also illegal (as the government has no authority from which to seize the property).
Posted on 11/9/25 at 9:34 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
Two Justices said to call it a license and it is a done deal. So Trump will enact an EO as they suggested, to rename tariff to license and all is fine.
But until then Trump wants all to know it is ridiculous.
But until then Trump wants all to know it is ridiculous.
Posted on 11/9/25 at 9:35 am to SlowFlowPro
I am not getting in a discussion with a fence post who argues in circles over issues that you never see flaws in
Posted on 11/9/25 at 9:35 am to Rip Torn
quote:
Your understanding of basic policies that would improve the nation’s economy longterm is far more comical, TEMU VOR
Why are you so ridiculously hostile to the rule of law?
I trust Trump about what policies would work. It's a tragedy that his Administration made this unforced error. It has the ring of a Stephen Miller too-clever attempt at a novel interpretation of the law.
If Trump had better lawyers...or asked any of a dozen of us on this Board...he wouldn't have stupidly tried to use IEEPA. Don't lash out at us, blame Trump's lawyers.
This post was edited on 11/9/25 at 9:54 am
Posted on 11/9/25 at 9:36 am to Rip Torn
quote:
I am not getting in a discussion with a fence post who argues in circles over issues that you never see flaws in
Posted on 11/9/25 at 9:37 am to IvoryBillMatt
If you are claiming to be a lawyer then your naive and ignorant opinions make even more sense Temu VOR
Posted on 11/9/25 at 9:38 am to Rip Torn
quote:
If you are claiming to be a lawyer then your naive and ignorant opinions make even more sense Temu VOR
I see that you've completely abandoned your stance and are at the "ad hom" phase of discourse.
Posted on 11/9/25 at 9:43 am to Rip Torn
quote:
Your understanding of basic policies that would improve the nation’s economy longterm is far more comical, TEMU VOR
Ivory is a tad more reasonable than VOR but it is a thinly veiled disguise of being SFP combined with VOR. Ivory posted an entire thread that Mamdani's winning speech was reasonable. When even the hacks of WaPo, CNN, MSNBC said it was far from reasonable.
Ivory isn't trolling-just like VOR, SFP is.
Posted on 11/9/25 at 9:43 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Why would the government get to keep money it seized illegally?
Multiple justices discussed other clearly legal avenues for collection. Hence, making them retroactive.
Posted on 11/9/25 at 9:43 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Why do you think the government should be able to keep money it seized illegally?
Im game. Since you say it is a "tax" on Americans, how would you ensure all 340 million got a refund proportionate to what they paid?
Posted on 11/9/25 at 9:44 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
If Trump wouldn't have been advised to lie and declare that ALL these tariffs are for national security he wouldn't be in this spot.
For instance how is our national security threatened with our trade surplus with Australia?
For instance how is our national security threatened with our trade surplus with Australia?
Posted on 11/9/25 at 9:45 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
They are saving you from yourself, Donny
Can’t wait to see your “hot take” on Dems attempt to add SC judges when back in power
Posted on 11/9/25 at 9:46 am to udtiger
quote:
Multiple justices discussed other clearly legal avenues for collection. Hence, making them retroactive.
How could that be retroactive?
Nobody disputes there were possible avenues for tariffs. In the scenario where the USSC rules this scenario illegal, why would the admin get to do it right and then get retroactivity back to a point where they acted illegally?
If the government indicts someone for the wrong crime, and the SOL runs, they can't go back and re-indict him for the right crime.
When Biden's SL forgiveness was ruled illegal, he had to go back and start over with possibly legal avenues. He didn't get to just have that $10k forgiven retroactively saying "oopsie"
Posted on 11/9/25 at 9:47 am to trinidadtiger
quote:
Since you say it is a "tax" on Americans, how would you ensure all 340 million got a refund proportionate to what they paid?
It's going to be a shite show for the admin to work this out and it will likely face countless litigations across the country/world about it.
Posted on 11/9/25 at 9:50 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
How could that be retroactive?
You're serious?
How many times have changes in tax law (good or ill) been applied retroactively?
It was legal, just not this way.
Okay, we'll do it this way and now it is (and was) legal.
Posted on 11/9/25 at 9:52 am to udtiger
quote:
How many times have changes in tax law (good or ill) been applied retroactively?
I don't know of any following courts ruling an action illegal.
You're citing legislative or regulatory action, not judicial action, I reckon, which is completely different.
quote:
It was legal, just not this way.
Which makes the entire scheme illegal.
quote:
Okay, we'll do it this way and now it is (and was) legal.
Which means you start from square one
Page 2 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News