Have a listen:
Excerpt: "I'm ashamed of certain members of the Court — absolutely ashamed — for not having the courage to do what's right for our country. I'd like to thank and congratulate Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh for their strength and wisdom, and love of our country — which is right now very proud of those justices.... The Democrats on the Court are... frankly, a disgrace to our nation, those justices. They're an automatic no no matter how good a case you have — it's a no. You can't knock their loyalty. It's one thing you can do with some of our people.... What a shame.... They are very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution. It's my opinion that the Court has been swayed by foreign interests...."
He made it about shame and pride and loyalty. What evidence does he have that the Court has been swayed by foreign interests?
Posts
150 comments:
He is knocking the liberal wing of the SC for being loyal only to the democrat party, and for being disloyal to the country as a whole and the Constitution. Given their exceedingly rigid, lockstep voting records, seems like a pretty fair point.
In other words, the "foreign influence" is coming from inside the house!
In fairness, supporters of the opinion speak of the Justices in a very similar fashion.
Man Baby always whining he knew these were illegal and Unconstitutional ,use Congress .its called governing. WTF...The American people win this round freed from the biggest TAX burden placed on them. Pay it back ,the lawsuits will be coming in abundance. Probably time to start a war now for spite. :( The framers did not vest any part of the executive to levy tax on Americans) ARTICLE 1 SECTION 7 trump should have somene read it to him. WTF
" What evidence does he have that the Court has been swayed by foreign interests?"
I guess he should have gone through the motions of paying a retired UK spy to invent some.
Tariffs are not a tax. They are a duty.
Trump has done a better job than Obama criticizing the Court. He’s not in FDR territory yet. FDR would appreciate Trump accusing the Justices in the majority of getting money from China to rule against the tariffs. That was a nice touch. Roberts & Barret are Very Proud to be on the SC. Trump calls them corrupt.
So he has an opinion about the Opinion *shrug*. I'll pay attention to what he does about it.
Meanwhile, more importantly (IMO), Mitch McConnell's staffers keep the SAVE act from being debated on the floor.
"The American people win this round freed from the biggest TAX burden placed on them"
Nothing is worse for the American people than to pay Americans to build the stuff they buy made in American factories, when they could be buying stuff made by the ChiComs, for example, at coolie wages! They can then afford to buy the stuff with the scraps, not even scraps, but crumbs that fall from the table of the billionaires who own the companies giving them gig work, with no health insurance and no retirement plans.
I remember when Democrats were pro-labor. But since they co-opted the leadership of the unions, the rank and file can just get stuffed. They don't matter.
Taxes are not optional. A tariff is. You can buy the American made product without the duty.
Chief Justice Roberts will issue an another statement reiterating that Federal Judges are doing their level best. But Roberts couldn’t find the leaker of the Dobbs decision. He’s a fop
Embargo. Good for producers, workers, and consumers as markets adjust. A hard pill to swallow for politicians and investors. That said, why profit in change with durable viability?
I find such talk inane, but it might influence some people, that is, it might work as propaganda.
Yes, our system allows our politicians to speak and act politically. It isn’t a problem in need of solution. I find the banter about it inane. The liberal judges backstopping frightening lower court decisions is something worthy of debate but that debate is unfortunately diluted with the get Trump propaganda when legal scholars make it a priority…
Too subtle.
Another example of the Big Buffon being contemptuous of the document he swore to uphold.
He is unfit.
…it is kind of gratifying to hear the liberal loathe finance crowd suddenly but inadvertently agreeing with the large crowd of comparative advantage economists at conservative places like Cato et al…
Its funny to see people talk about "free trade" with China.
The IMF - an international bureaucracy of elites, not MAGA TRUIMPERS - just issued a report saying China massively subsidizes firms to the tune of 4% of GDP.
"According to a recent IMF assessment referenced in major news coverage of the fund’s latest China report, the IMF estimates that China is subsidising industrial production at a scale equivalent to about 4 % of GDP. That figure refers broadly to state support for companies in key sectors — through subsidies, tax breaks and related industrial policy instruments — which the IMF says contributes to excess capacity and global trade tensions. The IMF has suggested reducing this roughly 4 % of GDP subsidy burden by about 2 percentage points over the medium term."
ChatGPT summary.
4% of GDP is about what we spend on defense. Its massive.
BTW, this doesn't even include their weak currency. That should be appreciated by about 20% according to the IMF.
Imagine giving all your exports a 20% price cut. Gee, why are they exporting so much? $1.2 trillion surplus and their currency doesn't appreciate much at all. Its a joke.
The Supreme Court can't do much about that, but Congress should by passing tariffs or other solutions.
Reminder: China isn't some small country like Holland or Taiwan. It's our most likely strongest adversary. If you think allowing them to subsidize their industrial might is wise, well, good luck.
Oh, and yes, even our allies play games with their currencies. Taiwan's for example. They have massive exports and their currency doesn't appreciate. Its a joke. Free trade needs free movement of currencies. Otherwise everyone puts their thumb on the scales.
Virtue that goes public turns into the worst sort of evil. It applies to courts too. Look at Obamacare.
I should mention I am in the import business. I import from China, Taiwan, and now Vietnam.
So my arguments are against interest and I have seen a shitload of industrial production, and China scares me. They don't need subsidies or a weak currency to do well.
That's the lamest part.
He's pissed at Gorsuch and Barrett for not supporting his agenda. He knows he'll never get anything from the three lefties and he also knows Roberts is unreliable. He can't say it directly, but it's that simple.
Trump is fighting the Commies in the House, the federal judges, R squishes in the Senate including senile Mitch doing his best Biden impersonation, and the Robert’s court. It’s a miracle he is able to get anything done.
Wondering if he will address Robert’s to his face at the SOTU. Hope so!
I'm not confident, in fact I doubt, that Trump understands economics, in particular interest rates as the same thing as removing dollars from an overheated economy and thus suppressing inflation. Tariffs have more of an effect on bargaining positions that economics at the moment, and they're Trump's tool. They're in particular not a tax.
Economists classically argue that tariffs are like potholes in the road to other countries, just increasing the shipment costs. Except they're one way at a time, and if a country imposes a tariff on you, that's no reason to dig potholes the other way as well by putting tariffs on them in retaliation.
That overlooks the bargaining leverage.
I find such talk inane
Well, politics. Now do the Dred Scott decision, or, more recently, FDRs response to the nine old men after the Schechter decision. I don't know if the founders considered SCOTUS as part of the balance of power, or just another law court, but I expect they would argue about it :)
What I find really amazing is the fact that Trump, for all of his myriad flaws, is still the best president we've had for decades. It says a lot about the political class we have here in the US.
I've been plowing through the opinions. Hard to know where to begin.
The Constitution specifically includes a prohibition on the imposition of any "tax" or "duty" on articles exported from any State. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 5.
It also specifically provides that Congress is authorized to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises." Article 1, Section 8.
Roberts' facile argument that the authority to "regulate...imports" conferred by Congress upon the President under the IEEPA doesn't include the power to "tax" ignores the fact that the drafters of the Constitution clearly recognized that there is a distinction between a "tax" and a "duty," even if one effect of a "duty" is that it raises revenue.
Based on two words separated by 16 others in Section 1702(a)(1)(B) of IEEPA—“regulate” and “importation”—the President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time. Those words cannot bear such weight.
This is a grossly disingenuous, and indicative of the depth of reasoning in Roberts' opinion. There are 16 words between "Congress shall make no law..." and "..speech" in The First Amendment.
Trump's team should help him out. not sure why they are not doing so.
Like I said before, I don't really care about Tarriffs one way or the other. I just support Trump in his struggle against the out-of-Control SCOTUS and federal Judiciary who think they are the primary branch. Not one of three.
There is NO evidence of foreign influence. JD should have stopped him, but that’s not likely.
Trump says stupid things. That’s who he is. The Left runs with it.
Of course, all the MSM and Leftists are now "Free trade" fanatics because Trump is for tarriffs. If Biden had pushed the same tarriffs they would've said zero or supported them. Fake and even faker. As usual.
He made it about shame and pride and loyalty. What evidence does he have that the Court has been swayed by foreign interests?
The monkeys flying out of his butt told him it was foreign interests? How are we supposed to make substantive comments when you ask silly questions? He obviously is just making this shit up.
Tariffs on foreign imports are a function policy. Not sure why the Supreme dolts don’t see it. It’s leverage, not a tax.
@imTay the rank and file can just get stuffed. They don't matter.
There was a struggle for control of the Unions between communists and pragmatic officials back in the 1930s for precisely that reason. IIRC, Kagan wrote her senior thesis about that conflict in the garment industry. The communists viewed unions as a power basis supporting a revolutionary movement. It is somewhat ironic that union officials sent their kids to college, thus bringing communism back into the equation :)
This is what they should be ashamed about:
We do not attempt to set forth the metes and bounds of the President’s authority to “regulate . . . importation” under IEEPA. That “interpretive question” is “not at issue” in this case, and any answer would be “plain dicta.” West Virginia, 597 U. S., at 734–735, and n. 5. Our task today is to decide only whether the power to “regulate . . . importation,” as granted to the President in IEEPA, embraces the power to impose tariffs. It does not.[5]
So is a little bit of tariffing OK? fines? outright prohibition? What does "regulate...importation" mean--if not to impose costs--whether financial or practical-- on the importation of goods? Apparently the answer is--"We'll tell you when and if we decide to. Meanwhile don't do anything rash."
No wonder Trump is disgusted.
read the Gorsuch opinion. He is an outstanding jurist.
He takes the female leftwing judges to task.
They were all fine with Biden's illegal cancellation of student loans.
Kavanaugh laid out the roadmap on how to proceed.
I think Trump has a pretty good record, but I tune a lot of the static out. This is static, like the gilt trimmings in the Oval Office. I don't have any fixed opinion on tariffs. Maybe they work, maybe they don't. See how it goes. At this point, I've got zero interest in reading up on tariffs and their effects. If the Dow is hovering around 50,000, I don't think the effects are too drastic.......I think Charley Sheen had a far better record on picking porn stars than Trump. We'll see how it goes with his Supreme Court picks. Trump's not Sheen's. I would think that their decision was not influenced by any corrupt motives, and it's wrong to suggest otherwise.
…and who can argue with Fredo’s learned opinion!?!?
Trump argues that he’s using tariffs in defense of the United States. Taking the tariffs power away diminishes the president’s ability to negotiate for the country welfare, short of threatening hostilities. The Supremes are acting like war mongers.
“They were all fine with Biden's illegal cancellation of student loans.
Kavanaugh laid out the roadmap on how to proceed.”
👆Exactly.👆
Now every leftist is an economist.
"I find such talk inane, but it might influence some people, that is, it might work as propaganda."
I rather imagine that Donald Trump would entirely agree with those sentiments. The guy is smart, busy, highly knowledgeable and extremely practical. It is fairly obvious that when, quite late in life, he decided to become a politician, he recognized the necessity of developing an entirely new way of speaking. Just as most people find their diction and manner of speaking changes radically when their first child begins talking. The first question regarding any utterance is, to whom is it addressed? A parent can hope, by long and patient example, to elevate the conversation of his children. But politicians have to pretty much take 'em as they find 'em.
If you look at Trumps economic team, specifically Kevin Hassett and Scott Bessent, they are top shelf. The Supremes? Not so much, especially the DEI contingent.
I suppose I should say, "take us as they find us". I expect I would greatly enjoy an hour or two of private conversation with the President, but his public speaking style is stifling. Many have said that it is "not Presidential", yet I think it is intended as, precisely, Presidential. He says, not what Donald Trump wishes to say, but what President Trump wishes to have said.
The reasoning was terribly weak if he does have article 2 powers they wouod exercized only through tariffs
Dave Begley said...
“There is NO evidence of foreign influence. JD should have stopped him, but that’s not likely.”
The everyday results of practically all of the DC elite show the indefatigable results of foreign influence.
Otherwise, the big things would work out in favor of average American citizens at least once in a while, just through random statistical chance. Like: 80/20 issues might actually get resolved in favor of the 80 on occasion.
At this point ‘foreign influence’ is basically just the Progressive movement with open arms for all that will help them tie down Gulliver.
China, the EU, Canada, even Somali pirates: there is an open pocket in Washington for everybody.
I am Laslo.
boatbuilder writes
"Based on two words separated by 16 others in Section 1702(a)(1)(B) of IEEPA—“regulate” and “importation”—the President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time. Those words cannot bear such weight.
This is a grossly disingenuous, and indicative of the depth of reasoning in Roberts' opinion. There are 16 words between "Congress shall make no law..." and "..speech" in The First Amendment."
That "16 words" caught my eye too. If you are going to make a statement about what the statute's text means, you better quote the text, in context. Otherwise my first impression is that you are deliberately concealing something.
"What evidence does he have that the Court has been swayed by foreign interests?"
"No evidence" would be true for about 25% of what he says. For another 25%, he knows he's lying.
There are no words tbat modify said authority but augment it
Rather than shame and pride, revert to the underlying terms, penis envy and pudendum. From L pudor, shame, modesty. As in feminine modesty.
“They are very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution. It's my opinion that the Court has been swayed by foreign interests...."”
Does he mean they, Barrett, Gorsuch and Roberts aren't sufficiently loyal to HIM? He keeps equating himself with the Country, he isn’t the Country, he is a mere human. “Swayed by foreign interests”…is he trying to find a way to charge them with treason? This is the creature you folks voted for.
Kingsfield would have sent them back to one l
Where in on that verbiage is congress included
It all depends on whether or not the three justices are correct in their arguments. If they are, then Trump is mostly correct. I see it as political, because I think another President would not have gotten this result, and a Democrat would have definitely gotten the opposite result, at least from the Democrat nominated justices.
Does Trump mean the Justices are being influenced by foreigners, or just that their decision has the effect of helping foreigners, and they either don’t notice or don’t care?
Or just indirectly bowing to foreign interests. After all the plaintiffs are almost literally proxies for foreign vendors. Find for the plaintiffs, you find for the foreigners. Yes you’re supposed to follow the law, but the law includes the POTUS’s role as lead foreign trade negotiator. The majority ignore this and treat it like a wholly domestic sewerage assessment.
Maybe that’s what Trump means. CC, JSM
By the way, we could use a little more shame from judges in this country.
"What evidence does he have that the Court has been swayed by foreign interests?"
The fact that the ruing was favorable to foreign interests is in itself evidence.
That's according to the definition of evidence I have learned here.
Should judges be proud of their country?
He should have been better prepared for this problem.
In a situation where they see the law as ambiguous should SC judges prefer executive policy that defends U.S. interests over foreign ones?
Trump needs evidence? No, he just needs to know what he wants.
He’s Trump. Some days he’s an idiot; some days he’s a savant. MAGA cultists can no more acknowledge the former than the TDS-afflicted can acknowledge the latter. Those of us who can appreciate his rather astonishing accomplishments and courage while lamenting his cartoonish immaturity and ego find both sides pathetically amusing.
Obama was critical of the Supreme Court after the Citizens United ruling and said so to their faces at the State of the Union address. Compare and contrast.
So far the tariffs have been a burden on the manufacturer and distributor, not the consumer. Can anyone name a product that has increased in price directly related to the current tariffs? How about in Trumps first term?
Did you know that Biden crated an Ap so that illegal aliens could get commercial drivers licenses?
why yes.
Over 200,00 illegals have been given commercial drivers licenses. Trump turned the AP off. Trump admin have been working on this but face leftist judges who do all they can to stop them.
One of Biden's illegals gained a commercial license license using Biden's AP - this Biden illegal killed 4 innocent family members in Indiana on a road near the Ohio border.
Leftists snore or cheer.
o
im on my lap top. TTTTT
And they said it was fine and acted accordingly
See schumer in 2020 re justicès
How many of the tariffs that could or would have been affected by the courts decision have already been negotiated into a trade agreement and therefore are not affected? I'd like to see a list of the tariffs that were still outstanding - no superseding trade agreement.
It's as you people think Trump's being serious. It's just his standard Loooser schtick
But he's not a loser, Howard. He's the president of the United States. He's decreased inflation and increased prosperity for all Americans. Do you think crime and inflation are marks of success?
He made it about shame and pride and loyalty. What evidence does he have that the Court has been swayed by foreign interests?
The fact that they sided with foreign interests should be the first place you start.
AZ Bob said...
Obama was critical of the Supreme Court after the Citizens United ruling and said so to their faces at the State of the Union address. Compare and contrast.
Don't make them defend themselves with logic.
Ann has her feelz going.
bagoh20 said...
It all depends on whether or not the three justices are correct in their arguments. If they are, then Trump is mostly correct. I see it as political, because I think another President would not have gotten this result, and a Democrat would have definitely gotten the opposite result, at least from the Democrat nominated justices.
No other president has actually put the interests of Americans and voters first. Bush Clinton Bush Obama Biden all put the interests of globalist oligarchs first.
The Supreme Court never really had to defend their Oligarchs before Trump forced them to.
Howard said...
It's as you people think Trump's being serious. It's just his standard Loooser schtick
So it is that time of month I see.
Gorsuch makes a good point:
But if history is any guide, the tables will turn and the day will come when those disappointed by today’s result will appreciate the legislative process for the bulwark of liberty it is.
But where does he get the following "delegate away wholesale, without scrutiny, and forever" rhetoric?
...even if a distinction between true legislative powers and “other kinds of power[s]” were proper... I do not see why the tariff power would fall in the latter category and thus be something Congress could delegate away wholesale, without scrutiny, and forever.
Congress can repeal or amend the president's IEEP authority at any time. Based on the trepidation Gorsuch expressed during oral argument about a veto-proof majority needed for a congressional restriction of presidential authority, however, I found this interesting:
Yes, legislating can be hard and take time. And, yes, it can be tempting to bypass Congress when some pressing problem arises. But the deliberative nature of the legislative process was the whole point of its design. Through that process, the Nation can tap the combined wisdom of the people’s elected representatives, not just that of one faction or man. There, deliberation tempers impulse, and compromise hammers disagreements into workable solutions. And because laws must earn such broad support to survive the legislative process, they tend to endure, allowing ordinary people to plan their lives in ways they cannot when the rules shift from day to day.
Yet, in context of his comments during oral argument and his "forever" rhetoric, Gorsuch appears to be the one most fretful of the lengthy and arduous legislative process -- including the veto and filibuster -- in order to proclaim the Court's need to step in and determine US trade policy in this case.
Moreover, Gorsuch seems to miss the point that Chevron originated as a judicial abomination which the the Court -- and only the Court -- could redress.
The Court pushed aside its long-held skepticism of claims to extraordinary delegated powers and began affirmatively encouraging them. Chevron deference is just one example of this phenomenon, though a stark one... That case established a presumption that was nearly the opposite of the major questions doctrine: When Congress failed to speak clearly, courts put a thumb on the scale in favor of delegated power.
So, why exactly should the Court rush in to put its other thumb on the scale to decide US trade policy in this case?
Humperdink said...
Tariffs on foreign imports are a function policy. Not sure why the Supreme dolts don’t see it. It’s leverage, not a tax.
They see it.
They just have very rich people they serve who want to make things in other countries and ship them to America without paying taxes.
Wince said...
Gorsuch makes a good point:
But if history is any guide, the tables will turn and the day will come when those disappointed by today’s result will appreciate the legislative process for the bulwark of liberty it is.
LOL!
Now do the Obamacare ruling.
He knows this only goes one way.
Yes, legislating can be hard and take time. And, yes, it can be tempting to bypass Congress when some pressing problem arises. But the deliberative nature of the legislative process was the whole point of its design. Through that process, the Nation can tap the combined wisdom of the people’s elected representatives, not just that of one faction or man. There, deliberation tempers impulse, and compromise hammers disagreements into workable solutions. And because laws must earn such broad support to survive the legislative process, they tend to endure, allowing ordinary people to plan their lives in ways they cannot when the rules shift from day to day.
Congress passed the law and a President signed it.
Gorsuch doesn't want his Oligarch owners to have to pay taxes while Congress tries to take away the power they gave every President before Trump.
Another indicator that the tariffs were not passed on to the consumer is that companies are seeking a refund. If the tariffs had been passed on to the consumer, then the consumer would be due the refund, not the company..
Ampersand says he should have been better prepared for this problem.
90 minutes after the ruling he issued EO, under a different law, replacing the tariffs struck down by the supremes.
90 minutes. Sounds like he was well prepared unless you think he drafted a whole new tariff policy in an hour and a half.
The ruling really has no effect on tariff in place or to come.
John Henry
"Those of us who can appreciate his rather astonishing accomplishments and courage while lamenting his cartoonish immaturity and ego find both sides pathetically amusing."
Must be invigorating to live life on a higher plane than the mere mortals.
Wouldn't it be funny if SCOTUS misspelled the case name?
LEARING RESOURCES, INC., ET AL. v. TRUMP,
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL.
From oral arguments page 69
JUSTICE GORSUCH: I'm delighted to hear that, you know. Okay. All right.
And then I wanted to return to
something Justice Sotomayor asked under this statute, okay, so now we're in this statute. It's a major questions question, though.
Could the President impose a 50
percent tariff on gas-powered cars and auto parts to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat from abroad of climate
change?
GENERAL SAUER: It's very likely that that could be done. That would be very likely.
Sounds like a "don't throw me in the rear patch" moment for Trump. By ruling against Trump, the supremes preclude the demd from using ineep for shenanigans.
While still leaving Trump 8 other avenue for tariffs.
Also, by ruling against Trump, they portray themselves as not his sock puppet which may come in handy for future pro-trump rulings
This whole thing will turn out to be major win for pdjt.
H/t Jeff childers
John Henry
Kavanaugh:
"Although I firmly disagree with the Court’s holding today, the decision might not substantially constrain a President’s ability to order tariffs going forward. That is because numerous other federal statutes authorize the President to impose tariffs and might justify most (if not all) of the tariffs at issue in this case—albeit perhaps with a few additional procedural steps that IEEPA, as an emergency statute, does not require.”
“Those statutes include, for example, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232); the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 122, 201, and 301); and the Tariff Act of 1930 (Section 338). In essence, the Court today concludes that the President checked the wrong statutory box by relying on IEEPA rather than another statute to impose these tariffs”
Of course every Tarriff will again be challenged in court. And because the Leftist judges hate Trump and the Republican Establishment judges hate Tarriff, they will declare Trump's actions "illegal" (LOL). And it will work its way up to the SCOTUS again.
Of course, the injuctions will stay in place. Thereby allowing the left and the R establishment to stop Trump from doing his job.
In any healthy nation a President telling the Supreme Court has been swayed by external actors without providing proofs of his claim would be unacceptable and probably lead to his own impeachment. In US nobody cares anymore.
Trump and Republicans do not know how to govern.
It was foolish bravado that led Trump to think he had the power to make these tariffs. Any legal scholar knew Trump was exceeding his authority except the whack jobs Trump employs.
Studies have shown a mixed bag of results for US businesses as a result of tariffs, with as many businesses hurt as helped. Worse, the ongoing uncertainty has curtailed investment as businesses wait for certainty while Trump continues his arbitrary and capricious ways.
The result is a poor and misguided policy that has done more harm than good for the U.S. economy and status in the world.
This whole thing will turn out to be major win for pdjt.
Not just Trump but for all of us who want a more limited federal government.
Trump's rant in and of itself was remarkable, a real display of out of control behavior.
For a second there, I actually thought the Supreme Court had saved Trump from himself.
Nope—he's still charging straight toward the abyss, dragging the Republicans and the midterms right along with him.
Just get rid of the Judge made delegation doctrine. The legislative power belongs to Congress not the Administrative State, which is a Progressive abomination prohibited by the Constitution.
And Congress is shit. They pile up the debt to enrich themselves and their progeny. So Gorsuch’s bullshit paean is some 1950s sixth grade civics bullshit.
Read this slowly. The Supreme Court told the President he cannot tax Americans by decree. His response was not compliance. It was not even the same tax under a different law. It was a higher tax. He raised it. From 10% to 15%. As punishment.
Punishment for whom? Not for China. Not for the EU. For the American consumer. The Court defended American's wallets and Trump retaliated against Americans for being defended. He is taxing American consumers harder because the judiciary dared to say he couldn’t tax you at all.
This has no precedent in American history. No president has ever responded to a Supreme Court defeat by escalating the very policy the Court struck down and making it more painful for his own citizens. This is not trade policy. This is not economic strategy. This is a man punishing a nation because a court told him no. A toddler breaking a toy because an adult said share.
“Fully allowed, and legally tested, 15% level.” Nothing about this has been legally tested. He invented that sentence the way he invents everything; by typing it in capital letters and hoping volume replaces law. Yesterday it was “totally tested and accepted as Law.” Today it is “fully allowed and legally tested.” Tomorrow it will be something else. The words change. The lie is permanent.
And buried in the rant: “(until I came along!).” There it is. The parenthetical that reveals the pathology. This was never about trade. Never about the working class. Never about America. It was always about him. The tariffs exist because he needs to feel like the man who fixed everything. The 15% exists because a court made him feel small. And Americans will pay the difference; in groceries, in gas, in everything you import; so that one man’s ego remains intact.
The Golden Calf just raised the price of worshipping it.
A damn shame. Join the pride parade. No lions, lionesses, or unPlanned cubs in gay play were aborted in its progression.
Kak,
Trump is invoking another statute that delegated tariff power to the President. There are many, as Kavanaugh pointed out in his dissent.
I’mmsorry you have to pay more for Chinese made dildoes.
I see that boatbuilder has already made the point that leapt out at me when I saw reports of the opinions (which I have not got round to reading in full yet.) Roberts' remark that there are 16 words between "regulate" and "importation" is not so much disingenuous as inane. Any proficient reader of English - you certainly don't need to be a lawyer - can read a sentence in which the object of a sentence is separated from its verb by sixteen other words and still understand the syntax and see that the sixteen intervening words don't change the meaning of the verb-object construction at all.
He's trying to make it sound like there's some complex syntactical construction that allows us to conclude that there's some puzzle about "regulate importation" that requires judicial nuance to sort out. But there isn't, or to the extent that there is, that there are sixteen intervening words, are not it.
It's just "Look ! Squirrel !" but so obvious that it defeats the distraction. It's so feeble as a distraction that it actually attracts your attention.
It is inane to think that this is a matter of law only.
It is a much bigger question than that, whether or not Trumps policy is ultimately wise.
We each live in our own professional worlds. Being an engineer, mine, at least, is ultimately bounded by nature, not language or legal process.
thats the best argument they got, lol
It's a good thing that many of the alternative methods for imposing tariffs still require Congressional approval. That forces Republicans in Congress to cast public votes on what amounts to the Trump Tariff Tax—and then explain to their own voters why they supported higher costs before the midterms.
Some of these Supreme Court justices ARE an embarrassment!
The Republican justices ARE embarrassments. Not Roberts, who was appointed by Bush because the D's loved him. But Goresuch, ACB, and Kavanaugh. This characters always have to be in the spotlight. Rarely can they just sign on to the majority opinion. They must have their special snowflake opinion. And in every case its a guessing game was to which side they will vote for.
Goresuch is probably the worst. Touted as "The new Scalia" he's nothing of the sort. He's smart, but has no conservative philosophy, just a desire to be elite and trendy. So he a constant wildcard. Like Anthony Kennedy he always wants to be "the descider" - the man who everyone reads. Another grandstander and establishment stooge.
It was a legal opinion about the meaning of words in a statute
No, it wasn't.
It was a political opinion. A legal one would have accepted that a law that gives the President the power to unilaterally control all trade in an "emergency" gives him the power to impose tariffs as a means of controlling trade during the "emergency".
It might have ruled that the "control all trade" part was unconstitutional, and if they'd done that I would have probably agreed with them.
But they didn't. They just ruled that "orange man is bad", and therefore he couldn't use IEEPA to impose tariffs.
Trump's calling the SCOTUS 6 Loooosers. That's his standard schtick he learned at the feet of Roy Cohn
Kakistocracy said...
Read this slowly. The Supreme Court told the President he cannot tax Americans by decree. His response was not compliance. It was not even the same tax under a different law. It was a higher tax. He raised it. From 10% to 15%. As punishment.
Punishment for whom? Not for China. Not for the EU. For the American consumer
Watch the retard dance for his Foreign Oligarchs.
Nobody cares about your lies. It is transparent and only idiots fall for it.
alito is the successor to Scalia, gorsuch blows hot and cold, at times. but one is struck at the fact there isn't any languagee that really limits the presidents regulatory authority,
Kak: “ he's still charging straight toward the abyss,”
No, he’s charging OUT of the abyss, at your ilk.
The abyss of governments actually serving their people.
Trump is saying to all you Reverend Mothers, “ Try looking into that place where you dare not look! You'll find me there, staring out at you!”
CC, JSM
It's obviously been a winning tactic through the out years. I swear, some of you people have hare trigger insecurities. You should get that looked at.
Lee Moore said...
I see that boatbuilder has already made the point that leapt out at me when I saw reports of the opinions (which I have not got round to reading in full yet.) Roberts' remark that there are 16 words between "regulate" and "importation" is not so much disingenuous as inane. Any proficient reader of English - you certainly don't need to be a lawyer - can read a sentence in which the object of a sentence is separated from its verb by sixteen other words and still understand the syntax and see that the sixteen intervening words don't change the meaning of the verb-object construction at all.
He's trying to make it sound like there's some complex syntactical construction that allows us to conclude that there's some puzzle about "regulate importation" that requires judicial nuance to sort out. But there isn't, or to the extent that there is, that there are sixteen intervening words, are not it.
It's just "Look ! Squirrel !" but so obvious that it defeats the distraction. It's so feeble as a distraction that it actually attracts your attention.
+1.
Roberts is always looking for an excuse to sell out to the Oligarchs.
Sec Treas, Scott Brylcreem, says the ruling is a nothing Burger and has a plan to rejiggering under alternative statues.
certainly they did not expect he would wield the gom jabbar as skillfully as he has,
Buwaya,
There is no question too big for The Great John Roberts and His Girl Friday Amy Coney
Achilles, if this sentence is so clear about its intent, why are you not quoting it so that we can see how obvious your interpretation is?
The fact that your rant about 16 words makes it clear that if you presented us with the sentence and your claim for what it means it would be clear you are full of it.
Show us the sentence that so clearly gives Trump this power or stfu
Lots of them are proving not to be human. They tried and they died (politically). CC, JSM
Trump raises global tariff to 15% ~ Fox News
10% yesterday.
15% today.
Gorsuch absolutely shredded Trump’s attempt to rule trade policy by whim. As Gorsuch wrote, could be “1 percent or 1,000,000 percent .. and he may change his mind at any time for nearly any reason.”
Our Professor said..
.."6 of whom brought embarrassment to us and 3 of whom made us proud. I find such talk inane"..
NOW; tell us, AGAIN about Your feelings on the Abortion Ruling (Dobbs)?
Of course; THAT'S different.. Because YOU disagreed
Gorsuch believes the delegation doctrine and the administrative state are unconstitutional. He didn’t shred Trump’s trade policy. He shredded Roberts The Wise Man who believes he can discern just the right amount of delegation of lawmaking to the President.
It’s never been easier to get an abortion or a state issued ID.
Les Moore--The "16 words" line was set off as a separate and concluding paragraph to Roberts' intro. His "signature quote" for the opinion. That's what struck me. Like junior high school debating.
If Trump, or Chuck Schumer, or even AOC, had made that argument they would be rightly ridiculed and mocked.
I wish that our government, all three branches, would take a page out of NASCAR's book and wear uniforms showing who owns them. "Whose bread I eat, his song I sing."
Human rites a.k.a. elective abortion a.k.a. planned parenthood umbrella incorporation a.k.a. wicked solution are performed for social, clinical, criminal, political, and climate progress. That said, keep women reusable, affordable, available, and taxable (RAAT), and the "burden" of evidence sequestered in sanctuary states. Also, a leg in the liberal triad leaning into pedo equity and inclusion. Forward! And downward is a Pro-Choice religion of ethical equivocation.
Dobbs was ruled under a veil of emanations from the penumbra, the faith of the twilight fringe. #HateLovesAbortion
Mark said...
Achilles, if this sentence is so clear about its intent, why are you not quoting it so that we can see how obvious your interpretation is?
The fact that your rant about 16 words makes it clear that if you presented us with the sentence and your claim for what it means it would be clear you are full of it.
Show us the sentence that so clearly gives Trump this power or stfu
(a) In general
(1) At the times and to the extent specified in section 1701 of this title, the President may, under such regulations as he may prescribe, by means of instructions, licenses, or otherwise—
(A) investigate, regulate, or prohibit—…
(B) investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States;
It is right there in black and white you retard. I even bolded it for you.
That sentence couldn't be any clearer.
I particularly would like you to focus on
" transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest by any person,"
You are a dumbass but you at least can read the words.
10% yesterday.
15% today.
Time to panic, again, Kak?
Kakistocracy said...
Trump raises global tariff to 15% ~ Fox News
10% yesterday.
15% today.
Gorsuch absolutely shredded Trump’s attempt to rule trade policy by whim. As Gorsuch wrote, could be “1 percent or 1,000,000 percent .. and he may change his mind at any time for nearly any reason.”
We all note how you people refuse to read the words that Congress wrote into the statute and that Jimmy Carter signed into law.
You will do anything to make sure your billionaires don't pay taxes.
Contra Justice Roberts, the language is very broad, and also specific, clear and expressed in terms which are expansive rather than limiting.
It also does not say "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize the President to impose tariffs, duties, financial penalties* or revenue-generating measures."
*Or "taxes," for that matter.
I'll second John Henry's take at 3:46. [h/t Jeff Childers, did we read the same substack?]
IEEEPA needed a firewall and I remember around "Liberation Day" some commentators wondering what this law could justify in the hands of a leftist. The SCOTUS decision is also in line with the current thinking on MQD, major questions doctrine, that the EPA abused.
Kavanaugh laid out how to achieve the same ends via other statutes so no harm, no foul.
Is SCOTUS trying to erect a "non-partisan" shield before deciding coming questions such as birthright citizenship?
All this is a 4D conspiracy theory that I like.
Trump's imposition of 15% tariffs is an emotional one with no basis in economics or logic or anyone’s interest beyond his own desire to exert his power.
Effectively a 15% sales tax on everything American families buy. Republicans can this that as a campaign slogan for the midterms.
The markets didn’t blink after yesterday’s Supreme Court Proclamation. Lot of factors go into price of goods. The Economic Experts who predicted disaster were wrong. Again.
The 15% is leverage, you idiot.
"Do you want the deal we worked out, or 15%?"
If Trump wants sweeping tariffs, he should do the American thing and go to Congress. If his tariffs are such a good idea, he should have no problem persuading Congress. That’s what our Constitution requires.
Kak,
You sound like Scalia. Too bad the Progressives on the Supreme Court decided Congress could delegate its powers to the executive branch almost 100 years ago.
Ignorance is a choice.
“What evidence does he have that the Court has been swayed by foreign interests?”
Context, Ann. Context!
I don't think 150 days of 15% Section 122 tariffs are going to improve Republican's chances in the mid-term elections, and I think they know it.
The GOP in power in Congress just means the shit legislation doesn’t get passed. They don’t do anything but not pass shitty laws.
If the Dems win the midterms then Trump just vetoes the shitty legislation.
We’re all just waiting for Mitch McConnell to do to see who inherits the lion’s share of the China Graft
@Limited Blogger wrote: "Taxes are not optional. A tariff is. You can buy the American made product without the duty."
I agree with your first point, but your second point ignores that the domestic prices rise to the same point, at least if competition is close to perfect and the goods are perfect substitutes.
Before 2017, a president taking to Twitter to taunt a nuclear power would’ve been unthinkable. But on the first Tuesday in 2018, Donald Trump, whose bygone impulsiveness contributed to two failed marriages and the bankruptcies of numerous businesses, engaged in a geopolitical boasting contest with North Korea, sacrificing the benefits of considered diplomacy to satiate his impulsiveness and need for attention:
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the “Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times.” Will someone from his depleted, and food-starved regime please inform him that I, too, have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!
This may be the most irresponsible tweet in history. Julian Sanchez articulated the best-case scenario: “The good news is, other countries won’t take talk like this too seriously because they understand Trump is a small man who blusters to make himself feel potent. That’s also the bad news; there’s nowhere left to go rhetorically when we need to signal that we’re serious.” Most likely, that’s the fallout. ~The Atlantic
But solipsists can know no shame because they don't care what others think.
Bought by “foreign interests.” This from the guy who just engineered a pay-for-play deal with a shady UAE sheik, who invested upwards of $400 million in a Trump crypto business in exchange for thousands of our most advanced AI chips. Just another day in the life. Trump's clearly projecting...
Kakistocracy said...
If Trump wants sweeping tariffs, he should do the American thing and go to Congress. If his tariffs are such a good idea, he should have no problem persuading Congress. That’s what our Constitution requires.
Jimmy Carter did it for him.
I know you people hate words because they make you look stupid.
But Congress clearly gave Trump this power on multiple occasions over the last 100 years.
John Roberts has been all political for 20 years. And Trump called him on it. The goal is stopping Trump’s booming economy for any BS dressed up in legal words.
Everybody knows it.
Charlie Currie,
Yes quite a few electronic parts have been subject to tariffs on and off.
Some of the parts houses like Mouser and Digikey were ready for this and had a separate column on their inventory lists and invoices showing the contribution of the tariff to the final selling price.
"Some of these Supreme Court justices ARE an embarrassment!"
Apparently, this tariffs question was easier than:
"What is a woman?"
Achilles, yep that gives express power for tariffs in clear language. Clear as mud.
What a joke you are. You didnt demonstrate a thing to prove your point, which is exactly what I knew you couldn't provide.
Like the Administrations argument, Roberts saw right through your insistence that these words mean a specific meaning you care inventing.
It thats your best argument, of course you lost.
Achilles has to be a parody account. I can't imagine anyone taking him seriously.
Fremdscham (German):
A feeling of vicarious embarrassment—being embarrassed on behalf of someone else because they are acting awkwardly, shamelessly, or without realizing how cringeworthy they appear.
It’s the moment when you cringe because they don’t.
I remember the days not so long ago when Althouse routinely mocked the stories about the latest outrageous Trump assertion being “without evidence.” Now she’s on the without evidence bandwagon.
The list of Trump appointees and Republican officer holders that Trump has viciously turned on just grows and grows. I should feel sorry for them, but they lay down with the snake, and it’s no surprise that the snake bit them.
All those countries who pledged investments for cuts in tariffs just realized that they made promises and signed papers for a deal which no longer exists.
Japan could have waited a couple weeks, done nothing, and invested in their own country.
In a floating-rate, reserve-currency system, there is no justification for invoking Section 122. This cannot go unchallenged. I hope lawyers are preparing papers as we speak.
This ruling closes the door on repurposing and shines an illuminating light on labor and environmental arbitrage with short-term benefits and long-term deficits.
Kakistocracy said... It was a higher tax. He raised it. From 10% to 15%. As punishment.
Punishment for whom? Not for China. Not for the EU. For the American consumer
Are you stupid, or just dishonest?
Trump's inflation has been lower than Biden's despite the tariffs. That means that the foreigners are picking up the cost of the tax, not American consumers.
So, is the problem that you're too stupid to take a look at reality and see if it matches your beliefs? Or are you just a lying sack of shit, who doesn't care about reality?
John said...
@Limited Blogger wrote: "Taxes are not optional. A tariff is. You can buy the American made product without the duty."
I agree with your first point, but your second point ignores that the domestic prices rise to the same point, at least if competition is close to perfect and the goods are perfect substitutes.
1: Trump's inflation has been lower than Biden's. So rather than the foreign good increasing in price and the American ones also going up, the foreign sellers have been eating the tariff, selling fewer goods, at a lower profit
2: The rush to built / locate manufacturing plants in the US post Trump imposing the tariffs means that in areas where there ARE no American goods to buy, that will change.
Another win for Trump's policies.
Look, 10 years ago I disagreed with most of what Trump was pushing. But we've got 10 years of evidence that in fact illegals drive down American wages, drive up rent and housing prices, and that tariffs can be used to increase American manufacturing at little to no cost to American consumers.
Sane and educated people look at the data and update their priors. Indoctrinated people just continue bleating out the same old same old.
Be educated, not indoctrinated
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.