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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
Anonymous wrote:They are not passing a law, they are asserting the Congress's constitutional ability to levy taxes and tariffs.
I don't think this can be overridden. It takes effect automatically if the House and Senate vote for it.Anonymous wrote:
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.