- 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: SCOTUS Tariff Ruling is in: 6-3 against tariffs.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 9:50 am to BigGreenTiger
Posted on 2/20/26 at 9:50 am to BigGreenTiger
quote:You're welcome. My guess is that you also like your boyfriend setting his beer on that flat spot on the top of your head too.
It is like watching a toddler try to do math,.
1
Posted on 2/20/26 at 9:50 am to Ingeniero
quote:
There's no shot you're trying to retcon the goal of the tariffs to be "Trump was ensuring the executive branch didn't have too much power by forcing SCOTUS to rule"
You are not even paying attention.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 9:50 am to Fun Bunch
quote:"right leaning" -- BULLSHITE
Fun Bunch
This post was edited on 2/20/26 at 9:51 am
Posted on 2/20/26 at 9:50 am to BCreed1
quote:
But not with the IEEPA.
Was never a threat
Posted on 2/20/26 at 9:50 am to BCreed1
quote:
But not with the IEEPA.
Was this something that a previous Dem President had considered for tariffs?
I am not aware of the IEEPA previously being used for tariffs ever
Posted on 2/20/26 at 9:51 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
What needed clearing, exactly?
We had to clear up that a law which doesn’t authorize tariffs, doesn’t authorize tariffs.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 9:51 am to NC_Tigah
I've read the syllabus of the opinion (6-3 but "splintered" on grounds for decision) and skimmed the dissents (1 by Kav, joined in full by Thomas and Alito, and one by Thomas alone that was interesting but customarily quirky). Here is a link to the opinion:
SCOTUS Ruling
Here is what no one wants to hear, but it should be the best news you hear all day. This Court operated as a Court should and decided this case based on the law as they understood it. The simple fact is that this statute easily could have but does NOT mention tariffs, taxes, or duties. This is a good reason for believing that Congress had not delegated away its power to tax and levy duties on imports as expressly provided in the Constitution. For three of the justices, the major questions doctrine also supported the decision, although I strangely find myself agreeing with the liberal judges that you really didn't need to lean on the major questions to decide the case in this way.
Kavanaugh's dissent was great. I love the way he writes and thinks. I would describe it as deep thinking, expressed in plain English and with a healthy dose of common sense. According to Kav, it made no sense to say the president could not levy tariffs when the law would allow him to block trade completely. However, on this occasion, I think I favor the Chief's thinking. Kav viewed the powers granted as a continuum, but nothing in the law says that. As the Chief reasoned, taxing/tariffs are different in kind, not degrees from blocking or otherwise regulating trade.
Although unlikely to be reported or much agreed with in this forum, this case presents a great example of at least the six conservative justices (and I would say at least 7 with Kagan) doing precisely what they are supposed to: judging the case based on the law rather than as a means to support a politically favored policy. Kudos to the Court, including the dissenters.
Final thought: who on earth advised Trump to go issuing tariffs willy-nilly under a statute that did not mention tariffs when other statutes, which clearly delegate the right to set tariffs, could have been used for 90+% of what the administration wanted?
SCOTUS Ruling
Here is what no one wants to hear, but it should be the best news you hear all day. This Court operated as a Court should and decided this case based on the law as they understood it. The simple fact is that this statute easily could have but does NOT mention tariffs, taxes, or duties. This is a good reason for believing that Congress had not delegated away its power to tax and levy duties on imports as expressly provided in the Constitution. For three of the justices, the major questions doctrine also supported the decision, although I strangely find myself agreeing with the liberal judges that you really didn't need to lean on the major questions to decide the case in this way.
Kavanaugh's dissent was great. I love the way he writes and thinks. I would describe it as deep thinking, expressed in plain English and with a healthy dose of common sense. According to Kav, it made no sense to say the president could not levy tariffs when the law would allow him to block trade completely. However, on this occasion, I think I favor the Chief's thinking. Kav viewed the powers granted as a continuum, but nothing in the law says that. As the Chief reasoned, taxing/tariffs are different in kind, not degrees from blocking or otherwise regulating trade.
Although unlikely to be reported or much agreed with in this forum, this case presents a great example of at least the six conservative justices (and I would say at least 7 with Kagan) doing precisely what they are supposed to: judging the case based on the law rather than as a means to support a politically favored policy. Kudos to the Court, including the dissenters.
Final thought: who on earth advised Trump to go issuing tariffs willy-nilly under a statute that did not mention tariffs when other statutes, which clearly delegate the right to set tariffs, could have been used for 90+% of what the administration wanted?
Posted on 2/20/26 at 9:51 am to RollTide4547
were you the poster on the OT complaining about paying a grand total of 8,800 in federal taxes in 2025?
Posted on 2/20/26 at 9:51 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
understand why people would be in favor of Trump just acting and attempting to expand exec power
The thing is, he is doing this in many other cases with much more legitimacy
Either it's all an x-D ruse or none of it is
Posted on 2/20/26 at 9:52 am to RollTide4547
quote:
"right leaning" -- BULLSHITE
I was being kind. I am more conservative (traditional) than the current president. Probably much farther right than you.
Broad sweeping tariffs is not even remotely a traditional conservative opinion. To be clear, I haven't spent any time objecting to it because honestly I just wanted to see how it worked out. It was at least something interesting and bold action.
Reagan used very targeted tariffs effectively. I am more in favor of targeted tariffs. But at least Trump was trying something and I wanted to see how it worked out.
This post was edited on 2/20/26 at 9:55 am
Posted on 2/20/26 at 9:52 am to GumboPot
quote:
What now?
Cut spending
There’s a thought
Posted on 2/20/26 at 9:52 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
He chose a law that did not authorize tariffs
I tend to be on the side of there is strategy to this. I think Trump knew they would be struck down. However, by utilizing the IEEPA, he bypassed the red tape and accomplished some real things that have permanence even if his tarrifs are struck down.
For instance, he got USMCA revisions, India pacts, and concessions from 100+ countries that are essentially locked in under these tariff pressures. I'm sure there are other accomplishments that have some permanence that I haven't listed.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 9:52 am to Indefatigable
quote:
We had to clear up that a law which doesn’t authorize tariffs, doesn’t authorize tariffs.
It makes sense now
Posted on 2/20/26 at 9:54 am to BCreed1
quote:
DAMN IT SLACK!! STOP AGREEING WITH ME!!!
, well to be fair I don’t think this was some 4D chess move to preempt climate change tariffs. It was just the quickest route to get what he wanted and it might have worked. 
Posted on 2/20/26 at 9:54 am to ob1pimpbobi
quote:
This makes no sense whatsoever. I fricking hate this shite.
I have given up hope of living long enough to see a full recovery from the democrat/rino bullshite we've suffered for the past half century. But dammit, I thought I'd live to see us on a path to get there.
They've now destroyed that bridge to sanity = bad news.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 9:55 am to Indefatigable
quote:
No, but I believe he lacks patience for legal nuance,
That's wrong. He could have gone straight to proven methods used by the last 7 presidents.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 9:55 am to BigGreenTiger
quote:Nope. Not me. Stuff your laughing faces up your boi vag.
were you the poster on the OT complaining about paying a grand total of 8,800 in federal taxes in 2025?
Posted on 2/20/26 at 9:56 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:
They've now destroyed that bridge to sanity
By interpreting the Constitution?
Its gonna be ok. I promise
Trump is just going to use other acts to do the same thing.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 9:56 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
However...he can just now use a different statute and start the clock again, most likely.
Why can't he use Congress, like the constitution demands?
Posted on 2/20/26 at 9:56 am to scottydoesntknow
YEP
Page 10 of 26
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News