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]It did not go well for Trump.  Even MAGA recognizes this.  And the best part was Gorsuch being very cautious about vesting more power in the presidency.

[twitter]https://x.com/BarronTNews_/status/1986127926492864929[/twitter][/quote]

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.”[/quote]
"“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.[/quote]

I wish the media would push back on this instead of just accepting the answer and moving to the next question. If a President made an election promise that you could legally kill one minority per year, SCOTUS should give deference to that as well?[/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