- 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 11:02 am to IMSA_Fan
Posted on 11/9/25 at 11:02 am to IMSA_Fan
quote:
That makes zero sense. If you clearly lose in court, the ruling should hold until a victory at the next level of appeals - especially when it is doing significant damage to the plaintiffs
I have made the argument that the impacts of reversing this Trump tariff is probably going to lead to re-examining the injunction issue/ruling.
quote:
Also, wouldn’t this mute the point that repatriation of the tariff funds would be an issue as the SCOTUS allowed the collections to continue (meaning they weren’t worried about that point initially)?
Two completely separate things.
You have to compartmentalize these different rulings.
1
Posted on 11/9/25 at 11:05 am to SlowFlowPro
Apologies - which two rulings?
Also why was IEEPA allowed to remain in place when a major piece of the legislation (congressional veto which allowed checks and balances) was ruled unconstitutional in 1983?
Also why was IEEPA allowed to remain in place when a major piece of the legislation (congressional veto which allowed checks and balances) was ruled unconstitutional in 1983?
This post was edited on 11/9/25 at 11:07 am
Posted on 11/9/25 at 11:13 am to IMSA_Fan
quote:
Apologies - which two rulings?
The prior USSC ruling on nationwide injunctions and the one about the IEEPA
You can't infer that their ruling about injunctions (which permitted the collection of the tariffs) somehow indicates how they will rule on the IEEPA case.
quote:
Also why was IEEPA allowed to remain in place when a major piece of the legislation (congressional veto which allowed checks and balances) was ruled unconstitutional in 1983?
Severability.
If a portion of a law is bad, but the law can otherwise remain, then only the offending portion is ruled void
Posted on 11/9/25 at 11:21 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The prior USSC ruling on nationwide injunctions and the one about the IEEPA You can't infer that their ruling about injunctions (which permitted the collection of the tariffs) somehow indicates how they will rule on the IEEPA case.
So hypothetically, under this injunction ruling, if the Trump administration decided to take $1 trillion in tariff revenue and send checks to Americans, and then a taxpayer or deficit watchdog group sued, arguing it was unconstitutional — the administration could still issue the checks while the case worked its way through the courts, and if the Supreme Court later ruled against them, everyone would theoretically have to return the money?
Posted on 11/9/25 at 11:22 am to IMSA_Fan
quote:
if the Trump administration decided to take $1 trillion in tariff revenue and send checks to Americans, and then a taxpayer or deficit watchdog group sued, arguing it was unconstitutional — the administration could still issue the checks while the case worked its way through the courts, and if the Supreme Court later ruled against them, everyone would theoretically have to return the money?
Yes
Which is why you don't act so irrationally confident and aggressive, testing novel applications of statutes, with these potential costs.
Posted on 11/9/25 at 11:25 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Which is why you don't act so irrationally confident and aggressive, testing novel applications of statutes, with these potential costs.
How likely is this legal logic going impact the decisions made by the current administration?
This post was edited on 11/9/25 at 11:27 am
Posted on 11/9/25 at 11:26 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
Is this ruling coming soon or are we waiting until next summer? I would think and hope it is imminent.
Posted on 11/9/25 at 11:27 am to Vandergriff
quote:
Is this ruling coming soon or are we waiting until next summer? I would think and hope it is imminent.
I feel like current justices have to know how they are going to rule. I don’t know what is going to change at this point
Posted on 11/9/25 at 11:29 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
Wonder why no other lawsuits were filed against any other Presidents when tariffs were imposed.
Weird, right?
Weird, right?
Posted on 11/9/25 at 11:35 am to CDawson
quote:
Wonder why no other lawsuits were filed against any other Presidents when tariffs were imposed.
Weird, right?
Who is the last guy to use the IEPPA to place tariffs?
Posted on 11/9/25 at 11:36 am to CDawson
quote:
Wonder why no other lawsuits were filed against any other Presidents when tariffs were imposed.
Weird, right?
Not weird at all when you look at the laws those Presidents relied upon. Trump's admin had plenty of other options to enact tariffs without these potential legal issues.
No President has ever used the IEEPA to enact tariffs. You act in a novel manner outside a strict reading of the textual authority and courts are going to have to examine that behavior to ensure its legality. That's the problem with engaging in such aggression and cleverness.
Posted on 11/9/25 at 11:36 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
Congress has the power of the purse. They and they alone have the power to tax. A tariff is a tax. It’s not that hard to understand. If he wants to embargo trade with the whole world, he has the power, but it’s his political funeral. He does not have the power to tax though.
Posted on 11/9/25 at 11:37 am to IMSA_Fan
quote:
How likely is this legal logic going impact the decisions made by the current administration?
It is similar to the problems with undoing the tariffs: it likely won't affect things at all, if I understand your question properly.
Posted on 11/9/25 at 11:37 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
How about he put pressure on the damn Congress to actually pass his shite?
Posted on 11/9/25 at 11:39 am to CDawson
quote:
Wonder why no other lawsuits were filed against any other Presidents when tariffs were imposed.
Probably because none were as comprehensive as this trade war.
Its hard to claim "abuse" when you are the abuser.
The courts did check Bidens student loans, every single time.
Posted on 11/9/25 at 11:44 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
No President has ever used the IEEPA to enact tariffs
I still dont see any need for it to be used in this case.
Trump is overselling our "abuse" at the hands of Chinese and a hundred other countries.
Posted on 11/9/25 at 11:45 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
I still dont see any need for it to be used in this case.
There wasn't. His admin had multiple other statutes to rely upon
I read they chose the IEEPA because it has lower oversight and reporting requirements, but that may not be true
Posted on 11/9/25 at 11:49 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
He is 100000% correct
Posted on 11/9/25 at 11:50 am to Double Oh
quote:
He is 100000% correct
One man cannot control the economy, like he is trying to do.
If Biden were still in office, you too would agree.
Posted on 11/9/25 at 12:01 pm to RogerTheShrubber
If the Supreme Court uphold this the next Dem is going to have a field day using it to totally reshape our economy into a “green economy” via a Climate Change State of Emergency.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News