- 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 votes tomorrow on tariffs.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 6:08 pm to Jesterea
Posted on 1/12/26 at 6:08 pm to Jesterea
quote:
I won’t debate the claim, but you’re saying Supreme Court rulings should be outcome oriented and not oriented on a legal basis?
They are clearly legally based. If they were to find otherwise, they would be wrong.
1
Posted on 1/12/26 at 6:09 pm to imjustafatkid
According to who?
Posted on 1/12/26 at 6:10 pm to Jesterea
quote:
According to who?
The law.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 6:12 pm to Ailsa
My sense is that this could be a mixed bag ruling with some being within congressionally allocated power and some not requiring Trump to get Congress involved.
Just my guess as the worst case scenario.
Just my guess as the worst case scenario.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 6:12 pm to Ailsa
If the SCOTUS says Trump over stepped his executive powers what's it all mean. Is the US going to be returning $200 billion in tariffs back to the nations who were tariffed?
The markets are fixing to go on a roller coaster ride.
The markets are fixing to go on a roller coaster ride.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 6:14 pm to imjustafatkid
So if nine justices, three of which were appointed by the current president and have ruled with him on several issues, then they must be compromised because you understand the law more clearly than they would?
Posted on 1/12/26 at 6:15 pm to Bass Tiger
Other nations don’t pay us tariffs. Tariffs are taxes paid by US companies.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 6:18 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
What he appears to be doing to me is trying to convince the SCOTUS that they have no choice, that he has created a mess so big they can't reverse it even if they want to.
yep
trump is so unqualified for the job that it's more expensive to fix his dumbshittey than to let it continue
the damage he's done to this country will continue for decades
Posted on 1/12/26 at 7:02 pm to SaintsTiger
quote:
There were different tariffs levied against different countries on different basis. Eg, Fentanyl against Canada, México and China; trade imbalances against many; economic security; and national security.
Not an all or nothing proposition either way
But the issue is most (all?) were enacted pursuant to a law that may not grant the President the authority to enact them. The determination if he had the power is a binary proposition.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 7:03 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
That would simply mean SCOTUS is compromised
Because they ruled Trump didn't have the authority to issue tariffs pursuant to a statute that never once references tariffs?
Posted on 1/12/26 at 7:04 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
The tariffs are obviously working and are doing a great job for our country. Anyone who claims otherwise is a liar.
None of this has anything to do with a determination of whether or not he had statutory authority, under the law his admin cited and relied upon, to enact them
Posted on 1/12/26 at 7:06 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
The law.
The law that never references tariffs?
Posted on 1/12/26 at 7:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
But the issue is most (all?) were enacted pursuant to a law that may not grant the President the authority to enact them. The determination if he had the power is a binary proposition.
Well for one thing Justice Amy Coney Barrett strongly indicated that unwinding already paid tariffs would be a rats nest.
What is more, trade imbalance predicate could be struck down as not an emergency sufficient to enable import regulation while fentanyl is.
In the end though regulating imports has historically included the ability to impose tariffs. So the Admin will get the outright W.
This post was edited on 1/12/26 at 7:15 pm
Posted on 1/12/26 at 7:19 pm to eddieray
Shouldn’t you be at a protest?
Posted on 1/12/26 at 7:19 pm to wackatimesthree
I hope the way you’re reading it is the correct… maybe I’m being pessimistic.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 7:28 pm to The Tiger322
Somewhat correct. Trump cites the IPEEA, which gives the president powers to impose tariffs in certain emergency situations. Other, then that, the Constitution grants the right to impose tariffs to Congress solely. This is the simplest explanation of the case before the Supreme Court. Remember that a lower court ruled Trump's tariff as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court will either overrule the lower court, or agree with them.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 7:30 pm to SaintsTiger
If the Supreme Court finds he didn't have authority under the conditions the president used, but DOES have authority under other conditions, could that be a means to allow the tariffs to continue without the need to unravel everything?
Posted on 1/12/26 at 7:43 pm to 10thyrsr
quote:
If the Supreme Court finds he didn't have authority under the conditions the president used, but DOES have authority under other conditions, could that be a means to allow the tariffs to continue without the need to unravel everything?
I think so. They could say citing the wrong statute was just an administrative error, the tariffs were authorized under the other authority without the magic words being cited, and no refunds to China and friends.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 7:45 pm to SaintsTiger
quote:
I think so. They could say citing the wrong statute was just an administrative error, the tariffs were authorized under the other authority without the magic words being cited, and no refunds to China and friends.
There's no way in hell they force refunds. ...to anyone.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 8:05 pm to SaintsTiger
Then that is what I believe the result will be
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News