The oral argument yesterday on the Trump tariffs was fascinating as justices struggled with the knotty question of whether a president has the sweeping authority claimed by President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The justices were skeptical and uncomfortable with the claim of authority, and the odds still favored the challengers. However, there is a real chance of a fractured decision that could still produce an effective win for the Administration.
THE COUNSEL
First, the counsel. I was highly impressed by the performance of Solicitor General John Sauer, who did a brilliant job in weaving historical and precedential arguments in favor of the tariffs. He had a tough case and at times a tough audience, but maintained a coherent and consistent position.
Many were surprised that the challengers selected the liberal firebrand Neil Katyal for counsel on the other side. Kavanaugh even made a quip about the incongruity of Katyal arguing for issues like non-delegation. Katyal struggled at points and Justice Amy Coney Barrett bashed him once for seemingly flipping his position in oral argument. However, Katyal made the key points against the claim of statutory and constitutional authority.
Overall, the Administration faced worrisome moments in the argument, with Chief Justice John Roberts repeatedly referring to tariffs as a clear “tax” and Justice Neil Gorsuch repeatedly raising the “major questions doctrine.” Neither works well for the Administration. If this is a tax, it is more likely viewed as a usurpation of Congress’s inherent tax authority.
THE HEAD COUNT
However, the head counting becomes more difficult as you comb through the specific questions of the justices.
We begin with the clear votes in favor of the challengers by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson. Indeed, at times, both justices seemed to take on the role of counsel in clarifying the confusion left by the challengers and directing them back to what they viewed as more solid ground.
Justice Kagan, as usual, was more circumspect, but still clearly leaning against the Administration.
That leaves two more votes to reject the tariffs.
The most obvious candidate would be Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who hit Sauer hard with questions on the largely unprecedented scope of the Trump tariffs. Much of this turned on the meaning of the terms “regulate importation” in IEEPA. Barrett asked pointedly: “Can you point to any other place in the code or any other time in history where that phrase, together with ‘regulate importation,’ has been used to confer tariff-imposing authority?”
Sauer stressed that a predecessor law was used in this manner, but Barrett repeatedly returned and was clearly not satisfied. At one point, Sotomayor (prematurally in my view) snapped at Sauer and said “just answer the justice’s question.”
However the other eight decide to vote on this very contentious issue, I think we can expect Roberts to try to split the baby and give both sides some measure of both a win and a loss. That is the way he always seems to act when very contentious issues come his way. He has never struck me as all that principled. If he is half a vote for Trump’s position, then Trump will probably enjoy enough of a win not to have to change too much of how he handles trade.
As long as the Justices confine themselves to the Constitutional questions, and not whether tariffs are a good or bad idea, I am content. Sotomayor and Jackson seem to have the no grasp of the limits of their authority.
Well, first of all, a traiff is not a tax. It’s an imposition, a demand or burden, imposed for the purpose of regulating commerce. Secondly, I personally find the scope of these words, “threat to economy,” most significant. Lastly, I find it absolutely incongruous that the President should have on his cabinet a “United States Trade Representative” with no authority whatsoever to so regulate commerce.
A solid argument could be that the administration’s U S CAPITALIST TARIFF PLAN is a national security concern that is laser focussed on re-establishing a healthy industrial / manufacturing / production environment on U S soil; one of the primary components to foster free market capitalism.
*. Yes. When the offshore tax haven foreign production producers attempt a relocation within the US, they’re hit by high wages, salaries and the ever protesting on strike workers. Many walk away as it’s too much trouble.
The offshore people then do a payola, pay 2 dollars per day foreign workers and sell their products for enormous profit as junk US products. I bought some dried papaya made of cardboard the other day.
Damn, Donald, “Crazy Abe” Lincoln would have forcibly imposed martial law by now.
“Damn, Donald, “Crazy Abe” Lincoln would have forcibly imposed martial law by now.”
Dammit Donald… if Lincoln hadn’t freed Mad King George X’s forefather’s slaves, we’d have them Darkies working 16 hours a day, seven days a week, to increase Confederate America productivity!
Wait. Lincoln’s imposition of martial law, as was his denial of not prohibited and fully constitutional secession and suspension of habeas corpus, was unconstitutional, causing Lincoln to be a criminal of high office. Duly legislated, while reprehensible to all, slavery is not the issue and does not bear.
Wait. Lincoln’s imposition of martial law, as was his denial of not prohibited and fully constitutional secession and suspension of habeas corpus, was unconstitutional, causing Lincoln to be a criminal of high office.
Wait. Mad King George X’s Confederate Marxist theories regarding Lincoln because he freed his Confederate great grandpappy’s Darkies always relies on nearly criminal lies based on Confederate Kluxxer Constitutional theory.
I will take Chief Justice Renquist’s explanation of Lincoln’s actions during the Confederate Kluxxer Insurrection over those you’re parroting with your cut and past from your twin, Mad King George X.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist spent 300 pages explaining and dealing with Confederate Commie GeorgeX’s Marxist wet dreams and revisionist historical and Constitutional analysis of both Lincoln and theConfederate Kluxxer Insurrection (as seen through the eyes of today’s Democrat Kluxxers who have now turned to communism when their Civil War ended in a crushing FAFO).
Given that George has proved his reading comprehension has never gotten beyond what he developed in kindergarten, Justice Rehnquist’s work and explanations may as well be laying on the surface of the moon as far as George is concerned. For everybody else who are normal Americans:
ALL THE LAWS BUT ONE: CIVIL LIBERTIES IN WARTIME
https://www.amazon.com/All-Laws-but-One-Liberties/dp/0679446613
How’s the third-world s—hole today? Did ya’all find some new foreign parasites to give the country away to today? How ’bout more leeches to give “free stuff” to? The Founders would be so proud of all you bleeding-heart milquetoasts.
It is a good case for SCOTUS, but one which I believe will most likely be decided by political voting by the likes of John “Obamacare Is Actually A Tax” Roberts and the uniform Trump Is Wrong votes of Jackson, Sotomayor, and Kagan.
What I am most interested in from a constitutional basis is where Thomas and to a lesser extent Alito arrive at. Gorsuch has a libertarian streak versus a strict constitutionalist/textualist approach; he could end up honestly ruling as Jackson, Sotomayor and Kagan automatically will corruptly rule against.
In my opinion I think that arguments can be made both ways, and Trump’s methods in how he did this made him more vulnerable to Democrats attacking the tariffs (which they would have automatically done regardless, simply because it was Trump policy).
What glaringly sticks out here in the posts is all the commentators including George X, wailing that these tariffs are actually paid by American taxpayers.
I might give them some credibility for their arguments if we hadn’t watched for three years while George X and the rest of that cabal furiously defending Biden repeatedly offloading as much of the trillion dollars of student debt onto those same American taxpayers.
The voluntary adult student debt these Democrat Marxists defended Biden passing on to taxpayers not to improve the economic wellbeing of the economy – but instead, to corruptly attempt to buy those students’ votes.
Credibility and honesty have never caught up to them, but their record of Democrat Marxism, hypocrisy and corruption sticks to them like super glue.
If the tariff is deemed a tax, wouldn’t the original plaintiffs have to establish standing as taxpayers to challenge the President’s finding. How have they demonstrated injury that is any different than any other payer of general “taxes” payable upon importation from China or other countries? Would/could the Court remand for reconsideration of standing under the new interpretation of the statute?
One of the two cases upon which SCOTUS’s decision is pending is V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States. The Trump administration lost that case in the Federal Circuit, but at least four dissenting justices offered their understanding of the SCOPE and MEANING of “‘regulate” under IEEPA.
Start reading on p. 29 under “a. Coverage of Tariffs by “Regulate . . . Importation” at
https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/25-1812.OPINION.8-29-2025_2566151.pdf#page=89
IEEPA also contains a provision that the President must report to Congress every six months regarding the situation and actions taken, which certainly implies that ex ante consent by Congress is not required (assuming a nexus exists between emergency conditions that fall within those three categories and the concomitant actions taken by the president).
So for me, the question is not so much presidential authority, but rather, whether the conditions identified by Trump qualify as “any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.” (50 USC 35).
Fentanyl imports that kill 80,000 Americans per year is not a threat.
Stealing intellectual property and making cheap knockoffs that causes American businesses to fail is not a threat. What the hell does it take? I guess it’s all right if someone else’s kid dies from a fentanyl overdose as long as it’s not your kid. I guess it’s alright if your neighbor loses his job because the Chinese destroyed the business he works for as long as you don’t lose your job. Grow a pair.
Thinkitthrough says: “Fentanyl imports that kill 80,000 Americans per year is not a threat.”
Two things can be true at the same time.
One: Fentanyl and the theft of intellectual property is a threat.
Two: SCOTUS isn’t supposed to abandon trying cases based on the constitution, to instead decide whether, whatever Obama, Biden or Trump are doing, regardless of the Constitution, it is either good or bad for the country.
That’s how we got John Roberts giving us Obamacare as a tax.
If you can’t think it through, grow up.
How exactly does taxing American companies who import cell phones and computers and TV sets from China curtail fentanyl imports ???
China does not “steal” American intellectual property.
It is freely given by American companies who want to make more profit by exploiting cheap Chinese labor.
Cell phone chips are made in China. Cell phones are assembled in China. If you want the Chinese to do this, then you have to give them the IP technology.
It is freely given !!!!!
China does not “steal” American intellectual property.
Lyin’ like a Biden to defend the Chicoms who bought the Biden White House for a cool $30 Million dollars, paid to Biden White House Crime LLC. Bribery Biden’s administration was still saying the exact opposite a year ago, as his DoJ was indicting ChiCom operatives for theft of intellectual property.
Chinese Intellectual Property Theft A Significant Risk
https://www.newsweek.com/china-intellectual-property-theft-fbi-linda-sun-hochul-infiltration-1950686
Ano
China does not “steal
************************
Excuse me. Tell that to Air-Bus when China bought a A320, took it apart and copied it to make their new airplane.
Dustoff
Apparently you are just making stuff up as usual.
Nothing you say can ever be believed.
Airbus has been assembling the A320 in China, using Chinese workers, since 2008.
They recently opened a second production line.
https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2025-10-airbus-opens-second-a320-family-final-assembly-line-in-china
There is absolutely no need for them to buy one and take it apart to copy.
They already assemble the A320 themselves.
You are just a lying moron with absolutely no credibility.
@Anonymous
😂😂😂
Wow. You are truly absurd. ‘China does not steal’, is your stupidest comment yet, and that’s a feat. Forget about tchotchkes (AKA ‘Chinese knock-offs’) or literally stealing Steve Jobs’s keynotes and jeans and turtleneck for their own phone keynotes, I have experience in national labs and they steal plenty of other things, too (hard drives, secrets, research), and people have been very much arrested for it.
You are a flipping idiot. Such an idiot, it’s almost impossible to even address you. You belong in a corner with a special, pointy, cap. Whether that happens or not, that is absolutely how you are viewed. But by all means, keep on putting your utter and sheer ignorance on display for all to see – that is the whole point of free speech.
ThinkItThrough:
(not interested in transgendering myself or growing a pair, nor importing them from China.)
not sure where you are coming from, as I AGREE with you (as well as for other reasons), (which is why I pointed out the dissenting justices’ position). I’m simply stating that IMO, this is the “burden” facing Trump to justify use of his authority.
LIn, the problem is Trump has not explained what the emergency is. Even the conservative justices were skeptical of the claim.
There never was any emergency in the first place. Trump just claims an “emergency” whenever he wants to bypass Congress. The real emergency will be how Congress handles the reimbursments of the money they took from US companies for the illegal tarrifs.
love it georgie when you read others’ comments then reword them as your own. How long ago did you read about the major question doctrine? this morning?
Emergency is a flooded market with imports. Emergency is a congress made of drug addicts, derelicts, morons who’ve failed to comprehend economics outside of medicaid and snap and failed to act. That’s an emergency. The squad alone is an emergency.
Thanks for that lin, including the link you provided. I didn’t see any mention of that in discussions elsewhere i.e. SCOTUSblog.
yeah, and also see fn.7 on bottom of pg. 32 and its correlative reference just above it.
” IEEPA enumerates exceptions to the President’s authority under section 203. IEEPA § 203(b) [§ 1702(b)]. Tariff authority is not included in the enumerated exceptions.”
I also appreciate that the dissenting justices preemptively asserted a reply to an anticipated position from CJ Roberts that tariffs are taxes:
“This straightforward result is supported by the longstanding judicial recognition that taxes are often a species of regulation—specifically aimed at altering conduct. See, e.g., CIC Services, LLC v. Internal Revenue Service, 593 U.S. 209, 224 (2021) (a ‘regulatory tax’ is a ‘tax de signed mainly to influence private conduct’); National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519”
Food for thought, at least.
Should the Supreme Court intervene when the Constitution has granted Congress the power to act? Is Supreme Court action necessary? Does this case once again reveal that Congress is asleep at the wheel?
No problem. Just let the Chinese steal our intellectual property and keep sending fentanyl to kill 87,000
Americans per year with no penalty to worry about. In his recent meeting with Xi Jinping a promise was made by the Chinese President to curtail the exportation of fentanyl. Trump has always been a tough negotiator. The conversation probably went something like this. Trump; Dear President I will take you at your word but you can rest assured that if you don’t come through things could get a whole lot worse.
Biden extended the Trump tariffs and no one ran to The Supreme Court to try and stop him.
Thinkitthrough says: “No problem. Just let the Chinese steal our intellectual property and keep sending fentanyl to kill 87,000 Americans per year”
Two things can be true at the same time.
One: Fentanyl and the theft of intellectual property is a threat.
Two: SCOTUS isn’t supposed to abandon trying cases based on the Constitution, to instead decide whether, whatever Obama, Biden or Trump are doing, regardless of the Constitution, it is either good or bad for the country.
That’s how we got John Roberts giving us Obamacare as a tax. We need more of those well meaning political decisions from the unelected bench no matter which president, rather than strict interpretations based on the Constitution.
If you can’t unemotionally think it through, grow up.
Roberts is infamous for his allowing Obamacare to exist because the Individual Mandate was a “tax”.
Later on, it wasn’t – but too late to stop Obamacare from ruining healthcare in our country.
Now he stretches the language even further by claiming tariffs are also “taxes”?
If you don’t want to pay the tariff “tax”, you buy from domestic producers.
Show us another “tax” you can avoid like that, Johnny boy.
Without tariffs as a bargaining tool with other nations, they can keep ripping us off.
Trump has used them masterfully.
No problem at all with the Biden tariffs. President Biden has imposed new tariffs on Chinese goods, particularly on electric vehicles, semiconductors, and other strategic products, while also maintaining and building on the tariffs initially set by the Trump administration. The new tariffs include a 100% tariff on Chinese electric vehicles and a 50% tariff on semiconductors, with other increases planned for products like batteries, solar cells, and medical supplies over the next few years. Where were the lawfare bandits then.
@Thinkitthrough
Not to mention the fact that the dems have essentially imposed another lock down with the shutdown, and they managed to do it when they aren’t even in power. Freedom and fairness mean literally zero to the modern DNC. They are apparently fully prepared to completely tank the country again to get what they want – people’s suffering is their smallest concern of all.
As an aside – they know they can’t win national elections, they failed to install Kamala; but it’s the same folks behind the likes of Mamdani, or even Boasberg; not a damn thing has changed, and they will focus on stacking these smaller positions in influential places and districts, infesting like termites prepared to eat away the foundation over time if they can’t just nuke things all at once. 2020-2024 should have been the object lesson of all object lessons – hope those lessons stuck for enough of us.
I really hope the Courts do the right thing, because this is all batsheet crazy.
The issue here is likely to be determined not on the merits of the arguments for or against but in terms of what each choice means for the nation. It has often been said that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. There is some truth to this. Yes, the Constitution is unambiguous in giving Congress the power to levy taxes (“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence (sic) and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States” – Art. I, Sect. 8, US Const.)
The President is claiming that a 1977 Act (International Emergency Economic Powers Act a/k/a IEEP) gives him emergency powers that include setting tariffs on foreign countries allowed to do business in the U.S. His arguments rest on several assumptions, some of which may be true and some not so much. The Justices yesterday seemed befuddled by a lack of precedent cases in point from which to draw analogous conclusions. This means that they will have to interpret law by making law, something that they dislike doing.
As they ponder their positions, it would do well for them to consider the consequences highlighted by Justice Coney Barrett’s question, “How would this work? It seems to me like this could be a mess,” in response to a hypothetical scenario in which the government would have to give back tariffs already collected.
Barrett’s question may hold the answer here, i.e., the solution may be worse than the problem. This seems to suggest a Solomonic decision that allows some but not all tariff moves by a POTUS, provided they are appropriately grounded in declarations that trigger the legislative prerogatives intended by the Act and given to the President.
The key provision of the Act that the Court will need to consider is codified at 50 USC 1701(b): “The authorities granted to the President by section 1702 of this title may only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared for purposes of this chapter and may not be exercised for any other purpose. Any exercise of such authorities to deal with any new threat shall be based on a new declaration of national emergency which must be with respect to such threat.”
This statute has been amended many times since 1977, and its triggering mechanisms have been expanded to meet modern-day challenges. Everyone from “Persons involved in serious human rights abuse or corruption” to “Persons involved in the global illicit drug trade,” has been added over the years by Executive Orders. The ambiguity of what constitutes meeting the 1701(b) statutory definition favors the administration’s case.
Leaving the job of tariffs to Congress, on the other hand, would bring chaos to the process, enable foreign nations to take unfair advantage of us, and diminish our economy and prospects for peace.
jjc says; The issue here is likely to be determined not on the merits of the arguments for or against but in terms of what each choice means for the nation…
That is a much more fruitful and explanatory version of my belief this will end in what is essentially a political decision rather than one explicitly based on interpretation via the Constitution of the text of the legislation.
SCOTUS finds itself facing a bit of a Hobson’s Choice. Where leaving the job of tariffs to Congress – when we’re increasingly in an age of Congress delegating their legislative powers and responsibilities to unelected bureaucrats (that overturning Chevron Deference somewhat minimized) and a lesser extent to the Executive Branch – doesn’t look like a recipe for success.
It’ll come down by law. It won’t be political.
It’ll come down by law. It won’t be political.
Convince us that Sotomayor and Jackson – at least – will decide based on law, rather than on Never Trump politics.
Or just don’t bother trying to do that.
JJC,
A very interesting comment. Thank you for taking the time to write it.
Yep. Congress is a piece of DEI CRT work. Send them home and let the bureaucrats run the place. Couldn’t hurt.
Good comment. Article 1, Section 8 just isn’t clear regarding taxing foreign nations. It seems in plain language to apply to domestic use only. Considering this it seems Article II powers to set foreign policy and negotiating treaties is the built-in, ruling precedent.
Time for Plan B? It’s called forced compliance.
Plan B? Embargoes, licenses revoked? Mexico will get get even richer ☺. Oh, the cartels. Oops
Mexico President Claudia Sheinbaum got groped by a drunken lover. Claudia was smiling so don’t worry.
Katyal established from the first sentence of his argument that tariffs are a tax…, and in questioning no judges questioned that. Done deal. Trump loses here because the Court will never give a progressive administration the power to tax in this manner in the post trump years.
“Katyal established from the first sentence of his argument that tariffs are a tax…”
Is that your ruling, Justice Jackson, who still can’t take a peek into her panties and decide whether or not she’s a woman?
It’s obvious. Your lame deflection just illustrates how obvious it is.
“It’s obvious. Your lame deflection just illustrates how obvious it is.”
We knew you would say that, Justice Jackson, especially after you reached your decision before oral arguments were heard.
Ibid
“Ibid”
Op Cit.
Anonymous, where were you then. President Biden has imposed new tariffs on Chinese goods, particularly on electric vehicles, semiconductors, and other strategic products, while also maintaining and building on the tariffs initially set by the Trump administration. The new tariffs include a 100% tariff on Chinese electric vehicles and a 50% tariff on semiconductors, with other increases planned for products like batteries, solar cells, and medical supplies over the next few years.
Not a peep from you when Biden imposed tariffs. At the time all the Dims said he was protecting America. Hypocrisy be the a Democratic.
TiT,
Great point! No one was screaming about how bad the Biden tariffs were hurting them.
I do not buy anything from out of the US if I can help it. So I do not “feel” any kind of pain from the tariffs.
🤔 name something you buy. Packaging or distribution don’t count as made in the US.
Thinkithtough says: Anonymous, where were you then. President Biden has imposed new tariffs on Chinese goods, particularly on electric vehicles, semiconductors, and other strategic products, while also maintaining and building on the tariffs initially set by the Trump administration.
And therefore, now you want SCOTUS to legislate public policy from the bench, rather than decide cases before the court based on the Constitution and the wording of the legislation. What could possibly go wrong!
While you desperately attempt to build a strawman to build a moral equivalency on: what planet are you now living where you saw Biden, or Obama or Trump in his first term, do the exact same thing with all of these tariffs aimed at all countries – including tariffs on goods from countries where we have a massive trade imbalance in our favor. Because they’re “ripping us off” as well?
Do you get all warm and fuzzy remembering how SCOTUS helped us with policy by abandoning the Constitution to rule that Obamacare was a tax?
Usually, desperate attempts at building a moral equivalency is one of the arrows in X’s quiver. As you’ve just shown, he’s not alone.
Well, if you’d been paying attention, which I know you’re incapable of TIT, you’d know I absolutely criticized Biden for keeping many of trump’s tariff taxes in place…, and I did it on this very blog. Repeatedly.
Thing is some tariffs are necessary and have always been utilized. Where the press gives trump a huge break is in not labeling his practices what they are…tariff-based extortion. Another thing all together than proper tariff policy.
But you won’t even understand what I’m saying.
“Thing is some tariffs are necessary and have always been utilized.”
So necessary that SCOTUS ruling strictly based on the Constitution and the text of this Act should be kicked to the curb in favor of choosing decisions based on a claimed necessity – just like they did with Obamacare!
Yes, we understand completely what you’re saying.
Exactly!
Not a lawyer, but we need to rebuild our critical industrial base. The globalists in Congress will never cooperate with that. Given that Democrats are totally sold out to globalist donors and that there’s a significant number of RINO’s of the same stripe, I can see why Trump went out on a legal limb for this.
I had hoped trade would convert China to freedom, but the exact opposite has happened. Silicon Valley and Wall Street have become a fifth column addicted to cheap Chinese labor. I saw that 20 years ago. It made me a conservative populist before it was fashionable.
If this trade continues, it will become an existential question. Western Europe, starved of Russian natural gas, is already extinct. We’re next. We were always the ultimate target, but to watch our own Chamber of Commerce sell China the rope…
I don’t have a good feeling about this court case.
Right on
Gorsuch expressed the hesitations of the federalist society right wingers that will go against trump here. He also inadvertently expressed their position when trump tries to, inevitably, get the court to overturn an election…
Gorsuch expressed the fear of progressives having tariff power to go after cars…tariffing auto imports as a way to pay for climate change costs attributed to fossil fuel combustion..
His comments say the court fears the shoe being on the other foot and that overturning an election is a line they won’t cross.
Trump’s tariffs, rightfully, lose. Turley is just carrying water for the fevered right in this push piece and I invite him to share what he’s being paid in order to do so.
Oh please, Turley is not carry water for anyone. He is a constitutionalist and a Democrat.
LMAO^^
“His comments say the court fears the shoe being on the other foot and that overturning an election is a line they won’t cross.”
That isn’t what Gorsuch said, and you aren’t Gorsuch. You’re the same Democrat apparatchik who also just attempted playing at being Justice Jackson with another one of your rulings.
Gorsuch asked the Administration’s counsel,Solicitor General John Sauer to outline boundaries to the administration’s broad defense of its tariff powers in respect to major questions of the trial and “nondelegation” doctrines. That’s what he commented on, not your lyin’ and denyin’.
Gorsuch does have somewhat of a libertarian bent, and I would not be surprised to see him honestly vote in opposition to Trump’s use of tariffs. But if so, that will be the complete opposite of the abjectly dishonest automatic votes of Sotomayor and Jackson against the Trump Administration on any issue.
We now invite you to share whether you’re one of Biden’s Furry Trannies who intended to vote for Biden because he shifted your student loan debt onto the backs of American taxpayers.
Since you’re no more Gorsuch than I am, and you’re also speculating Gorsuch will rule against trump on this, all we’re left with is trying to figure out why you post on this blog between your ventures into trannie porn? Asking for everyone.
“Asking for everyone.”
Bolshevik Biden’s Birthing Boy drops cosplaying first as Gorsuch and then Jackson to now cosplay that he posts questions here on behalf of EVERYONE!
Sweety…. you’re labouring away (in a non-birthing way) under Delusions Of Adequacy.
The last thing Robert’s wants is a decision that will have Chuck Schumer once again screaming threats at him from the steps of the SCOTUS courthouse, while Democrat street thugs stalk Justices and their families on the sidewalks outside their homes.
I can’t be the only one here whose ears snapped my memory to attention when I heard Robert’s use the word “tax”. He turned himself inside out to save unconstitutional Obamacare by proclaiming it was actually a tax.
Robers decided Congress just didnt realize they were writing tax legislation as Obamacare, despite the fact there was no record of a single Democrat in debate saying it was a tax. Despite Congress writing more tax legislation each year than Robert’s has ever seen in his career knowing how to write tax legislation versus administrative legislation. The entire time Obama assured Americans it wasn’t a tax.
Trump’s use of tariffs by using the power granted him to do so by Congress in this specific legislation passed by Congress is the first time this Congressional legislation and the powers it gave Trump have been used. There is no Executive precedent of use or precedent of the Judiciary ruling on the legislation.
As always, there’s three automatic votes against Trump, and Robert’s will be in chambers trying to figure out a political decision similar to what he did to curse Americans with Obamacare.
The most likely outcome is Robert’s leads an effort to split the baby, hoping to keep Schu er, AOC and Jeffries off his back.
Why bother. America is dying. China is winning. And the courts seem to be willing to tell America “You are stuck with being China’s meal ticket, because there is a law about that somewhere.”
Macroeconomically speaking. Then …
Trump’s ingenious plan to make things more affordable for us is to slap tariffs on most of things we buy each month, while deporting a big chunk of the labor pool that produces our food supply.
We really don’t appreciate this man enough
Can you prove that you directly affected by the new tariffs?
Think it through, those tariffs finance the gov., ergo less income taxes.
We all got a discount due to China’s mercantilism. We actually did sell our rope to the people who intend to hang us with it. (Or at least copies of it).
Unbelievably stupid comment !!!!
There is no sign of plans to reduce income taxes.
Have you noticed any reduction of taxes in your paycheck???
And even if there was a reduction in income taxes, it would be offset by the higher prices from tariffs, which are simply another form of taxation.
“Can you prove that you directly affected by the new tariffs?”
Yep.
Coffee, the products made from aluminum and steel, flowers, clothing, chocolate — just to name a few off the top of my head.
Sam,
Coffee and coco prices have been going up before Trump was elected for the second time. Brazil had a very bad winter this year, which also affected the price of coffee.
Are you saying that tariffs are then a tax since it replaces income taxes?
Carefully now, Congress is the only authority that can tax.
ATS
Saying random things is not the same as making an argument.
We do not have a military to provide healthcare.
Tarriffs serve multiple purposes and have both positive and negative effects.
Lowering prices – especially in the short run is not one of those – just as we do not buy F35’s in order to provide healthcare.
Nor do we deport illegal immigrants to increase the size of the labor pool.
If you want much more absurb juxtapositions.
The affordable care act did not make healthcare more affordable – It made healthcare more expensive – atleast $2T/decade more.
It just changed how health care was paid for better.
The green new deal did nothing for the environment – again that is outside of the govenrments ability. It merely subsidized some things,
and historically subsidizing things makes them more not less expensive and slows rather than speeds up their development.
Biden’s own BBB – did not build anything back better.
In fact MOST govenrment programs – left and right, but especially those of the left serve to take money for tax payers and funnel it to wealthy political contributors. DOGE did an excellent job of exposing that.
What will Tarriffs Actually do ?
They will raise revenue for the federal govenrment. That is likely a mostly temporary effect – although from the founding through the early 20th century the federal govenrment was funded almost entirely on tarriffs.
It will reduce the purchase of foreign made goods and increase the production of US made goods.
It will increase the number of Jobs in the US – mostly semi skilled jobs.
It will reduce the trade deficit. I would note that the Trade Deficit is NOT like the Government deficit. Any country with its own currency will automatically over the long run have a balance of money going out of the country and money coming in>tarriffs shift foreign money away from subsidizing govenrment and investing in US companies to buying US goods.
With respect to labor – The Biden administration repeatedly lie to us about Labor conditions – during the biden administration there were two major adjustment to UI data that increased unemployment by nearly 1M people each. During the Trump administration a thrid adjustment of over a million for the numbers of unemployed in 2024 and before was necessary.
Unemployment was then and still is now at historically low levels. But it was not until recently close to accurately reported.
With respect to food – Farming has been moving from low skill labor intensive to higher skill with less labor – really pretty much forever.
Particularly over the past 4 decades. Farms have grown larger, more productive and requiring far less labor – because it nearly always makes sense to invest capital to reduce labor costs, and because uneven enforcement of our labor and immigration laws create a great deal of risk in farming. Fines for employing illegal immigrants are enormous – and even democrat administrations that significantly increased illegal immigration still targeted employers that hired them. Further the potential to lose significant portions of labor in a critical portion of production is a huge risk. Finally the need for farm labor is inconsistent. Some labor is needed to plant and fertilize. Some labor is needed to manage crops as they grow, but many times more labor is needed briefly to harvest crops. There is not a consistent demand for farm labor.
Farming has been very hard to automate – but nothing is impossible and we have been working on automating farming for over 4 decades.
Contra your claims there is NOT some massive demand for enormous amounts of relatively low skill farm labor – that would only occur during a relatively short harvest period.
In 1910 the US had 14M farm workers. in 1950 there were 10M, in 200 there were just over 2M and the number has declined since.
Just during the period from 1965 through todate US farm production has quadrupled.
There are possibly as many as 35M illegal immigrants in the US – of those atleast 11M and possibly as many as 21M arrived in the past 4 years.
Farmers were able to harvest their crops in 2020, they are able to harvest their crops in 2025 even if every illegal immigrant that arrived in the past 4 years was deported instantly.
John Say, they don’t want to hear the facts if it destroys their stupid arguments. You hear this who will pick the crops line all the time from people who never read a thing about the automation of farm production in their entire lives. Gee what? A GPS device on a tractor? Duh. Who’s gonna get that field plowed if you don’t hook up them there mules? The know it all crowd continues. Great post.
John Say,
“ We do not have a military to provide healthcare.”
Yes we do. Congress uses the military to get the best healthcare the nation offers. That is their dirty little secret. They get government provided healthcare, we get the shaft.
“ It will reduce the purchase of foreign made goods and increase the production of US made goods.
It will increase the number of Jobs in the US – mostly semi skilled jobs.”
No, and No.
Tariffs will not reduce the purchase of foreign goods. It will just make them more expensive. I will not increase the number of jobs. It will reduce them. US companies are not going to start hiring more people when automation is far cheaper. AI is already replacing a lot of blue collar jobs at a record pace.
Production in the US will not increase by much. Because we do not have the supply chain infrastructure to support any significant increase. China does and they are VERY good at building supply chains in short order. We don’t.
“ With respect to labor – The Biden administration repeatedly lie to us about Labor conditions – during the biden administration there were two major adjustment to UI data that increased unemployment by nearly 1M people each. During the Trump administration a thrid adjustment of over a million for the numbers of unemployed in 2024 and before was necessary.”
Wrong. Blaming the Biden numbers on adjustments which ARE routine is a BS argument. Trump tried to change that by getting rid of the BLM statistician only to find out the numbers are STILL low.
“ Farmers were able to harvest their crops in 2020, they are able to harvest their crops in 2025 even if every illegal immigrant that arrived in the past 4 years was deported instantly.”
Barely. If every illegal immigrant was deported farmers would be in a serious pickle. It’s not just farmers that would face problems so would ranchers and slaughter houses. Meat packing plants. The economy is dependent on immigrant labor and the Trump administration does not want immigrants to be apart of it unless they are from South Africa.
Who gave us this junk health care. That would be the dems & O-dumber
John Say, the dept of labor just req7ested farm labor and H2A visas with families btw. Dept of immigration revved up. Hard to believe there weren’t enough people among 20 million who worked in farm labor.
I’ve thrown in the towel.
Because few work on the farms.