quote:
But paying all of that money back isn't the SCOTUS' problem and that consideration is not part of their job. The tariffs (at least in this form) are either constitutional or not. How big a mess it will be if they are not should not be part of the decision making formula.

That's short-sighted. Everyone agrees Trump has the right to place tariffs. Forcing us to repay tariffs just so they can be reapplied is silly.

If a judge doesn't consider the consequences of his ruling, then he is not a good judge. The cure can't be worse than the disease.

Laws are there to protect citizens. If following the law doesn't protect the interest of the citizens, then what is the point of having the law? Your country at that point becomes about rules instead of outcomes. That sounds draconian and authoritarian to me. We need laws, but we also need to use common sense when applying them.

A judge willing to put the country in debt an extra $1 trillion dollars is not a patriot and shouldn't be a judge. And the weirdest thing of all is that the people who complain about spending the most will be happy about it because it will be a loss for Trump.

Harming the country just so we can say we did the right thing is selfish and myopic. We'll all be paying more in inflation if it happens because they'll have to print money, but at least we'll have done the right thing. We'll hold our heads up high while stretching every dollar.

3 ...

Report Post

Posted by Taxing Authority

Houston

Member since Feb 2010

62811 posts

Posted on 1/13/26 at 12:59 am to TenWheelsForJesus

quote:
If a judge doesn't consider the consequences of his ruling, then he is not a good judge. The cure can't be worse than the disease.

Laws are there to protect citizens. If following the law doesn't protect the interest of the citizens, then what is the point of having the law? Y

ypu seem confused. The SCOTUS’ purpose isn’t to determine if laws are good/bad. It only exists to determine if they are in line with the Constitution. Determining merit of laws is up to the people via Congress.

Justices determining merit of laws, rather than the Constitionality, is the epitome of an “activist judge”

This post was edited on 1/13/26 at 1:01 am

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by SlowFlowPro

With populists, expect populism

Member since Jan 2004

470693 posts

Posted on 1/13/26 at 6:42 am to TenWheelsForJesus

quote:
That's short-sighted. Everyone agrees Trump has the right to place tariffs. Forcing us to repay tariffs just so they can be reapplied is silly.

So why did the Biden SL forgiveness get struck down? It could be done by another area of authorization, too. But the USSC said the path they chose was illegal so they had to go back to square one. Why should Trump be treated any differently?

quote:
If a judge doesn't consider the consequences of his ruling, then he is not a good judge. The cure can't be worse than the disease.

This argument argues the government can violate the Constitution, as long as the illegal policy is big enough. That's silly.

quote:
Laws are there to protect citizens. If following the law doesn't protect the interest of the citizens, then what is the point of having the law? Your country at that point becomes about rules instead of outcomes. That sounds draconian and authoritarian to me. We need laws, but we also need to use common sense when applying them.

An analysis of Constitutional authority has nothing to do with judging how good/bad a law is or how much it may help citizens. The analysis is solely whether or not the action by government was legal.

quote:
A judge willing to put the country in debt an extra $1 trillion dollars is not a patriot and shouldn't be a judge.

Here is that argument again where the government can act illegally IF they do it on a large enough scale.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by boosiebadazz

Member since Feb 2008

84862 posts

Posted on 1/13/26 at 6:49 am to TenWheelsForJesus

Make sure you keep that same energy when AOC declares climate change a national emergency and runs roughshod over all of us.

If she thinks it’s good for the country then she can set aside constitutional safeguards, right? The courts just have to go along or else they’re not patriots per your logic.

This post was edited on 1/13/26 at 7:05 am

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by SaintsTiger

1,000,000 Posts

Member since Oct 2014

2067 posts

Posted on 1/13/26 at 8:01 am to SlowFlowPro

quote:
An analysis of Constitutional authority has nothing to do with judging how good/bad a law is or how much it may help citizens. The analysis is solely whether or not the action by government was legal.

False. Courts legitimately consider policy all the time. It’s not simply rigorous logic with well-defined premises. If it were, computer scientists and logisicians would have taken over the legal field a long time ago.

In close cases, where both sides’ positions are well supported, courts select how to frame the issues, based frequently on policy, and reason from there.

Page 1 2 3