- 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 warns appeal court about ruling against tariffs
Posted on 8/8/25 at 12:05 pm to ChristisKing77
Posted on 8/8/25 at 12:05 pm to ChristisKing77
quote:That is so interesting.
Nope just looking at actions and inaction. He never changed only you did
When is the last time a lib pushed hard for tax cuts? State abortion rights? National Defense expansion? Anti-woke initiatives? etc.
1
Posted on 8/8/25 at 12:09 pm to ChristisKing77
quote:So you don't pay income tax. Good for you I guess.
It’s all for show not a single thing has changed.
Posted on 8/8/25 at 12:12 pm to ChristisKing77
quote:Brilliant
I get money back
Posted on 8/8/25 at 12:15 pm to The Maj
quote:
Ignore it and tell them to enforce their ruling...
FFS
It's like you think Trump will be in office forever.
Posted on 8/8/25 at 12:15 pm to ChristisKing77
quote:Explains a lot though.
Damn straight
For those of us who do pay most of the taxes, the 2017 tax package and OBBB was not for show.
This post was edited on 8/8/25 at 1:47 pm
Posted on 8/8/25 at 12:15 pm to AaronDeTiger
A couple of notes (not exhaustive):
1. The lower court ruling whence this appeal comes did not hold that the statue at issue prohibits the President from imposing any tariffs whatsoever (and, in fact, a related statute which is facially-silent on the issue of tariffs has been held to authorize the President to impose certain tariffs).
2. It seems a bit disingenuous to argue that in this particular instance the administration's use of tariffs steps on Congress's toes, because Congress always has the power, under the National Emergencies Act, to call off the "emergency" declared by the President.
3. I think (but stand to be corrected) that even a ruling adverse to the administration in this case would not prevent the administration from entering into deals with other countries.
1. The lower court ruling whence this appeal comes did not hold that the statue at issue prohibits the President from imposing any tariffs whatsoever (and, in fact, a related statute which is facially-silent on the issue of tariffs has been held to authorize the President to impose certain tariffs).
2. It seems a bit disingenuous to argue that in this particular instance the administration's use of tariffs steps on Congress's toes, because Congress always has the power, under the National Emergencies Act, to call off the "emergency" declared by the President.
3. I think (but stand to be corrected) that even a ruling adverse to the administration in this case would not prevent the administration from entering into deals with other countries.
This post was edited on 8/8/25 at 1:30 pm
Posted on 8/8/25 at 12:18 pm to ChristisKing77
quote:
Yeah I’ll take money they wanna give me back
You mean the money you overpaid in a de facto free loan for Uncle Sam to use for several months? As I said ... Brilliant
Posted on 8/8/25 at 12:18 pm to ChristisKing77
You appear to be a retard.
Posted on 8/8/25 at 12:21 pm to ChristisKing77
I wondered what happened to your tarded arse.
ChristisKing77 = 3DownSyndrome.
ChristisKing77 = 3DownSyndrome.
Posted on 8/8/25 at 12:46 pm to Zachary
quote:
A couple of notes (not exhaustive):
1. The lower court ruling whence this appeal comes did not hold that the statue at issue prohibits the President from imposing any tariffs whatsoever (and, in fact, a related statute which is facially-silent on the issue of tariffs has been held to authorize the President to impose certain tariffs).
2. I think (but stand to be corrected) that even a ruling adverse to the administration in this case would not prevent the administration from entering into deals with other countries.
That's good to know. Surely they've gamed this out.
Posted on 8/8/25 at 1:09 pm to ChristisKing77
quote:Says the troll who's overpaying them and happy about it.
everyone should refuse to send them another nickel
Posted on 8/8/25 at 1:30 pm to Pecos Pedro
quote:
And 99,8% chance this dude rapes his own children
Thanks for contributing to the adult conversation. I’m certain that is probably all you have to offer.
Posted on 8/8/25 at 1:39 pm to ChristisKing77
quote:The Fed is another issue
Just stop filing the fed is illegitimate
Posted on 8/8/25 at 1:45 pm to bigjoe1
The left would only succeed when we are all dirt poor— on the government’s teet.
Posted on 8/8/25 at 1:55 pm to BigJim
quote:
FFS
Continue to bend over a take it up the arse you fricking pussy
Posted on 8/8/25 at 2:20 pm to AaronDeTiger
I don’t understand why Congress didn’t codify the baseline tariffs in the BBB since the revenue is budgetary
Posted on 8/8/25 at 2:24 pm to deltaland
quote:
since the revenue is budgetary
I'm not sure that would do any good as all I have seen in budgetary hearing is stonewalling by the appointees.
Posted on 8/8/25 at 3:55 pm to Zachary
quote:
2. It seems a bit disingenuous to argue that in this particular instance the administration's use of tariffs steps on Congress's toes, because Congress always has the power, under the National Emergencies Act, to call off the "emergency" declared by the President.
Congress can call off an emergency, but only if it has a veto proof majority.
And this is not a question of "stepping on Cingress' toes", its a separation of powers issue. Congress is empowered to control foreign trade and set tariffs. It cannot, constitutionally, cede that power to POTUS. it can delegate power to POTUS, but only if it gives sufficient instruction on how to use that power so that congress remains in control.
All that said, though, I dont understand why House Republicans have not introduced a bill codifying Trump's tariffs, and giving him the authority to negotiate downwards. It would put the legal challenges to rest.
quote:
3. I think (but stand to be corrected) that even a ruling adverse to the administration in this case would not prevent the administration from entering into deals with other countries.
Trade deals are still subject to Congressional oversight, and ultimately need to be codified, or ratified if they are in the form of a treaty.
When Trump negotiated the USMCA, it was codified and signed into law in Jan. 2020.
This post was edited on 8/8/25 at 10:19 pm
Posted on 8/8/25 at 6:03 pm to bigjoe1
This case is going to go against the admin 11-0. The law, and the constitution, are pretty clear on this
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News