- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 77% chance the SC rules tariffs are illegal, possible ruling this Friday
Posted on 1/6/26 at 5:50 pm to TigahTeeth
Posted on 1/6/26 at 5:50 pm to TigahTeeth
quote:
I was being sarcastic, but you sir, are wrong. You’re actually just guessing in your post. Why would you just assume what he did is illegal? When will you people learn? Lol
I haven't ASSUMED his usurpation of Congress through invoking IEEPA was illegal. I just did some research last year and IEEPA seemed like a stretch. Most commentary I can find confirms that.
Most people on PoliBoard look at legal matters from what they WANT the law to be. I look at it objectively. Trump's tariffs are great. I wish he had sought another avenue to justify them. I hope my opinion is wrong.
0
Posted on 1/6/26 at 5:50 pm to Lg
quote:SCOTUS isn’t weighing whether tariffs are “terrible.” That’s not the question before them. They’re ruling on whether the authority invoked to impose these tariffs was lawful.
I understand that. But if tariffs are so terrible, kind of strange that no one brought it before them in his first term or that Biden didn’t do away with them during his term.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 5:58 pm to Lg
quote:
But if tariffs are so terrible, kind of strange that no one brought it before them in his first term or that Biden didn’t do away with them during his term.
It's not the tariffs. It was Trump's bypassing Congress to impose them using a legally suspect authorization.
This isn't personal to Trump. It's standard legal interpretation.
The fact that the tariffs have worked AND the mess that would be caused by having to refund the tariffs MIGHT cause enough justices to come up with a creative way to uphold them. Of course, they're much smarter than me. Maybe they will find a way.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 5:59 pm to deltaland
quote:
They’ll reimpose the tariffs citing a different law that give the president authority to impose tariffs
Bessent has said this on numerous talk shows since the oral arguments.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 6:01 pm to Pfft
No. Only if it bends real Americans over and fricks us all up the assholes like these mother frickers have done our entire lives. We have been skull fricked by our Government our entire lives
Posted on 1/6/26 at 6:02 pm to hawgfaninc
Why do people go off of polymarket? Same site had Biden beating Trump before he dropped out iirc.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 6:04 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
My comment wasn't even snarky, funny, or provocative.
Well, it certainly got the people going.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 6:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The underlying argument is the same for all 3
The underlying argument is not necessarily the reason that they are challenging as in court. They are just against the tariff idea because Trump is doing it.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 6:11 pm to hogcard1964
quote:
Zero chance they rule against the country.
They won't be ruling against the country. They will be upholding separation of powers. Tariffs are taxes. Taxes are levied by Congress according to the Constitution. The President can impose tariffs unilaterally only under some power that Congress had previously delegated to the President.
My prediction: 5-4 upholding the lower courts decisions rejecting IEEPA as a legal basis for the tariffs. (Hopefully, the President's team has a Plan B.)
Posted on 1/6/26 at 6:11 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
It's not the tariffs. It was Trump's bypassing Congress to impose them using a legally suspect authorization. This isn't personal to Trump. It's standard legal interpretation. The fact that the tariffs have worked AND the mess that would be caused by having to refund the tariffs MIGHT cause enough justices to come up with a creative way to uphold them. Of course, they're much smarter than me. Maybe they will find a way.
Good post. I am pro tariff as far as they are being used 100%. There is a problem to whether the admin can use them the way they are. Could you imagine if the turnip or heels up went rogue and used tariffs to intentionally tank our economy(well they pretty much did starting with Carter)!? The problem is Congress not backing trump by codifying his ability to use tariffs for the benefit of the US.
This post was edited on 1/6/26 at 6:14 pm
Posted on 1/6/26 at 6:13 pm to tigersbh
quote:They could spend their off time sticking pins in a Trump voodoo doll and it would still be irrelevant as to whether the authority used was lawful.
The underlying argument is not necessarily the reason that they are challenging as in court. They are just against the tariff idea because Trump is doing it.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 6:26 pm to SloaneRanger
quote:
Trump’s tariff and trade efforts, while chaotic, have been a massive success by any objective measure.
I guess farmers didn’t get the memo, or alcohol distilleries in Kentucky or the record number of small businesses filing for bankruptcy. Or the people that have been laid off and can’t find jobs.
But other than that they are awesome.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 6:30 pm to IvoryBillMatt
He has the right to regulate importation. It all falls under IEEPAA - International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Can the result affect taxes? Sure, but is it technically a tax? No
This post was edited on 1/6/26 at 6:36 pm
Posted on 1/6/26 at 6:31 pm to Warboo
quote:
The problem is Congress not backing trump by codifying his ability to use tariffs for the benefit of the US
And they never will because Trump is the one proposing it. You will always have the 3 or 4 libertarian Repubs reject it, and of course 100% of Democrats. We simply don't have the votes in Congress and likely never will. This is why Congress is absolutely worthless.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 6:37 pm to hogcard1964
quote:Well, that's what we're all waiting to find out. The existence of delegated authority isn’t disputed. The scope of that delegation is.
He has the right to regulate importation. It all falls under IEEPAA - International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
If the president can unilaterally impose broad tariffs by declaring an emergency, Congress’s Article I power over taxation and trade becomes optional. That’s the constitutional question SCOTUS is deciding.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 6:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Shade of grey.
Why would one example of the executive acting outside of statutory authority be different than another?
Posted on 1/6/26 at 6:37 pm to Ten Bears
SFP wants congress to negotiate tariffs with 178 foreign countries, balancing simple value charges, with socio-economic needs. ie, stop the drugs or 50% tariff.
congress hasn't negotiated a budget with itself in 30 years.
congress set up medicade rules that allowed billions of dollars of Somali theft
congress was able to pas 3 bills last year
congess will not outlaw congress inside trading
congress can't function
congress just f.cks around and SFP wants them to do work?
congress hasn't negotiated a budget with itself in 30 years.
congress set up medicade rules that allowed billions of dollars of Somali theft
congress was able to pas 3 bills last year
congess will not outlaw congress inside trading
congress can't function
congress just f.cks around and SFP wants them to do work?
Posted on 1/6/26 at 6:48 pm to Trevaylin
quote:
SFP wants congress to negotiate tariffs with 178 foreign countries, balancing simple value charges, with socio-economic needs. ie, stop the drugs or 50% tariff.
What? Where did I say that?
THAT is certainly not what is being discussed by people who understand the issues.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 6:48 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Shade of grey.
It's actually quite binary
Either there is the statutory authority, and the Executive can act, or there isn't, and it cannot.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 6:49 pm to SlowFlowPro
2 pages back
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News