- 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 12:52 pm to Fun Bunch
Posted on 2/20/26 at 12:52 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
What anyone should have expected. They were almost certainly illegal under the particular statute he used.
However...he can just now use a different statute and start the clock again, most likely
I expected not to have a fricked up legal system that says the president has the authority to do something but only if he quotes the right statute.
If I get arrested and the cop quotes the wrong statute for the crime, does that mean he can't arrest me? No, of course not. So, why does this rule only apply to certain laws?
If the president has the authority, then he has the authority. Paperwork shouldn't matter. I know, common sense is way too much to expect from a society who values rules more than results.
3
Posted on 2/20/26 at 12:53 pm to dafif
quote:
That is simply not true.
What other statute was used in place of the ACA?
Posted on 2/20/26 at 12:54 pm to No Colors
quote:
Why can't he use Congress, like the constitution demands?
So your solution is to continue letting other countries screw us by relying on the people easily bought off by foreign lobbyists.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 12:57 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:I agree it's not applicable, but Roberts absolutely went outside the language of the ACA. Nowhere in the language was the Roberts tax referenced.
that's not applicable and never went outside the language of the ACA
Posted on 2/20/26 at 12:59 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
I expected not to have a fricked up legal system that says the president has the authority to do something but only if he quotes the right statute.
Did you feel the same way about the Biden Student Loan forgiveness policy the USSC struck down for the exact same reasons?
quote:
If I get arrested and the cop quotes the wrong statute for the crime, does that mean he can't arrest me? No, of course not.
The actual analogy is being convicted with an indictment citing the wrong statute, and that is also illegal.
quote:
If the president has the authority, then he has the authority.
Different authorities have different regulatory schemes, requirements, etc.
The President doesn't get to pick and choose which law applies to separate parts of his wielding of the power authorized by those statutes.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 12:59 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
but Roberts absolutely went outside the language of the ACA.
I'll ask you the same question
What other statute was used in place of the ACA?
Posted on 2/20/26 at 1:03 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
I expected not to have a fricked up legal system that says the president has the authority to do something but only if he quotes the right statute.
Dude, you just aren't very bright, you know that?
Many laws are conditional upon circumstances. For example, if I shoot you because I think you are a moron and your existence irritates me, I go to prison. If I shoot you because you're trying to stab me with a knife and have me cornered and I can't get away from you, I don't.
None of this is difficult to understand. The legal justification Trump's lawyers used was invalid. Just like if I argued in court, "The guy's so stupid that his mere existence was going to drive me to kill myself from extreme irritation," the court would rule that an invalid justification to claim self defense.
And again, TRUMP KNEW THIS. The only people on the planet who didn't KNOW that this would likely get slapped down are you cultists, and that because you don't care about laws or Constitutions or ANYTHING that prevents your Jesus Trump from doing what he wants to do.
"Trump can't do something he wants to do, that means we have a fricked up system."
Y'all really are like little children.
It's very clear that Trump wants to try to expand executive powers this term. He did this the way he did it because he was hoping that SCOTUS would rule in his favor to avoid having to clean up the mess caused by collecting the tariffs that now have to be returned. That's why he was tweeting what he was tweeting several weeks ago about it. He was hoping that would leverage them to rule for him.
But he knew it probably wouldn't, which is why they've already announced that they have "Plan B" ready to go.
Again, Trumptards like you are the only people who didn't realize this.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 1:05 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The shocking vote was Kav, honestly
This is the correct answer.
This ruling goes against the grain for him historically.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 1:10 pm to wackatimesthree
SFP was right again. The complex business of managing the nations well being must be left to the legal profession who only, ever, always sez what you can't do, and its your problem to figure out what you can do for our approval and denial.
the legal profession sfp so abiley represents is more f-cked up than the trannies and jasmine Crockett
the legal profession sfp so abiley represents is more f-cked up than the trannies and jasmine Crockett
Posted on 2/20/26 at 1:11 pm to Trevaylin
quote:
The complex business of managing the nations well being must be left to the legal profession
No. That's not what the ruling today says nor implies.
quote:
and its your problem to figure out what you can do for our approval and denial.
If you're talking about this as a defense for the admin, I have a simple suggestion. if you're going to enact tariffs, choose statutes that contain the word "tariff" and specifically authorize them.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 1:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
He chose a law that did not authorize tariffs
*He chose a law that 6 of the 9 Justices conclude that it doesnt authorize tariffs
My point was that the President can and does levy tariffs...under the authority given to him by Congress. The President doesnt have to run every tariff by Congress to be voted on
Posted on 2/20/26 at 1:17 pm to scottydoesntknow
quote:
. The President doesnt have to run every tariff by Congress to be voted on
Nobody has argued he does, except some misinformed MAGA people (not aimed at you)
Posted on 2/20/26 at 1:19 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It cleared the matter up.
What needed clearing, exactly?
Something did if it made it through the Courts (although there are many times the Courts just make things even more confusing)
Come on man youre better than this.
I know what you trying to prove and continue to prove and why you are doing it, but in the end a statement like this coming from a lawyer is dumb.
This post was edited on 2/20/26 at 1:21 pm
Posted on 2/20/26 at 1:21 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
I expected not to have a fricked up legal system that says the president has the authority to do something but only if he quotes the right statute.
The frick
Posted on 2/20/26 at 1:23 pm to gaetti15
quote:
Something did if it made it through the Courts (although there are many times the Courts just make things even more confusing)
You're referencing Trump's actions. He's referencing something existing prior or unrelated to Trump's actions, which is where my question was directed.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 1:23 pm to scottydoesntknow
quote:
*He chose a law that 6 of the 9 Justices conclude that it doesnt authorize tariffs
He could have chosen half a dozen that would have been 9-0 the other way (well, maybe 7-2)
Posted on 2/20/26 at 1:23 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You're referencing Trump's actions. He's referencing something existing prior or unrelated to Trump's actions, which is where my question was directed.
Gotcha
going through these tariff threads are a headache Posted on 2/20/26 at 1:24 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
The frick
Amazing, isn't it?
Posted on 2/20/26 at 1:26 pm to wackatimesthree
I am often perplexed by my side as much as I am the other side
Posted on 2/20/26 at 1:29 pm to gaetti15
He's making the (quite retarded) argument that these tariffs, via the IEEPA, were never sincere by the Trump admin, and they were meant to "clear up the matter" on how DEMs would use the IEEPA in the future (or something, it changes), when it's not clear they ever threatened to use it (and ignores the 2022 West Virginia v. EPA ruling that covers similar issues with climate rules, via a different statute)
Page 22 of 26
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News