LawTalkingGuy

We are going to wind up.paying them. Then the question will be whether we could have just paid them up front and avoided the lives, money, political goodwill and economic stability thrown away by attacking them in the first place?

And yet, Trump's legal team still had mot produced a single shred of evidence to support these "FACTS" that were alleged to the Georgia senate.

Im not sure why "The SCIF" decided to post this video today, other than the primary election going on, but none of these "FACTS" were ever supported.

By the time Trump called Raffensperger I late December, they had lowered the "dead voter" claim to 5,000, but couldn't even support that. There were 4 dead voters who mailed in ballots, and 3 of them voted for Trump.

Im not saying the Georgia election in 2020 was legit, but why revisit these farcical claims that resulted in at least two attorneys getting disbarred? Maybe spend time finding the real fraud.

I agree, the filibuster should go.

The filibuster is currently preventing Congress from doing its job. This is then used to excuse POTUS (not just Trump, any POTUS) for going around Congress and grabbing more power for themselves.

Congress is the voice of the people, and the states, and should be rhe governing body making the decisions.

quote:

---

until something is done - they will not course correct.

---

Okay, but having the IRS is not going to cause a "course correction". Its not their money. Taking money out of the IRS budget will just make the IRS a crappier place to work.

Accountability comes from firing people, and prosecuting anyone who committed a crime. Not by settling a lawsuit with POTUS.

quote:

---

Any time I get in a rental, I have tk figure all the dash board out.

---

And you probably dont try to figure it out until you are already on the freeway, driving 75 mph.

quote:

---

The argument was that since Trump was ruled by the Supremes not to be able to use an emergency act as a reason to assign tariffs, then he couldnt switch those tariffs to any other act either

---

The argument in this case is that we do not have a large "balance of payments" deficit with other countries that enables POTUS to impose tarrifs under section 122(a) of the Trade Act. The whole opinion hinges on what Congress meant by "balance of payments deficits" when the act was passed in the 70s.

I have no guess how the Federal Circuit will rule. The majority and dissenting opinions in the CIT both made good points.

quote:

---

How do you argue that the Supremes said that Trump couldnt use an emergency power to tariff, therefore he cant use tariff laws in any way

What a joke

---

Thats not what the CIT ruling is based on. The article says the plaintiffs made the argument, but I doubt it. You can always count on reporters to get facts wrong about legal proceedings.

This case is pretty complicated, and really only understood by accountants and economists with experience in International trade and currency exchange rates...Im certainly not one of those. Im just an attorney.

Section 122(a) authorizes POTUS to enact tariffs up to 15% to address "balance of payment" deficits. This is completely different from trade deficits. The statute was written after the US went off the Gold standard and the Bretton Woods International trade agreement was being replaced by the Smithsonian agreement.

With variable exchange rates now in play, the CIT seems to agree that its impossible for balance of payment deficits to exist, so section 122(a) has no real meaning and the tariffs are not authorized

Im not picking a side in this one, because its above my pay grade.

The tariffs were set to expire in July, anyway. Trump.just needs to move on to section 301. The required USTR investigations are underway...the public comment period should be interesting.

quote:

---

They come under lawful jurisdiction upon arrest.

---

So the pregnant women need to get themselves arrested and THEN their babies will be citizens?

quote:

---

Dude. I appreciate your ability to be consistent and speak your mind in good faith. However, you are just incorrect here. Last time Congress declared war was June 1942.

---

He is technically wrong, and you are right, but Congress did authorize the use of military force in Iraq both times...they were just too chicken to actually declare war.

I suppose Trump would claim the current action in Iraq falls under the AUMF of 2001, although I dont think Ive seen that expressly stated. That authorization, of course, was limited to "those nations, organiza-
tions, or persons [POTUS] determines planned, authorized, committed, OR aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons"

I dont know what role Iraq played in the 9/11 attacks, or why attacking them almost 25 years later is justified under the AUMF, but the statute has no time or location limits, and has been used by 4 Presidents as an excuse to attack anyone they want.

The continued reliance on the AUMF is probably unconstitutional, but I dont know how anyone other than Congress could put a stop to it...and even Congress would need a majority capable of over riding a Presidential veto.

quote:

---

In the weeks since the Court’s February 20, 2026 decision, a wave of class action lawsuits has swept across multiple industries, targeting major retailers and consumer goods companies seeking refunds.

---

LULz, again. This simply illustrates why the importers MUST seek their refunds, despite your espoused shock. They already have class action suits against them, so they better get the money lined up Since they are entitled to refunds, they cannot escape this potential liability simply by refusing to ask for their money back from the government.

Lets say you bought a massive piece of equipment from an importer, and the tarrif was over $10,000. And let's say your contract made it clear that you were reimbursing the importer for the tariff in addition to your other costs....

That importer better be working to get a refund on the tariff so they can reimburse you. If they are not, they may wind up owing you $10,000 anyway. If they apply for the refunds and for some reason they cant get the money back, then maybe they can avoid liability to you.

These consumer class action suits are similar. I think they are premature at this point, and depending on the facts may have bad legal grounds....but the retailers better make sure they get whatever refund they can just in case.