Trump tariffs: ruin U.S. economy until 2040

[Anonymous]

McConnell and Tillis are retiring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wow. Color me surprised.
Is that it then? Are they taking votes on all the other tariffs?

I think this is a vote on all the other tariffs.

Still suspicious that this is like one of the Susan Collins votes. Where the one or two of the vulnerable GOP senators are permitted to vote with the Dems because it won’t make any difference and Trump will just just override it.

I don't think this can be overridden. It takes effect automatically if the House and Senate vote for it.

[Anonymous]

They are not passing a law, they are asserting the Congress's constitutional ability to levy taxes and tariffs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They are not passing a law, they are asserting the Congress's constitutional ability to levy taxes and tariffs.

This.
Big day today for the United States. SCOTUS will hear Trump’s tariff case. Observers expect Trump to win but you have to wonder how yesterday’s drubbing of the GOP will affect the Roberts court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are not passing a law, they are asserting the Congress's constitutional ability to levy taxes and tariffs.

This.
Big day today for the United States. SCOTUS will hear Trump’s tariff case. Observers expect Trump to win but you have to wonder how yesterday’s drubbing of the GOP will affect the Roberts court.

Not even the WSJ believes this or reports this.

"Prediction markets anticipate the Supreme Court will most likely reject Trump's arguments. On Polymarket, bettors assessed the president's chances of victory at 39% early Wednesday. S&P 500 and Nasdaq-100 futures slipped ahead of the hearing, after markets stumbled Tuesday.""

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/supreme-court-tariffs-case-stock-market-11-05-2025?mod=hp_lead_pos2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are not passing a law, they are asserting the Congress's constitutional ability to levy taxes and tariffs.

This.
Big day today for the United States. SCOTUS will hear Trump’s tariff case. Observers expect Trump to win but you have to wonder how yesterday’s drubbing of the GOP will affect the Roberts court.

Not even the WSJ believes this or reports this.

"Prediction markets anticipate the Supreme Court will most likely reject Trump's arguments. On Polymarket, bettors assessed the president's chances of victory at 39% early Wednesday. S&P 500 and Nasdaq-100 futures slipped ahead of the hearing, after markets stumbled Tuesday.""

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/supreme-court-tariffs-case-stock-market-11-05-2025?mod=hp_lead_pos2

This is what the WSJ may be hoping but most observers have argued that
SCOTUS will give deference to POTUS foreign policy privileges. Those were before yesterday though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are not passing a law, they are asserting the Congress's constitutional ability to levy taxes and tariffs.

This.
Big day today for the United States. SCOTUS will hear Trump’s tariff case. Observers expect Trump to win but you have to wonder how yesterday’s drubbing of the GOP will affect the Roberts court.

Not even the WSJ believes this or reports this.

"Prediction markets anticipate the Supreme Court will most likely reject Trump's arguments. On Polymarket, bettors assessed the president's chances of victory at 39% early Wednesday. S&P 500 and Nasdaq-100 futures slipped ahead of the hearing, after markets stumbled Tuesday.""

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/supreme-court-tariffs-case-stock-market-11-05-2025?mod=hp_lead_pos2

This is what the WSJ may be hoping but most observers have argued that
SCOTUS will give deference to POTUS foreign policy privileges. Those were before yesterday though.

Please cite to those "most" observers. And not just one cite. Show support for your claim that a majority of Supreme Court analysts believe that the Court will uphold these tariffs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are not passing a law, they are asserting the Congress's constitutional ability to levy taxes and tariffs.

This.
Big day today for the United States. SCOTUS will hear Trump’s tariff case. Observers expect Trump to win but you have to wonder how yesterday’s drubbing of the GOP will affect the Roberts court.

Not even the WSJ believes this or reports this.

"Prediction markets anticipate the Supreme Court will most likely reject Trump's arguments. On Polymarket, bettors assessed the president's chances of victory at 39% early Wednesday. S&P 500 and Nasdaq-100 futures slipped ahead of the hearing, after markets stumbled Tuesday.""

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/supreme-court-tariffs-case-stock-market-11-05-2025?mod=hp_lead_pos2

+1 the SC has deferred a lot in its emergency rulings to Trump. But they haven’t had to explain themselves in those and they are relying heavily on the idea of a unitary executive.

This is far more fundamentally about who has the power to tariff. That constitutional power clearly resides with Congress and the other animating idea of this conservative court is the “nondelegation doctrine”. To oversimplify the idea that Congress cannot delegate its constitutional prerogatives to the executive.

Upholding the admin’s claims would upend the separation of powers on an unambiguous reading of both the constitution and IEEPA. It would be a betrayal of the principles these conservative justices claim to hold if they rule in favor of the admin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are not passing a law, they are asserting the Congress's constitutional ability to levy taxes and tariffs.

This.
Big day today for the United States. SCOTUS will hear Trump’s tariff case. Observers expect Trump to win but you have to wonder how yesterday’s drubbing of the GOP will affect the Roberts court.

Not even the WSJ believes this or reports this.

"Prediction markets anticipate the Supreme Court will most likely reject Trump's arguments. On Polymarket, bettors assessed the president's chances of victory at 39% early Wednesday. S&P 500 and Nasdaq-100 futures slipped ahead of the hearing, after markets stumbled Tuesday.""

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/supreme-court-tariffs-case-stock-market-11-05-2025?mod=hp_lead_pos2

+1 the SC has deferred a lot in its emergency rulings to Trump. But they haven’t had to explain themselves in those and they are relying heavily on the idea of a unitary executive.

This is far more fundamentally about who has the power to tariff. That constitutional power clearly resides with Congress and the other animating idea of this conservative court is the “nondelegation doctrine”. To oversimplify the idea that Congress cannot delegate its constitutional prerogatives to the executive.

Upholding the admin’s claims would upend the separation of powers on an unambiguous reading of both the constitution and IEEPA. It would be a betrayal of the principles these conservative justices claim to hold if they rule in favor of the admin.

In other words, if they rule in favor of admin on this issue, there is almost nothing they will rule against. It would fundamentally shift the power between legislative branch and executive branch.

[Anonymous]

Which is why, on the other side of this, whether in a year or ten or a hundred, we probably need a new constitution. Because the corrupted SCOTUS ha basically trashed this one.

[Anonymous]

If the court watchers hearing the case are accurate, Trump's tariffs are not going to survive the Supreme Court.

if that happens, litigants are lining up for refunds and there isn't tax revenue to fill the gap, meaning the debt will explode even more than it had already.

"fiscal restraint" right GOP?

[Anonymous]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/11/05/business/economy/trump-tariffs-us-imports.html

NY Times crunched 4.6GB of trade data to find out how much of U.S. imports are getting tariffed (quite a bit)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are not passing a law, they are asserting the Congress's constitutional ability to levy taxes and tariffs.

This.
Big day today for the United States. SCOTUS will hear Trump’s tariff case. Observers expect Trump to win but you have to wonder how yesterday’s drubbing of the GOP will affect the Roberts court.

Not even the WSJ believes this or reports this.

"Prediction markets anticipate the Supreme Court will most likely reject Trump's arguments. On Polymarket, bettors assessed the president's chances of victory at 39% early Wednesday. S&P 500 and Nasdaq-100 futures slipped ahead of the hearing, after markets stumbled Tuesday.""

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/supreme-court-tariffs-case-stock-market-11-05-2025?mod=hp_lead_pos2

This is what the WSJ may be hoping but most observers have argued that
SCOTUS will give deference to POTUS foreign policy privileges. Those were before yesterday though.

No idea where you get your news. Everything I have seen shows 50/50 best case and more like 65 percent chance that Trump takes the L. Additionally, why would yesterday’s elections influence a SCOTUS that is appointed for life and technically[b] not political?

[Anonymous]

Where is the evidence of the ruined US economy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
This is far more fundamentally about who has the power to tariff. That constitutional power clearly resides with Congress and the other animating idea of this conservative court is the “nondelegation doctrine”. To oversimplify the idea that Congress cannot delegate its constitutional prerogatives to the executive.

Upholding the admin’s claims would upend the separation of powers on an unambiguous reading of both the constitution and IEEPA. It would be a betrayal of the principles these conservative justices claim to hold if they rule in favor of the admin.

The alternative is that the law allows for suspension of trade entirely, at the discretion of the President. Trump is arguing that tariffs are a lesser power than total suspension.