- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
When will the “Supreme Court” “rule” on tariffs?
Posted on 1/13/26 at 1:14 pm
Posted on 1/13/26 at 1:14 pm
I thought a decision was expected today?
9
Posted on 1/13/26 at 1:15 pm to texag7
Why did you put the Supreme Court in quotations?
Posted on 1/13/26 at 1:16 pm to texag7
Wednesday was mentioned yesterday, pushed back from last Friday.
Posted on 1/13/26 at 1:17 pm to ClientNumber9
Either because he doesn’t think they’re a legitimate organization for “reasons,” likes the aesthetics of quotation marks, or thinks Supreme Court is a short form of media like a poem or short story and should be punctuated correctly.
I’ll let you take your pick.
I’ll let you take your pick.
Posted on 1/13/26 at 1:18 pm to texag7
If only there was a way to search the internet to learn when a tariff decision might be expected to be announced... 
Posted on 1/13/26 at 1:22 pm to ClientNumber9
quote:
Why did you put the Supreme Court in quotations?
Frustration, that every administration decision has to get bottlenecked to the highest court.
The courts did practically nothing to stop the Biden administration from wrecking the economy and allowing 20 million unvetted illegals into the country while treating the constitution as toilet paper.
Posted on 1/13/26 at 1:25 pm to BigTigerJoe
The Supreme Court can’t make congress pass a law. What decision did they rule on that supported the Biden admin?
ETA: how did the Supreme Court let Biden treat the Constitution like “toilet paper”?
ETA: how did the Supreme Court let Biden treat the Constitution like “toilet paper”?
This post was edited on 1/13/26 at 1:26 pm
Posted on 1/13/26 at 1:26 pm to texag7
Sometime today. I'm guessing since they're finished with the tranny nonsense, it'll be any minute.
Posted on 1/13/26 at 1:26 pm to texag7
A "decision" is "expected" "today."
Posted on 1/13/26 at 1:29 pm to texag7
When John Roberts receives his marching orders from the Deep State.
Posted on 1/13/26 at 1:31 pm to ClientNumber9
quote:anencephaly
Why did (TexAg7) put the "Supreme Court" (and "rule") in quotations?
This post was edited on 1/13/26 at 1:38 pm
Posted on 1/13/26 at 1:40 pm to BigTigerJoe
quote:Your problem, like many here, is you seem to have a foundational misunderstanding on the purpose of SCOTUS and its functions. How, specifically, do you think the courts were supposed to rule on those issues?
The courts did practically nothing to stop the Biden administration from wrecking the economy and allowing 20 million unvetted illegals into the country while treating the constitution as toilet paper.
What case do you think should have been before them, brought by whom, under what legal theory, with what standing?
Courts don’t intervene because something is harmful or unconstitutional in the abstract. They rule on concrete challenges to specific actions. On immigration, states and other parties did sue, mostly under administrative law. Some got temporary relief, some lost on standing or timing, and most never presented a constitutional question that would force a Supreme Court review. The court dealt with procedure and statutory limits, not “stop the policy.”
On the economy, it’s even simpler. Courts cannot rule on “wrecking the economy” or "strike down inflation. Those aren't justiciable claims. Bad outcomes aren’t illegal by themselves. Unless Congress clearly limited agency authority or someone could show an actual violation of statute or constitutional text, there’s nothing for a court to strike down.
The Supreme Court isn’t a supervisory body that steps in whenever policy goes badly. It reacts to viable cases that survive standing and jurisdiction. If you think the courts failed, the real question is where the cases were supposed to come from and why Congress left so much discretion in the first place.
Posted on 1/13/26 at 1:43 pm to Jesterea
quote:
The Supreme Court can’t make congress pass a law. What decision did they rule on that supported the Biden admin? ETA: how did the Supreme Court let Biden treat the Constitution like “toilet paper”?
Nothing reached them is the point. The point of frustration. The lower courts did nothing.
Posted on 1/13/26 at 1:44 pm to ClientNumber9
quote:
Why did you put the Supreme Court in quotations?
Because it’s a political cabal.
I would not trust Jumanji Jackson to take my trash to the curb properly.
Posted on 1/13/26 at 1:45 pm to LSURussian
quote:
If only there was a way to search the internet to learn when a tariff decision might be expected to be announced...
To be fair…this is one of those ways
Posted on 1/13/26 at 1:46 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
Posted on 1/13/26 at 1:48 pm to texag7
Evidently they have, "No tariff opinion".
https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/01/no-tariff-opinion/
snip:
A few minutes before 10 a.m., Solicitor General D. John Sauer enters the courtroom with five or six of his lieutenants, including Principal Deputy Solicitor General Hashim Mooppan, who argued part of Callais. Sauer argued the tariff case. This is notable because Sauer has not followed the solicitor general’s practice of attending opinion announcements. As we noted several times last spring, Sauer evidently had other business on opinion days in May and June, though he made it to a few. So his presence perhaps suggests that he thinks something big may be coming down.
The court has indicated the possibility of opinions next Wednesday, an argument day. So perhaps we’ll get tariffs then. Or not.
More opinions could come also in the second week of the January sitting.
Meanwhile, the next non-argument day on the court’s calendar is Friday, Feb. 20.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/01/no-tariff-opinion/
snip:
A few minutes before 10 a.m., Solicitor General D. John Sauer enters the courtroom with five or six of his lieutenants, including Principal Deputy Solicitor General Hashim Mooppan, who argued part of Callais. Sauer argued the tariff case. This is notable because Sauer has not followed the solicitor general’s practice of attending opinion announcements. As we noted several times last spring, Sauer evidently had other business on opinion days in May and June, though he made it to a few. So his presence perhaps suggests that he thinks something big may be coming down.
The court has indicated the possibility of opinions next Wednesday, an argument day. So perhaps we’ll get tariffs then. Or not.
More opinions could come also in the second week of the January sitting.
Meanwhile, the next non-argument day on the court’s calendar is Friday, Feb. 20.
Posted on 1/13/26 at 1:52 pm to texag7
What happened to his profile picture?
Posted on 1/13/26 at 1:53 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
Courts don’t intervene because something is harmful or unconstitutional in the abstract. They rule on concrete challenges to specific actions.
The Dem courts dismissed many legitimate challenges brought before them during the Biden Administration.
Lower courts are accepting ridiculous challenges creating a bottleneck at the highest court.
I never once said SCOTUS has to intervene when laws and practices are unconstitutional.
Posted on 1/13/26 at 1:57 pm to BigTigerJoe
quote:
Nothing reached them is the point. The point of frustration. The lower courts did nothing.
That still doesn’t really answer the question.
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News