Althouse: "Annie Hall" reference in the Supreme Court oral argument yesterday.

November 6, 2025

"Annie Hall" reference in the Supreme Court oral argument yesterday.

Link.

40 comments:

Left Bank of the Charles said...: That’s an Annie Hall and Hamilton reference.; 11/6/25, 6:11 AM
rehajm said...: That’s awesome! You…you know nothing of my work…; 11/6/25, 6:13 AM
rehajm said...: ..should have verbed Marshal McLuhan though…; 11/6/25, 6:16 AM
Dave Begley said...: I really dislike that arrogant prick Neal Katyal. BTW, what Nixon thought about a law is irrelevant.

The US might lose just because of the voice of the Solicitor General. I couldn’t hardly understand him and so annoying.

I wish Ann would handicap the case. I’m trying to figure out if I should double down or just let my $100 ride.; 11/6/25, 6:28 AM
Kakistocracy said...: Executive orders can be used in matters where the Constitution has given authority to the Executive branch and not Congress or the Supreme Court.

As a practical matter, the court doesn't try to interpret what is or isn't an emergency, and they recognize that "emergencies" are happening all the time according to presidents past and present. But they do pay close attention to the text of the statute to judge its intent and also the relevant legislative history. They also use the 'major questions doctrine' and 'nondelegation doctrine' to deny executive attempts to usurp power by declaring an emergency.

I suppose because without some legal definition of what constitutes an emergency, the definition is somewhat subjective. Also, if Congress grants the executive emergency powers without defining what constitutes an emergency and what doesn't, they are essentially giving the executive the power to determine what constitutes an emergency.; 11/6/25, 6:37 AM
Kevin said...: An actual McLuhan moment would require them to bring in Nixon.; 11/6/25, 6:54 AM
MSOM said...: Pretty obnoxious to compare the supreme court justice he's in front of to the loud-mouthed know-nothing jerk in that Annie Hall scene.

And of course, the scene he's referencing had McLuhan himself, not some guy who was "in the room" with McLuhan once.; 11/6/25, 7:03 AM
rehajm said...: This layman who is not paying much attention sees the argument boiling down to ‘Trump has too much power’ because the government’s interpretation is ‘novel’ and not seen before. Golly…where have we seen that before?; 11/6/25, 7:04 AM
Dave Begley said...: Today, 29% chance that Trump wins per Kalshi.; 11/6/25, 7:15 AM
Political Junkie said...: Wonder if with the 6 R justices seeing the election results yesterday, they might conclude the country has turned against Rs and will start opposing DJT more? Wondering.; 11/6/25, 7:20 AM
Kakistocracy said...: DB writes: “Today, 29% chance that Trump wins per Kalshi.“

The Supreme Court will rule against Trump's perceived authority to raise tariffs under the IEEPA, that seems abundantly clear from the oral arguments today.

There are a few key principles at play.

First, the statute itself does not reference giving the president the ability to raise tariffs, taxes, or duties. It talks of regulation via embargo, license and other more draconian measures you might expect a country to impose in a real emergency or outbreak of war, for example. The power to raise revenue is given to Congress, not the president, under the Constitution.

Second, even if the statute could be interpreted as providing the executive branch with tariff raising powers, the wording is not explicit and well defined and therefore the president using this as a basis to make huge changes violates what is known as the "major questions doctrine" the Supreme Court employs to prevent the executive branch from usurping authority for major policy changes via technical loopholes or otherwise vague language.

Third, there is also something known as the 'nondelegation doctrine' which, if the Court decided that the statute did in fact give the executive branch unlimited power to raise tariffs, this would violate the Constitution by delegating a core power of Congress to the executive branch which is not permissible.

One or more of the above are of concern to all the justices, not just the liberal ones. In some ways the conservatives may have at least as many issues as the liberals in this case.

It was not a contentious hearing between justices, which court watchers suggest means the justices are essentially agreed on the ruling on the case. Justice Alito, one of the most conservative judges, also raised the question of the court ruling more broadly on presidential authority on tariffs under other statutes as well, suggesting the court might also include a concurrent opinion that denies or limits executive authority to raise tariffs under any statute.; 11/6/25, 7:22 AM
rehajm said...: The judiciary is so biased and corrupt I could see the decision being met with a collective hit of dopamine for ‘setting limits’ then at the next opportunity the left completely and righteously ignoring it because reasons and getting away with it…; 11/6/25, 7:23 AM
rehajm said...: …sure he said he likes the money raised but the goal is to create a more level trading field not to raise money. A tax can be a fee because puffery is allowed but Trump makes me so mad so we can’t allow it…; 11/6/25, 7:31 AM
Achilles said...: Political Junkie said...

Wonder if with the 6 R justices seeing the election results yesterday, they might conclude the country has turned against Rs and will start opposing DJT more? Wondering

They aren't conservatives.

2 of those justices actually read the constitution. The rest are globalist shills who serve foreign lords. Gorsuch might have a soul but the other 6 are all on team Harvard/Yale.; 11/6/25, 7:33 AM
Achilles said...: Dave Begley said...

I really dislike that arrogant prick Neal Katyal. BTW, what Nixon thought about a law is irrelevant.

It is not relevant if you are a judge trying to apply constitutional review to a law or executive interpretation of a law passed by congress.

It is relevant if you are a robed Pharisee who believes the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of every government action and power and you are looking for an excuse to reduce taxes on Giant Multinational corporations who own you and everyone else in DC.; 11/6/25, 7:37 AM
rehajm said...: …thats the dopamine talking. Blue candidates win elections in blue places…; 11/6/25, 7:38 AM
rehajm said...: It’s a simpler mindset is ‘tariffs are bad’. It’s a mental weakness that leaks into everything- politics, finance, law. It causes forecasters to miss the GDP number by over 200 basis points even at the end if the quarter after they have EVERY data point used to calculate the number. We see it here in the comments. Tariffs are bad and must be stopped. They’re making us all crazy…; 11/6/25, 7:47 AM
rehajm said...: Tariffs to everyone: You know nothing of my work…; 11/6/25, 7:48 AM
Christopher B said...: You know who else was in The Room Where It Happened. Didn't work out so good for him.; 11/6/25, 7:53 AM
Kakistocracy said...: Trump's position that he can impose 4 trillion, that's trillion with a T, in taxes on the American people and our economy by saying the word "regulate" means anything Trump needs it to mean appears to be a bridge too far for even Gorsch let alone Roberts and Barrett; Kavanaugh might even be agast at the breath of the sweep of power being claimed.

Trump's tarrif regiment is as dead in the water as a Venezuelan drug boat. I see a 6-3 and potentially 7-2 decision against this power grab.; 11/6/25, 7:55 AM
narciso said...: So katyal is even stupider then i thought possible he did fool tthe Court in hamdan though; 11/6/25, 7:56 AM
CJinPA said...: The question is: Did Ann ever watch "A Christmas Story," a topic discussed in a 2020 entry under the Marshall McLuhan tag?; 11/6/25, 7:57 AM
tommyesq said...: Trump's position that he can impose 4 trillion, that's trillion with a T, in taxes on the American people and our economy by saying the word "regulate" means anything Trump needs it to mean

So your position is that Trump can impose tariffs, just not ones so big? Would Trump's plan have been permissible in your eyes if he had done it one country at a time?; 11/6/25, 8:15 AM
Wince said...: Political Junkie said...
Wonder if with the 6 R justices seeing the election results yesterday, they might conclude the country has turned against Rs and will start opposing DJT more? Wondering.

In fact, we have a The New Yorker moment here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_of_the_World_from_9th_Avenue; 11/6/25, 8:17 AM
tommyesq said...: BTW, what Nixon thought about a law is irrelevant.

I would argue that "no previous president has tried to use the statute to impose tariffs" is also not relevant, particularly when the law is only 50 years old.; 11/6/25, 8:19 AM
Gerda Sprinchorn said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11/6/25, 8:24 AM
Joe Bar said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11/6/25, 8:29 AM
Joe Bar said...: I am struggling to understand the reasoning behind this affair. If the law cannot be used, then why does it exist?; 11/6/25, 8:29 AM
Howard said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11/6/25, 8:30 AM
Howard said...: Congress has abdicated too much authority to the executive while at the same time as granted too much authority to the administrative class.

This has allowed the globalist to wage war whenever and wherever they want and to restrict any and all activities perpetrated by the little people who cannot afford to either pay off the government or hire enough attorneys and consultants to unlock the bureaucratic Gordian knots required to get anything done.; 11/6/25, 8:32 AM
john mosby said...: Hmm, could Trump do an ACA-like dodge and say, “ ok, you got me, I can’t impose tariffs. So I will impose embargoes. But don’t worry, if you really need to buy from the embargoed country, I’ll sell you a license. And to make it fair, the license fee will be proportional to the cost. Say, 100% for China. Oh, Xi smiled at me - let’s make it 40%.”

I mean, if a fee can be a tax, why not? Just fill the government with five legged dogs. CC, JSM; 11/6/25, 8:36 AM
narciso said...: Roberta didnt have any problem seizing 1/,7th of the gdp through obamacare; 11/6/25, 8:39 AM
narciso said...: You have had no problem with thr administrative state before howard nor this grifts called obamacare and the arra; 11/6/25, 8:42 AM
Gerda Sprinchorn said...: Hmm, could Trump do an ACA-like dodge and say, “ ok, you got me, I can’t impose tariffs. So I will impose embargoes. But don’t worry, if you really need to buy from the embargoed country, I’ll sell you a license. And to make it fair, the license fee will be proportional to the cost.

This came up in oral arguments. Could Trump do what he is doing by some other means under this law. Plaintiffs' attorney didn't want to address this issue. But I think the court has to. Courts do this all the time. One of the defenses against this line is that "fees" are small and meant to cover administrative costs, while tariffs are for tax-raising.; 11/6/25, 9:23 AM
Inga said...: Allowing Trump to use the word “emergency” to accomplish his scheme to tax the American people and raise revenue is already dangerous, we see what his tariff fiasco has already done to our economy and buying power of the people. There’s also danger in the future when the Executive thinks they can nullify the Congress, or the Congress allows itself to be nullified. Think of the possibilities.; 11/6/25, 9:37 AM
Original Mike said...: "we see what his tariff fiasco has already done to our economy and buying power of the people."

Really? What are you talking about?; 11/6/25, 12:57 PM
narciso said...: Those unicorns she keeps seeing; 11/6/25, 1:38 PM
narciso said...: Yoshida concerned a preceding law that was superceded; 11/6/25, 2:23 PM
Sweetie said...: Tariffs have increased the price of Thanksgiving Dinner by......checks notes......never mind.; 11/6/25, 3:59 PM
Aaron said...: "Allowing Trump to use the word “emergency” to accomplish his scheme to tax the American people and raise revenue is already dangerous, we see what his tariff fiasco has already done to our economy and buying power of the people"

LOL. We are running a 6% deficit. That started under Biden.

But of course its been that way for a long time, too.

I don't know what you think is going to happen...endless 6% deficits with no end in sight?

To lower that deficit will require: increasing taxes. or cutting spending. You're against Trump tax increases so...you want to cut spending?

or do you just want different taxes?

Tariffs in the USA probably closely mimic VAT or consumption tax, because so much of what we consume is imported.; 11/7/25, 11:28 AM