- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
1
Posted on 2/20/26 at 4:32 pm to geauxEdO
quote:
the IEEPA gives the President the power to “regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit”… “importation or exportation”. Roberts sees the flaw in his argument and tries to get in front of it by saying, “even though a tariff is, in some sense, less extreme than an outright compulsion or prohibition, it does not follow that tariffs lie on the spectrum between those poles.”
That's the dumbest interpretation I've ever heard
Posted on 2/20/26 at 4:44 pm to geauxEdO
They are the Supreme Court. They ruled against so they are not wrong until another court rules differently.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 4:45 pm to tigeraddict
quote:
They are the Supreme Court. They ruled against so they are not wrong until another court rules differently.
Pretty self evident but smooth brains just listen to what others tell them so this was no doubt collusion/foreign interference
Posted on 2/20/26 at 5:29 pm to sgallo3
quote:
smooth brains
Aren’t you the simpleton that claimed the three dissenting judges have abandoned all rationality?
Posted on 2/20/26 at 6:17 pm to wdhalgren
On the Vince Show today I heard him talking about how under Nixon, the SCOTUS authorized Nixon's tariffs under the same statute, or its predecessor that Trump is trying to use.
I don't know why SCOTUS reaches different conclusions arising out of the same fact scenario.
I don't know why SCOTUS reaches different conclusions arising out of the same fact scenario.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 6:23 pm to Champagne
quote:
On the Vince Show today I heard him talking about how under Nixon, the SCOTUS authorized Nixon's tariffs under the same statute, or its predecessor that Trump is trying to use.
I don't know why SCOTUS reaches different conclusions arising out of the same fact scenario.
He acted under the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 (TWEA), not a specific modern emergency tariff act, authorizing the measure as a regulation of imports.
It was only active for 4 months, less time than Trump's tariffs have been in effect. (emergency does imply a time frame, we can't be permanently working under emergency status)
Also congress passed a law to prevent future presidents from doing this in response to Nixon
Due to concerns over this executive power, Congress passed the Trade Act of 1974 (Section 122), which created specific, limited authority for future presidents to impose temporary, smaller import surcharges.
Also Nixons was a temporary 10% surcharge on all dutiable imports, not targeted at specific countries at different levels.
This post was edited on 2/20/26 at 6:26 pm
Posted on 2/20/26 at 6:38 pm to Champagne
quote:
Champagne
so reading all that do you agree that your radio show was making a big stretch to say that Nixon's tariffs were the same?
Trump today was allowed to do a 10% tariff on all goods which is what Nixon's tariffs were the whole time.
That falls under the congressional approval of "limited" tariffs.
Trump placing 40% tariffs and ruling it as an emergency is much different
Posted on 2/20/26 at 6:39 pm to sgallo3
You need to read the ruling. All of it. It will take you a while. You will be embarrassed by your victory lap.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 6:42 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
You need to read the ruling. All of it. It will take you a while. You will be embarrassed by your victory lap.
The other statutes are more limited. Bonds you should realize by now I don't BS and I don't cheer. I'm against tariffs in general but fine with a 10% tariff.
we were playing social media bs drama with tariffs beefing like the housewives of atlanta "switzerland did this, we're gonna up their tariffs".
thats no way to run a country, much less the United States.
This post was edited on 2/20/26 at 6:43 pm
Posted on 2/20/26 at 6:44 pm to Champagne
Sounds like the abortion debate. They can change their minds
Posted on 2/20/26 at 7:03 pm to sgallo3
quote:
The other statutes are more limited. Bonds you should realize by now I don't BS and I don't cheer. I'm against tariffs in general but fine with a 10% tariff.
You still should read the ruling (and the dissent). It’s a road map for Trump. You’re going to be disappointed.
This post was edited on 2/20/26 at 7:04 pm
Posted on 2/20/26 at 7:19 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The majority opinion is basically what I argued on this board months ago
See? Took them months to come to the same decision you came to.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 7:38 pm to Brosef Stalin
quote:
I think its safe to assume the Supreme Court justices have a better understanding of Constitutional law than anyone on the poliboard
KBJ is a functioning retard
Posted on 2/20/26 at 8:37 pm to exiledhogfan
quote:
They have no trouble ignoring it to advance their ideological interests and just them my side wouldn't do that shite.
Statements like this always imply the same old things
Posted on 2/20/26 at 9:19 pm to Indefatigable
Sums up Trump presidency.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News