- 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 11:24 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:24 am to SlowFlowPro
1
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:25 am to LegendInMyMind
The funniest part about that is when the same people were calling me an idiot divorce lawyer for saying the admin's argument made no sense, I specifically brought up how statutory interpretation is important and it prevented actual DEM attempts to supersede Congressional authority in 2 examples we all hated (vax mandate, student loan forgiveness).
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:29 am to stout
quote:
This country is finished
The globalists won
Finished because he went around Congressional authority and stretched a 45 year old law too far? I'm pretty sure the country is tougher than that.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:30 am to GoblinGuide
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:30 am to NC_Tigah
I hope Trump burns it all down.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:31 am to BCreed1
quote:
Why can't he use Congress,
Because congress gave that power to the executive long ago.
Link?
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:33 am to GumboPot
Now Americans get a tax cut
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:35 am to Adajax
Not surprised at all with Roberts and Barrett siding with the globalists, but Gorsuch shocks me.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:37 am to tiggerfan02 2021
quote:
, but Gorsuch shocks me.
If you understood his stance on statutory interpretation, it shouldn't.
The shocking vote was Kav, honestly, but he's typically a proponent of bigger government (with GOP admins at least). I'm curious where he'd have come down if he was the deciding vote.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:42 am to Taxing Authority
We are not paying the tariffs. When they tell you we are paying the tariffs it means that the overseas company pays the tariff then they raise the price of their product to cover the tariff. If you are not buying the foreign product then you are not paying the tariff.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:44 am to NC_Tigah
Damn.
Are refunds owed because if so holy shite.
Are refunds owed because if so holy shite.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:50 am to wackatimesthree
quote:The ONLY reason for you cocksuckers to be here bloviating like you do is that you're over compensating for the lack of accomplishments in your life. Same with all those guys in high school bragging about all the pooooosie they were getting. None of them were getting any.
You have no idea what anybody here has or hasn't accomplished, and it's irrelevant to the question anyway.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:55 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
There are statutes the admin could clearly use. T
I have not read the opinion but an appellate court is required to see if there is a way to uphold the action that was taken so they certainly could've described all of the available options to support Tariffs and there are many
As a specific example of the appellate court responsibility go see Roberts opinion on Obama care where he found it a tax despite the government specifically saying it is not. And it is nowhere mentioned as a tax
This is a disappointing decision but will not change the application of tariffs
This post was edited on 2/20/26 at 11:57 am
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:57 am to dafif
quote:
but an appellate court is required to see if there is a way to uphold the action that was taken so they certainly could've described all of the available options to support Tariffs and there are many
The USSC can't go back and change enaction of tariffs to be under a different law entirely.
quote:
As a specific example of the appellate court responsibility go see Roberts opinion on Obama care where he found it a tax despite the government specifically saying it is not. And it is nowhere mentioned as a tax
that's not applicable and never went outside the language of the ACA
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:57 am to PurpleCrush
bless your heart
Posted on 2/20/26 at 12:04 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
that's not applicable and never went outside the language of the ACA
That is simply not true.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 12:06 pm to NC_Tigah
When people say "globalists", easy to know their IQ is low.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 12:11 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
Well yeah.
Now we have SCOTUS deciding what an emergency is. Before long, this decision will be applied to a POTUS and war.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 12:15 pm to NC_Tigah
I gotta tell ya, I see both sides of this.
I’m not surprised.
I’m not surprised.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 12:51 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
I think eveeryone should read SCOTUS opinions for themselves. The disconnect with what some people say about opinions ("money is speech!") and what's actualyl in opinions is amazing.
Read the decision. It is a decidedly "small c" conservative ruling. Surprisingly brief majority opinion considering the significance of the ruling (Gorsuch's concurrence is much longer).
1) significant that the Court vacated the judgment of the USDC, finding that Court of International Trade had sole jurisdiction - could be useful in immigration cases going forward.
2) the fact that no other president had used IEEPA for tariffs like Trump did should be of no moment. The law either grants the authority, or it does not. Whether anyone has sought to exercise that authority is irrelevant.
3) the "emergency powers tend to kindle emergencies line" is dumb considering that REQUIREMENT of IEEPA is the declaration of a national emergency. Plus, the fact the majority doesn't address whether Trump's EOs declaring the national emergencies were valid is an admission that they lack the authority to speak to it which begs the question of how it can speak to the exercise of the emergency powers.
4) the short shrift given to the foreign policy autonomy of the executive is laughable (essentially, your argument is weak because we say it is - with nothing more)
5) I do like Gorsuch shitting on the liberal 3 for their suddenly constrained approach to executive authority in his concurrence. He smacks Barrett around as well. Actually agrees with the dissent in some aspects, but wouldn't go all the way. His concurrence should have been the majority opinion. Dude is sharp as frick.
6) Barrett was none too happy with Gorsuch's digs at her. Her concurrence was essentially a response to him.
7) Thomas' dissent is basically an endorsement of abrogating the nondelegation doctrine and the jurisprudence in support of it.
8) Kavabaugh's dissent is solid and nails the issue in the first paragraph "like quotas and embargo, tariffs are a traditional and common tool to regulate importation."
I figured this would be 5-4 to knock down the tariffs w/Gorsuch in the dissent (I have no faith in Roberts or Barrett any longer). Gorsuch was much closer to being in the fence that the other 2.
Page 21 of 26
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News