Trump tariffs: ruin U.S. economy until 2040
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
+1 Well put. Plus Roberts & Co. know tariffs are bad for the economy, so they may want to rein in Trump’s dumb impulses in order to save the economy from getting so bad that it sinks the GOP for years. |
Anonymous
Look, you seem to be taking this very personally. Trump’s tariffs seem to contravene the constitution. But so do a lot of his other actions which the Supreme Court has said are within his purview. The observers I’ve heard discuss have noted the fact that Trump has based them on a purported foreign policy emergency and that POTUS is given wide latitude on this. But here’s a recent written example. Economist: SCOTUSbot, The Economist’s AI tool to predict Supreme Court rulings, forecasts success for Mr Trump’s tariffs. In ten run-throughs (tapping into the three lower-court opinions, the administration’s opening brief and knowledge of each justice), the president wins nine times by margins of 5-4, 6-3 or 7-2. This more expansive reading of the IEEPA has bipartisan appeal: the Republican-appointed justices tend to defer to presidents, at least Republican ones, and two appointees of Barack Obama sided with Mr Trump at the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals—including Judge Richard Taranto, author of the dissent. Mr Trump’s tariffs on cars, copper and furniture (among other goods) are backed not by IEEPA but by Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. They are not at risk. |
Anonymous
“Give me what I want or the baby gets it” doesn’t sound persuasive to me. It might be within his power but it is not an argument to further expand his power and encroach on article I. |
Anonymous
NP. Which part of PP asking for you to back up your claim with citations is them “taking it very personally”? |
Anonymous
Anonymous
|
Assuming so much power could exist at the whims of a mad king never made sense in the first place. I mean Trump could currently say coffee is subjected to a 1000% tariff, with the result being no more coffee in the U.S. (insert whatever product you want). How does that make any sense? |
Anonymous
Tell me you haven’t read a newspaper or financial publication in the last 3 months without telling me. |
Anonymous
|
Johnson is warning SCOTUS to let Trump have his way. Never has there been such a wimpy Speaker. The Founding Fathers would be astonished. https://www.courthousenews.com/johnson-rips-conservative-justices-after-scotus-questions-trump-tariff-powers/ Johnson, however, waved away the justice’s concerns, arguing that while Congress had a “role to play” in setting tariffs, the Trump administration was “well within the bounds” of its authority. He credited the president with addressing the country’s trade deficit, which he said was “truly a crisis.” And the House speaker contended Trump had made it clear on the campaign trail that he would seek to impose sweeping tariffs if reelected. “It’s not some surprise,” Johnson said. “He’s fulfilling the promise that he was elected to fulfill, in a literal sense. I think the court has to give deference to that.” Johnson also pushed back on the idea that the Trump administration had trampled on congressional authority with its unilateral tariffs. The former constitutional lawyer repeated his oft-cited claim that he was a “jealous guardian” of congressional authority and pointed out that he would have gone to Trump himself if he believed the tariffs violated the Constitution’s separation of powers. “I would have gone to the president privately and said, ‘hey, sir, enough. I think you’ve overstepped the bounds,’” Johnson said. “But that conversation didn’t happen, because I believe what he’s done is within the balance.” He further argued it’s wrong to “read too much into” the justices’ questioning at oral arguments. He said the tough examination was part of the Supreme Court’s tradition of judicial review. “This is how the process works,” he said. “I’m sure the court will look at this very carefully and deliberately, and I expect a majority of the court will say this administration is doing what they have the legal authority to do.” |
Anonymous
|
I’d predict a 6-3 vote against the tariffs, with Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh dissenting. But I agree with Roman Martinez and Sarah Isgur from Advisory Opinions: a government win remains possible. If the government prevails, I think the vote will be 5-4, with Chief Justice Roberts joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. The dissenters would then be three liberal justices and Justice Gorsuch. |
Anonymous
"“He’s fulfilling the promise that he was elected to fulfill, in a literal sense. I think the court has to give deference to that.”" Why does the court have to give deference to that? And then he goes on to say that he's a constitutional lawyer. MAGA/Rs have no shame about saying things that make them look idiotic because they know their followers are dumb. |