SCOTUS Rules Against Trump Administration IEEPA Tariffs

[OlDawg]

The Supreme Court justices, in a 6-3 ruling, upheld a lower court's decision that the Republican president's use of this 1977 law exceeded his authority.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

[UT alum]

8 minutes ago, OlDawg said:

The Supreme Court justices, in a 6-3 ruling, upheld a lower court's decision that the Republican president's use of this 1977 law exceeded his authority.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

Let’s see how he reacts to being told no. With the grace befitting the office, I hope.

[OlDawg]

3 minutes ago, UT alum said:

Let’s see how he reacts to being told no. With the grace befitting the office, I hope.

They didn't mention anything about having to return collected funds. Curious about that issue.

FYI... The link is a live update link. So, you can continue to check it for reactions if desired.

[LumRaiderFan]

This should get interesting, I know the commentary from both sides this morning has been.

[baddog]

Now the libs will love this SC.

[LumRaiderFan]

7 minutes ago, baddog said:

Now the libs will love this SC.

Everyone should, it confirms our separation of powers.  🙂

[TheMissingBand]

The Constitution just entered the chat. 

[baddog]

4 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Everyone should, it confirms our separation of powers.  🙂

Yes, and I agree. But since the ruling is against Trump, they will love this conservative SC. 

[UT alum]

22 minutes ago, OlDawg said:

They didn't mention anything about having to return collected funds. Curious about that issue.

FYI... The link is a live update link. So, you can continue to check it for reactions if desired.

I’m guessing refunds will require another lawsuit.

[LumRaiderFan]

2 minutes ago, baddog said:

Yes, and I agree. But since the ruling is against Trump, they will love this conservative SC. 

No doubt, if it went the other way they would be screaming to stack the court.

[UT alum]

5 minutes ago, baddog said:

Yes, and I agree. But since the ruling is against Trump, they will love this conservative SC. 

What is your deal? This isn’t junior high. This is a victory for the Constitution and affirmation that the court will interpret it collectively. I may not agree with all their interpretations, but this is strong evidence that they will not serve as lapdogs to the Executive branch. 

[Reagan]

4 minutes ago, UT alum said:

What is your deal? This isn’t junior high. This is a victory for the Constitution and affirmation that the court will interpret it collectively. I may not agree with all their interpretations, but this is strong evidence that they will not serve as lapdogs to the Executive branch. 

As your buddy JoeBama would say, “Come on Man”!  You’d be hollering if it went the other way!  

[OlDawg]

39 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Everyone should, it confirms our separation of powers.  🙂

This X infinity. POTUS will either have to work with Congress (doubtful—especially with early primaries going already), or find another way.

Bad thing is, people will expect prices to come down and they won’t.

[UT alum]

13 minutes ago, Reagan said:

As your buddy JoeBama would say, “Come on Man”!  You’d be hollering if it went the other way!  

Yes, I would, but not for the reasons you think. The more conservative the commentary on tariffs, the louder the protest against them has been. Allowing such an egregious violation of executive powers would have confirmed them as a kangaroo court. I can handle conservatives, lapdogs I cannot.

[baddog]

28 minutes ago, UT alum said:

What is your deal? This isn’t junior high. This is a victory for the Constitution and affirmation that the court will interpret it collectively. I may not agree with all their interpretations, but this is strong evidence that they will not serve as lapdogs to the Executive branch. 

Junior high? Anyone in junior high could see my post is self explanatory. Like you, I don’t agree with all decisions but I can live with it because our forefathers were visionaries and covered all the bases. This decision also disproves the “dictator” or “king” claims. What a waste of cardboard for all of those signs.

[UT alum]

21 minutes ago, OlDawg said:

This X infinity. POTUS will either have to work with Congress (doubtful—especially with early primaries going already), or find another way.

Bad thing is, people will expect prices to come down and they won’t.

I don’t know. 25 or 30 percent left on the bone will leave enough meat for a little competition.

[UT alum]

7 minutes ago, baddog said:

Junior high? Anyone in junior high could see my post is self explanatory. Like you, I don’t agree with all decisions but I can live with it because our forefathers were visionaries and covered all the bases. This decision also disproves the “dictator” or “king” claims. What a waste of cardboard for all of those signs.

You completely missed my point. In junior high kids “love” someone who favors them, then will turn around and “hate” them when disfavored. I was referring to political immaturity. So yes, anyone in junior high would have understood your post.

[UT alum]

11 minutes ago, baddog said:

Junior high? Anyone in junior high could see my post is self explanatory. Like you, I don’t agree with all decisions but I can live with it because our forefathers were visionaries and covered all the bases. This decision also disproves the “dictator” or “king” claims. What a waste of cardboard for all of those signs.

How do you know the signs didn’t have any effect? Subliminal thought is real.

[baddog]

Just now, UT alum said:

You completely missed my point. In junior high kids “love” someone who favors them, then will turn around and “hate” them when disfavored. I was referring to political immaturity. So yes, anyone in junior high would have understood your post.

I was supposed to read all of that into you saying “this isn’t junior high”? Yes, they would have understood my post whereas, you didn’t. Who’s being immature?…..bee/fly.

[UT alum]

2 hours ago, OlDawg said:

They didn't mention anything about having to return collected funds. Curious about that issue.

FYI... The link is a live update link. So, you can continue to check it for reactions if desired.

So full of grace and dignity. NOT 

“I was a good boy”. That line speaks encyclopedic volumes.

[baddog]

2 hours ago, OlDawg said:

They didn't mention anything about having to return collected funds. Curious about that issue.

FYI... The link is a live update link. So, you can continue to check it for reactions if desired.

In his new conference, Trump says they didn’t even address the money. Amazing….

[thetragichippy]

From the President:

 

“Although I firmly disagree with the court's holding today, the decision might not substantially constrain a president's ability to order tariffs going forward."

"That's because numerous other federal statutes, which is so true, authorize the president to impose tariffs and might justify most, if not all, of the tariffs issued in this case. Even more tariffs."

 

 The Supreme Court DID NOT overrule Tariffs; they merely overruled a particular use of IEEPA Tariffs." 
 

This is far from over…..