Reply to Trump tariffs: ruin U.S. economy until 2040

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Trump tariffs: ruin U.S. economy until 2040"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]They are not passing a law, they are asserting the Congress's constitutional ability to levy taxes and tariffs.[/quote]

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

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[/quote]

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

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

NP. Which part of PP asking for you to back up your claim with citations is them “taking it very personally”?[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics