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.”
Many were surprised that the challengers selected the liberal firebrand Neil Katyal for counsel on the other side.
Yes, they should have gone with McConnell. He could have made the case much better, because he actually believes in it.
OT, while the government is shut down, Congress has some free time. Why not use that time to pass legislation getting rid of daylight savings time – or making it permanent, just so we don’t have to keep switching clocks twice a year. Such a move has majority support among Americans. It’s something both parties could agree on.
It is so tough changing clocks twice per year???
I’m handicapped and of the four limbs I have one left arm working. Yes, it’s difficult.
Please don’t make it permanent. I’m on board with getting rid of it entirely, but if we must have it in the summer for some reason, fine, we can do that, but don’t impose it on us in the winter as well. There’s no reason for it. And when we tried it in the ’70s it was terrible.
France is an hour ahead of where it should be, because the Germans moved them to German time and they never moved it back after the War. So they’re on permanent daylight savings, and in the summer they’re on double daylight savings. That’s just insane. In the summer it doesn’t get dark till about 11:00 PM.
I would personally prefer no daylight savings time over permanent daylight savings time. My last choice is to keep changing the clocks, which is not only absurd, it has documented health effects on many people (google it, you’ll get lots of sources).
If an hour twice a year is so detrimental to human health, surely it’s time to mandate all bars, pubs, gyms, supermarkets, etc close by 2000 hrs every evening to put an end to people being harmed day by day due to not getting the correct amount of sleep each night.
Teenagers and twenty-something adults can kiss their social lives goodbye in the name of health.
. . . if Congress is judged to be, based on “taxing” as viewed with tariffs . . . then what about when other nations IMPOSE tariffs on US products, those tariffs are imposing a charge ( tax, fee, duty . . . ? ) and Congress should be responsible for addressing that increase in the price of a good ( as in a tax on US products ), I am not an expert, YET what I am trying to illustrate is that Congress HAS BEEN ASLEEP at the wheel allowing other nations to fleece the US manufacturing industry, almost “LOOKING THE OTHER WAY” yet what President Trump is showing is that tariffs can be a powerful tool to equal the playing field, AND THE PROMPT ACTION ( which Congress has decades of slow walking everything – except of course ObamaCare “we have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it . . . ” President Trump placed tariffs on other nation’s imports, and they came to the table . . .
Obama judge orders the administration to fund SNAP even though there are insufficient funds.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/11/obama-judge-scolds-doj-lawyers-orders-trump-admin
As long as this radical judge is taking over the presidency he might as well take over Congress too…order Congress to end the shutdown and fund SNAP. Doesn’t he even know that subordinate to the almighty powers of district court judges it is Congress that had the power of the purse, not the President.
Roberts appears incapable of controlling these lunatics so Congress must act to curb their jurisdiction and whatever else can be done, maybe require them to wear Darth Vader robes on the bench so that everyone coming before them knows what he is in for.
Why do we almost always see Obama/Biden judges handling these cases? Something stinks in the federal courts.
To think i used to respect them. That’s gone.
Young, you would rather listen to the sounds of crying children, crying because they are hungry.
David, crying children? You apparently haven’t seen the videos of the fat slots demanding their EBT cards.
In any event, a judge can’t order payments not authorized by Congess.
If you truly care, call your heartless Democrat senators and tell them to stop using crying children for political leverage and pass the clean resolution. The actual authority to end this mess rests with them and nobody else.
Young, nobody says that SNAP is perfect but it is what we have, or rather, used to have.
And there are funds available to feed children but Tyrant Trump won’t.
David, he is using the funds available but there are not enough. Neither the President nor the courts has the authority to appropriate money. That rests with Congress and in this case with the Democrats in the senate. Call them.
Meanwhile, you should look to the definition of ‘tyrant’ because it does not mean what you think.
It is of Greek origin and refers to one who rules without the authority of law. Not all Greek tyrants were bad rulers and some were great. But, in any case, Trump was lawfully placed in office and, by definition, is not a tyrant.
It can be seen, though, that some judges are tyrannical in that their radical and lawless decisions keep getting overturned.
While we are at it, you may also mistake tyrant with dictator as many callow children on campus do these days.
A Roman dictator was put in office during exceptional emergencies to save the Republic and he had extraordinary powers, probably more than a Greek tyrant. However he was not a tyrant because he was lawfully in office for what was expected to be a limited occasion. Cincinnatus was the ideal; Sulla showed how it could go wrong.
Be careful with your words. Muddled words are muddled thoughts.
Young: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Dionysius-I
And there are funds available to feed children but Tyrant Trump won’t.
That’s the same Tyrant Trump we’re reading about today, putting his side to SCOTUS for their decision? Rather than taking the high road of Royalty as King Joe did, ignoring SCOTUS as well as Congress?
All to pile a trillion dollars in voluntary student adult debt on the backs of bluecollar workers who apparently can’t feed their children and Senior Citizens on the Kal-Can diet because they can’t afford their Obamacare?
Young, Nedarim 81: https://mazon.org/wp-content/uploads/Judaisms-Commitment-to-Caring-for-the-Poor-and-Hungry.pdf
David,
Nice citation. Now live up to it and call your senators and tell them to get the food moving to hungry mouths again. They have the power.
Young, see
https://mazon.org/wp-content/uploads/Judaisms-Commitment-to-Caring-for-the-Poor-and-Hungry.pdf
David,
There is one actual thing in the world you can do that might help the hungry children and it isn’t posting here or complaining about Trump or posturing with me; you are a citizen who has a real influence on your senators so I have to wonder if besides wasting your time here you have done that one thing that might help the hungry kids you pretend to care about? Or do you not truly care?
David would let 10,000 kids starve if that would get Trump out of office. David allowed Biden to permit hundreds of thousands of children to die in the desert, to become slaves or prostitutes. It has nothing to do with children, for David was nowhere to be found protesting the injustice to the children. Ideology is what controls David, not the well-being of the country.
S. Meyer,
I think you are right about David.
He at times seems fundamentally smart but that intelligence can be hidden by the vicious grip that ideology has on his mind.
Crying children demanding CANDY-JUNK FOOD!!
“Young, you would rather listen to the sounds of crying children, crying because they are hungry.”
David B. Benson… why do you insist on wanting to see fat children developing diabetes because of their SNAP diet of potato chips, sugar loaded sodas, fast food greasy meals, etc?
And wouldn’t they be safer and off the mean gansta overrun streets if they were at home helping their parents prepare their meals from scratch, beginning with fresh foods?
Roberts will not act in securing the lower courts, where it is quite evident that “something stinks.” It’s sitting there in plain sight, and addressing it is part of his job. Yet the Supreme Court will rush into the tariff case.
I’ll ask again: Congress has the clear authority to address tariffs tomorrow if it chooses, and it is its own inaction that allowed the executive branch to stretch its power in the first place. Maybe it is time for the Court to say: Since Congress has the power to do what some demand, let Congress do its job.
Otherwise, we reward legislative laziness and turn the Court into the default surrogate for a legislature that refuses to act. The Constitution gave Congress this responsibility, and they can take immediate charge. If they won’t use it, the answer is political. Let the voters decide.
If Congress has the power, let Congress act. If it refuses, then it should be the voters, not the Court who are the remedy. The judiciary is not a substitute for a legislature that hides from governing.
S. Meyer: “The judiciary is not a substitute for a legislature that hides from governing.”
Well said, and true. I would add that the judiciary is not a governing branch of the executive though they seem to think they are.
There was discussion in earlier posts that only the courts can interpret the Constitution and laws. I am not at all sure that is strictly true. The Court may think so, but then they would.
It is an easy enough concept when lesser entities are before the bench but it seems that the one body responsible for passing legislation and appropriating money and the chief executive charged with executing the laws may also have some authority on these issues.
If the Court renders a peculiar interpretation of legislation , can’t Congess say, “No, that is not what we meant at all? We meant…” If the Federalist Papers can inform the Court can’t a sitting Congress have a say in the meaning of the laws it created? It seems so.
Beyond mere interpretation it seems that the equitable powers of our courts have an executive quality rather than interpretative. When you command, “Go hence and do such” you are exercising an executive power that risks imposing on the President.
It seems that radical judges have been allowed by a weak chief Justice to claim powers they do not rightly have.
Either Congress can act or the President as President Jackson did, though I think Jackson did it wrongly. Still he put a precedent down.
It is expected that Trump will honor Supreme Court decisions though we have recently seen there are hardly any such expectations for Democrat presidents. More worrisome is the apparent growing mutiny among lower courts, precedents are ignored and some go to media to attack the Court. The house that Roberts built is looking like the East Wing though less good will come of it.
The Congress has sole authority to deal with tariffs. Trump has usurped that authority. The only way to rein Trump in is impeachment. I think there are 49 votes that are guaranteed for impeaching Trump. It takes only a handful of Republicans to complete the task. As referee, it’s up to the Court to tell the respective branches of the government to do the job the Constitution sets out.
You are wrong that the “sole authority” to deal with tariffs lies with Congress, but that actually enhances my point. The Constitution gives Congress the power over tariffs, but it delegated some of that power to the President, and it can take it back. That makes it clear. This is not a case for the Supreme Court, since Congress can remove the President’s tariff authority and legislate in the fashion of its choosing.
You have TDS, and that is one reason you cannot think. I suggest you remove Trump from your mind and concentrate on the Constitution and the law.
Chief Justice Taney found that the power that the Constitution and laws conferred on him was insufficient to resist that of the executive branch.
All of the executive power is vested exclusively in a president of the United States.
The Supreme Court has the judicial power, and no executive power, and may issue a determination.
The president should proceed with his exercise of executive power.
Congress, which the president should consult, has the power to impeach and convict if it is so inclined.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“The clause in the Constitution which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is in the ninth section of the first article. This article is devoted to the Legislative Department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the Executive Department.”
“I can see no ground whatever for supposing that the President in any emergency or in any state of things can authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or arrest a citizen except in aid of the judicial power.”
“I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome.”
– Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, May 28, 1861
Chief Justice Taney found that the power that the Constitution and laws conferred on him was insufficient to resist that of the executive branch.
Chief Justice Taney proclaimed that the Constitution empowered him to find that Dredd Scott and all them Darkies were no more than another species of farm animals – not human beings as he and his Confederate slave owning friends were.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist slapped that racist Confederate Chief Justice back into his place in the basement of history.
Bizarre non sequitur.
Taney was correct on law if not emerging “morality.” Two clear points:
– The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was unconstitutional—Americans could not be deprived of private property.
– The petitioner did not have standing.
SNAP is irrefutably unconstitutional.
Article 1, Section 8: Congress has the power to tax for ONLY debt, defense, and general welfare (i.e. all, or the whole, well proceed); SNAP fits in none of those categories—Congress has no power to tax for individual, specific, or particular welfare, or favor or charity.
Also, Congress has no enumerated power to regulate agriculture; the Department of Agriculture is unconstitutional.
Trump used the tariffs appropriately, just like Nixon and Hamilton did. Whatever act they used to impose the tariffs doesn’t matter. These tariffs do have to do with national security, particularly with respect to China since every dollar that they get in the door goes to building their army or producing more fentanyl. Trump has used the tariffs to craft peace agreements. The side effect has been that the tariffs have lowered the deficit a bit by increasing revenue. This is all good. The arguments by Sauer were not up to snuff. The hags on the court kept arguing definitions rather than seeing the big picture. Roberts hates Trump so he will probably try to damage him. He should worry more about the liberal hacks on the bench and stop hanging around Boasberg. The other guys on the court didn’t sound convinced of Sauer’s arguments. They probably won’t deal with refunds, but stupid as these people are, I wouldn’t count it out. The stock market will swoon as it did today. The President has Article 2 Powers particularly in areas of foreign policy and these tariffs were used more as a foreign policy tool than as a way to raise revenue.
Explain just HOW Trump’s clearly illegal tariffs “have to do with national security” vis a vis Brazil and Switzerland, both of whom import more from the US than they export to us, and neither of which is any kind of national security threat or source of Fentanyl. Tariffs are easy to explain: Trump is a narcissistic megalomaniac who craves the power to push people and countries around–and that IS “the big picture”. The only times tariffs have been properly used is when, for example, cheap Japanese imported motorcycles almost caused Harley Davidson to go under. By placing tariffs on Hondas and other cheaper-priced imported motorcycles, Harley Davidson was saved from extinction. Trump imposed tariffs on Brazil because their crooked leader he is so fond of was prosecuted–so he did it to punish Brazil. No dispute about that–he admitted it. Turley failed to mention that ALL of the justices agreed that the American people are the ones from whom the tariff money is being extracted–not the exporting countries, and that tariffs ARE a tax on the American people–of course, what else would you expect from a paid MAGA mouthpiece, anyway? His praise of Sauer and criticisms of Neil Katyal are misplaced. Sauer came across as a buffoon because he didn’t have a legal leg to stand on. Trump’s excuse for enacting tariffs was to control Fentanyl–which is just another of his big, fat lies. He does it to try to get world leader to bend the knee to him. AND, if the SCOTUS does rule that Trump’s tariffs always were illegal–there MUST BE refunds.
Another overarching concern was that giving unfettered and unregulated power to exact tariffs on the POTUS takes the power to tax away from Congress–where it clearly belongs. The potential for abuse is another point that all of the Justices agreed on–AND Trump IS clearly abusing tariffs.
>”AND, if the SCOTUS does rule that Trump’s tariffs always were illegal–there MUST BE refunds.”
That’s going to be a sticky wicket. Iirc, Trump’s macro-economic tariffs have reeled in about $200bn to date.
*I want my cut.
CLEARLY illegal?? ha ha ha ha THEY HAVE BEEN USED FOR 150 PLUS YEARS!
Explain just HOW Trump’s clearly illegal tariffs “have to do with national security”
Are they more or less illegal than Biden repeatedly attempting to go around SCOTUS, as well as Congress, to transfer a trillion dollars in voluntary adult student debt onto the backs of blue collar Americans? Are you sure you actually recognize what “illegal” is?
And if they’re clearly illegal as you claim they are… why is SCOTUS going back and forth listening to the arguments from both side? Rather than a short majority ruling from SCOTUS telling Trump his tariffs are illegal?
Tariffs have no significant effect on the National Debt because the budget is not cash positive. Even under the best circumstances it would simply cap the National Debt. Problematically, it acts by making Americans poorer, with the greatest damage to those who buy the least expensive items, the middle and lower class. It functions as a national sales tax.
These tariffs have started a trade war and the majority of the American people are suffering because of it. Tariffs are a domestic policy tool to protect established domestic industry, but the majority are affecting products not manufactured or grown in America – for example, coffee beans.
Because they are so corrosive to trade, the next President will likely remove all of the new tariffs regardless of the paralysis of Congress. Since that is a near certainty, no rational person would invest in American production to try to beat the prices, even with the tariffs, by building new production facilities, hiring all the workers, designing new products, finding sources of materials, and going through whatever certifications that are necessary, only for the rug to be pulled before the paint has dried.
Judge Orders Prosecutors To Turn Over Evidence Against James Comey
Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick gave the DOJ until the end of Thursday to provide Comey’s attorneys with grand jury materials, along with other evidence related to the case. Comey’s attorneys told the court that they had no access to relevant evidence that had been collected years ago as part of an FBI probe into media leaks.
By: Stacy Robinson via The Epoch Times,
Zerohedge By: Tyler Durden ~ Thursday, Nov 06, 2025
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/judge-orders-prosecutors-turn-over-evidence-against-james-comey
THAT’S A BLATANT F—ING LIE
Another Twisted decision from a Twisted Bench!
The ‘relevant evidence’ is in their custody – Their Client: James Brien Comey Jr. (/ˈkoʊmi/; born December 14, 1960)
Whom is an American lawyer who was the seventh director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) from 2013 until his termination in May 2017.
Get this: ‘an American lawyer’ that doesn’t have records of his own as to what he testified to? …. A former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
Everything James Comey has ever touched throughout his life needs to be review and blanket pardons made for Everyone that he encountered or prosecuted.
This Guy’s security clearances need to be updated, He can definitely ‘Can not Not be Trusted’.
(Dick Cheney is gone, your sh_t is being “Hung out to dry” – Beh-Bye)
Fact: Attorneys for the DOJ are extremely diligent. You can be 100% sure that They have complied with all of James Comey’s Attorneys ‘Request for Production’. Bring this request to the Bench in the light of false pretenses is a Witch Hunt on their part to find a Technicality or loophole for Comey’s defense. Any evidence that wasn’t already publicly available is sitting in their Clients files.
A seasoned Judge would sniff out this Rat and would deny the request.
You have to expect that the Frm. Director of the FBI has skeletons in his closet – So you can expect Comey to turn he tables and sit on exculpatory evidence in his position. He’ll take the 5th to the grave.
This is kind of in its way reminiscent of when Richard Nixon was caught – His squirming and weaseling his way into a prison-free retirement.
Crucify him.
Fact: Whether someone is diligent is not a fact, it is an opinion.
Opinion: You can bet with 100% assurance that the DOJ has complied with all of James Comey’s Attorneys ‘Request for Production’.
This (His) attempt to turn-the-tables won’t help his case. It will just increase the length of time until He’s convicted (and add a few more billable hours to his Atty’s Billing).
Crucify him.
*. Someone brought up “standing” in comments. The plaintiffs are 5 small businesses and another are some States. They claim stuff is more expensive.
As to the argument does the executive have the power or is it congress. DJT has been in action and the silence of congress is yes, the executive has power. That and to regulate and other such powers.
The failure in businesses not picking up isn’t the policy. It’s the failure of the people. Oh btw, sometimes “the people” are the failures. 😏.
Leave the “america” . You need a vacation.
Bon voyage, chow!
Who knew the rapture was actually white flight. 😏
*. My gawd I miss the US with its peacefulness and safety and decency and good will. Mandanis celebration and Rashida tlaib screaming the f-bomb from the podium is the lowest imaginable.
Bill Clinton in a debate with Ross Perrot during an election said about NAFTA , you do that and there’ll be a great sucking sound south (jobs). Perrot was right but he didn’t go far enough.
Beyond disgusting…
If the conservative Justices are indeed textualists and originalists, then they will need to address the issue raised by Gibbons v. Ogden, which recognizes that fact that the Constitution vests the authority to regulate as distinct from the authority to tax. Clauses 1 (Taxing Power) and 3 (Commerce Clause) of Section 8 of Article 1 of the Constitution are separate, and that separation must be intentional, if we wish to understand original intent of the framers.
Against that context, the omission of the delegation of a separate taxing power is material to understanding the original intent of the IEEPA.
If the conservative Justices are indeed textualists and originalists, then they will need to address the issue raised by Gibbons v. Ogden
The SCOTUS that saved Obamacare by finding that it was an authority to tax, rather than a regulation forcing Americans into economic activity with the Obama government? Will SCOTUS avoid a decision which confronts their finding that Obamacare was actually a tax, despite Congressional debates claiming it was just health care regulations?
If you consider how many different requirements to pay government a fee/tax are created by enabling legislation which empowers bureaucrats to independently put in place those fees/taxes/, the issue of defining the meaning of what is and what isn’t a tax is a stand alone SCOTUS battle in itself.
It remains a tariff, not a tax.
Try to pay attention and listen to a source of information that is NOT MAGA–ALL of the Justices agreed that a tariff IS a tax on the American people because WE pay for the increased cost of imported goods.
“Try to pay attention and listen to a source of information that is NOT MAGA–ALL of the Justices agreed that a tariff IS a tax on the American people”
I was paying attention not too many years ago when SCOTUS assured us that Congress and the Executive Branch don’t know what they’re doing. That those Obamacare regulations that both Congresional Democrats and President Obama repeatedly said was NOT a tax – was in the opinion of SCOTUS exactly that: a tax forcing Americans into a financial transaction with government.
BTW… speaking of SCOTUS taxes… and you claiming you pay attention: why are Democrats doing the Schumer Shutdown, claiming there’s a desperate need for more taxation, subsidies and giveaways because Americans can’t afford that Affordable Care Act that was supposed to save them $2,500 a year?
You haven’t been paying attention down there in the Marxist Democrat Borg since the first day the Democrat snake oil salesmen started grifting, lying and denying about Obamacare.
A tariff is a tax and the purview of Congress, which must rewrite the delegation.
“We the People of the United States…secure the Blessings of Liberty TO OURSELVES and OUR POSTERITY.”
– The American Founders, 1789
SCOTUS hopefully will decide this on the basis of the wording of the Constitution and the wording of this legislation. Not on emotional demands that SCOTUS legislate from the bench either for or against Trump.
We had more than enough of that when Roberts infamously saved unconstitutional Obamacare by declaring that Congress didn’t know they were writing tax legislation when they crafted Obamacare – but he knew better.
The SCOTUS decision hopefully will focuse on the meaning of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act which tells all presidents they can invoke it to deal with 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.
Congress has chosen to write this legislation specifically giving American presidents this power. SCOTUS will decide what that wording means in regards to whether there’s a threat to the Administration’s foreign policy, enhancing national security, or the economy of the United States.
In my opinion, the ChiComs are a glaring example of a foreign nation that meets all those threats. The EU and it’s nations attempting to threaten the sovereignty, foreign policy and economy of the US are arguably another threat. Tariffs against countries where the negative trade deficit is on our side almost always do not. Does even one such nation invalid tariffs against all nations – will that be the basis of whatever the decision is?
All that said, we will get three and probably four judicial political votes from SCOTUS. What will come from the other five Justices will result in the decision that is handed down.
Of all of the Justices, I’m most interested in reading what Justice Thomas finds regarding these tariffs.
The least I’m interested in hearing from as Constitutional reasoning are the twins from the Socialist Sisterhood on the bench: Sotomayor and Jackson.
And from Doctor Thomas Sowell, if he chooses to comment, who is one of the most rational and consistent voices on economics and how politics is often used to ignore the most basic of economic principles.
If the SCOTUS cock-blocks Trump on the use of these Tariffs, it will be worse for America than what Zohran Mamdani has in store for New York City.
We are in a Depression and We will go into a deeper one without some sort of action.
Where’s Congress? Anyone… Congress ???
No where to be Found … and that’s Why Trump got elected. Some ones got to take the Bull by the Horns, because; Congress, The Fed, the Courts, The PEOPLE have not.
Godspeed Mr. President! 🇺🇸
Anonymous
We are not in a depression. We might BARELY have been in a recession under Biden.
The economy of the last 4 years was much worse than the left claimed.
The current economy is improving from that, and likely will improve even more over time.
The current economy is not as good as Trump promised, it is also not as bad as it would have been without him.
SCOTUS might tweek some things, but it is unlikely to rule 4 square against Trump
But even if it did – we will do fine.
Congress ca follow a broad rejection of Trump’s tariffs by endorsing them or by owning the failure to do so.
Like so many Trump related issues – Trump wins regardless of the outcome.
Further the most important effect of the Tarriffs – creating economic uncertainty that drives production to the US was accomplished.
Who would have expected that a full year of widespread pandemic that killed 1 Million Americans and sent roughly 10 Million to hospitals and made another 40 Million, or so, desperately ill would have an effect on the economy.
If Trump hadn’t gone on and on about how it wasn’t worse than the Flu, even though the overall death rate was higher than from the flu alone, America might have escaped being a per capita leader of Covid related deaths.
Production has not been driven to the US.. A few nations promised to move some production here, but then the Trump Gestapo rounded up a bunch of South Korean specialists in the middle of building a battery factory and slapped on leg chains and hand cuffs and put them on a plane like they’d killed people. Thus ends the support of America by South Korea.
Instead, most of the claims have been “plans for” and “intends to” that appeal to Trump’s ego, but will not actually result in turning even one shovel of dirt that ends with product heading out the door.
“If the SCOTUS cock-blocks Trump on the use of these Tariffs, it will be worse for America than what Zohran Mamdani has in store for New York City.”
Yeah, we need more of that SCOTUS cock-blocking with another legislate from the bench decision with the same unconstitutional basis that Roberts used to inflict Obamacare on all Americans.
OT; Sandwich thrower acquitted by DC jury. Turns out throwing a sandwich to well protected federal agent is not as big a deal as they made it out to be. It was a sandwich.
OT; Sandwich thrower acquitted by DC jury. Turns out throwing a sandwich to well protected federal agent is not as big a deal as they made it out to be. It was a sandwich.
And don’t try feeding use your BS that these jurisdictions always turns Democrat criminals free.
Also OT: And another one of Trump’s courts has just told Judge Merchan he must reconsider and justify his refusal to turn over to federal courts Alvin Bragg’s prosecution of federal laws. This corrupt Trump court is just attempting to wipe out our 34 convictions of Trump.
This corrupt Trump court is just attempting to wipe out our 34 convictions of Trump.
And those 34 New York convictions from Judge Merchan merching out his courtroom to follow the Biden example and allow his daughter to put millions in his family pockets is all that you Democrat renegades were able to come up with. Merchan should consider himself lucky he isn’t indicted beside the New York AG for that corruption. For your part, if you were capable of shame, you’d feel sick at how you’ve worked with AOC to destroy our party using New York as the center of that destruction.
Just wait until Merchan has to defend his corruption and how he and Bragg engineered those 34 convictions to appellate courts outside of New York.
34 PHONY CHARGES- All By DEM third world lawfare used by dictators
You honestly expect bogus convictions for non crimes not to be thrown out ?
The only question has always been how quickly.
All of this was Democrats efforts to rig the election – and it backfired.
“Also OT: And another one of Trump’s courts has just told Judge Merchan he must reconsider and justify his refusal to turn over to federal courts Alvin Bragg’s prosecution of federal laws. This corrupt Trump court is just attempting to wipe out our 34 convictions of Trump.”
Appeals Court Hands Trump Legal Win
A federal appeals court has ordered Judge Merchan to reconsider Trump’s motion to move his New York hush money case to federal court
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/appeals-court-hands-trump-legal-win-orders-review-hush-money-case-over-presidential-immunity
In a 111-page appeal filed in New York Supreme Court’s Appellate Division in October, Trump’s lawyers argued that Judge Juan Merchan, who presided over the case in which Trump was convicted, refused to recuse himself from the case as New York State’s judicial canons required him to do. They further questioned his impartiality due to his ongoing political contributions — donating to both then-President Joe Biden and to a group called “Stop Republicans PAC.”
The lawyers also called into question Judge Merchan’s daughter’s work during the lengthy trial before him, where she was the president and part-owner of an advertising company that was paid millions by the Kamala Harris campaign and other Democrats.
The operative words are “by a DC jury”.
Throwing anything – even marshmallows at a federal agent is assault.
If you do not like that – change the law.
This is a judgement by peers, the people who elect the legislators, giving a clear message that the law should be changed. Not sure how in the country of Say that laws get changed, but here in America, it’s the will of the people getting demonstrated within the legal system that does so.
It’s why, even though selling marijuana is a Federal Offense, so many States have flipped a booger at those laws and legalized marijuana at various levels of control.
Jury nullification is a powerful way to get the law changed.
Stupid federal agents should not be getting into verbal arguments with sandwich carrying citizens and should have chased the guy into small claims court for dry cleaning. Instead they went after years of Federal prison to make up for that agent’s big, fat, running mouth. I thing the only answer to this is for federal agents to be equipped with larger sandwiches with which to defend themselves.
Drunky “judge” Pirro tried THREE TIMES to get a felony indictment against the sandwich-thrower–but failed. So, she went for a misdemeanor that does not require a grand jury indictment. That failed, too. How could anyone seriously argue that getting hit with a Subway foot long could seriously injure you? If you ate it and it was full of bacon, ham and mayonnaise, it might raise your cholesterol, but that’s about the extent of potential injuries. Just another Trump-induced BS abuse of the legal system
Underlying DJT’s tariff strategy is his observation that post WWII, America has historically established tariffs by the “most favored nation” rule and viewed the resultant unequal tariffs as being good for global economics. The net result has been a structure of unequal tariffs with the natural consequence of inexorably shifting manufacturing from America to abroad, most prominently to China. DJT has been the only post WWII president to take this outsourcing shift of manufacturing and product knowledge seriously as a threat to the well being of this country.
As to whether of not DJT’s tariff strategy is good economically for America remains to be seen. But DJT’s strategy is based on the perceptive idea, generally not included in ECON 101 treatments, that America by being the world’s largest competitive consumer market will cause some shift of the burden of tariffs for imported goods from America to the foreign exporter. Which is why the inflation hawks who got their shorts all knotted up and relax a bit and see how this will play out. For other countries the DJT tariff strategy will not work too well as they do not have the competitive market.
There are also practical considerations. Tariffs, by nature, are set nation to nation or in some cases within groups of trading nations. With 140 plus trading nations, Congress can only establish a general rule and does not have the agility to act rapidly to changing circumstances (e.g. emerging unfair trade practices or foreign policy objectives in the case of conflicts) as does the executive branch. However, the revenue generated by tariffs indisputably need to be allocated by Congress – not the President.
I have no idea if the President is in fact legislatively authorized to pursue his tariff strategy but I am satisfied that the President needs this power to act.
And remember, it was Jimmy Carter who bestowed Most Favored Nation status on China.
The main problem hasn’t been unequal tariffs – the problem has been that American capitalists found it was advantageous to set up factories in countries with few worker protections, limited environmental regulations, and a far lower standard of living. Part of the reason for this was the relaxation of tax advantages to reinvesting in domestic production facilities and in worker wages which used to be used to offset the up to 90% top taxation bracket that was in place when America roared back after WWII consumer production was turned back on.
The President can propose fast track legislation if required – just the same as the ability to declare War – and go before Congress to get it through rapidly. Not doing so tells other countries that the US has an out-of-control President.
Here’s a quiz. If a foreign maker is selling an item for $100 that it costs $50 to make and is faced with a 100% tariff, what part of the $50 profit can be used to pay the $100 tariff? Foreign makers cannot accept the burden of these tariffs. Reducing the price doesn’t help. At $55, that’s a $55 tariff, with $5 profit, so still a $50 loss.
RE:
The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act
The Tariff Act of 1930, also known as the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act, was a protectionist trade measure signed into law in the United States by President Herbert Hoover on June 17, 1930. Intended to protect American farmers and Industries during the Great Depression.
The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act significantly raised U.S. import duties on many goods, with the intent of protecting American farmers and manufacturers from foreign competition. However, it led to widespread foreign retaliation, causing a sharp drop in international trade and is considered by many to have worsened the effects of the Great Depression by creating a global trade war. the act is widely seen as a disastrous policy that worsened the economic downturn by stifling international trade and sparking retaliatory tariffs from other countries. The act led to a sharp decline in U.S. exports and imports and contributed to the global economic collapse.
Purpose: To protect American agriculture and industry from foreign competition during the Great Depression by raising import tariffs to historically high levels.
Implementation: Signed into law by President Herbert Hoover in June 1930, despite warnings from over 1,000 economists.
Raised tariffs: The act increased tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods, with average duties on dutiable goods rising from about \(40\%\) to nearly \(60\%\).
Sparked retaliation: Many of the United States’ trading partners responded by imposing their own high tariffs on American goods, a move that froze international trade.
Worsened the Depression: The collapse of international trade and the resulting economic fallout, including the failure of some overseas banks, contributed to a deepening and prolongation of the Great Depression, rather than the intended recovery.
Symbol of protectionism: The act is often cited as a prime example of economic protectionism and is widely regarded by economists as a policy failure.
Consequences:
Stifled trade: Caused a sharp drop in both U.S. exports and imports.
Retaliation: Other countries responded by imposing their own tariffs on U.S. goods, leading to a collapse in international trade.
Worsened the Depression: While not the sole cause, it is considered a major factor in exacerbating the economic crisis.
High unemployment: The unemployment rate in the U.S. jumped from 8% in 1930 to 16% in 1931 and 25% in 1932–1933.
Legacy: The Smoot-Hawley Tariff is now viewed as a classic example of the dangers of protectionism and is a cautionary tale in international trade policy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act
–
Laffer curve
The Laffer curve is a theoretical concept illustrating the relationship between tax rates and the total tax revenue collected by the government. It shows that if tax rates are too high, revenue may decrease because of the negative impact on economic activity, and if tax rates are too low, revenue may also be low. The curve has a maximum point, meaning there is an optimal tax rate that maximizes revenue; rates above this point can be counterproductive, while rates below it are in the “normal” range where increasing rates boosts revenue.
Key principles of the Laffer curve
Zero or 100% tax rates: At a \(0\%\) tax rate, the government collects no revenue. At a \(100\%\) tax rate, individuals have no incentive to work, resulting in no income and thus no tax revenue.
The relationship with tax revenue: Between these two extremes, there is a theoretical curve where tax revenue is maximized at a certain point.
Economic effects: The curve considers both the arithmetic effect (a higher rate means more revenue per dollar earned) and the disincentive effect (a higher rate may cause people to work less).
Normal vs. prohibitive range: The curve has two sides:
Normal range: On the lower side, increasing tax rates leads to increased tax revenue. The arithmetic effect is dominant.
Prohibitive range: On the higher side, increasing tax rates leads to decreased tax revenue. The economic disincentive effect is dominant.
Implications: The theory is often used to argue that cutting high tax rates could increase government revenue by stimulating economic activity. However, it does not state that all tax cuts will pay for themselves, only that revenue loss from a cut will be smaller than a simple static estimate would suggest, especially when starting from a high tax rate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
The President needed to bring these Countries back to the Table, So he chose Tariffs to do it.
The time was overdue and it was necessary to get things in order, as the balance-of-trade had become unbalanced in favor of foreign Trade partners. His methods to facilitate the Table interactions (a call to imposing Tariffs) are within the Executives sphere of Duties to the Government Office he holds. An ‘Act’ is that Duty of the Congress , to wit has be inactive is its duty (absent) in bringing Trade into equilibrium.
Opinion: Trump is acting ‘diligently’ and within the parameters of the Executive Office, wherein the Congress has neglected it duties.
The SCOTUS will create a decision that can reaffirm the validity if the Executive Office to its Duties. Or the SCOTUS will limit the Executive Office in its ability to create economic stability (equilibrium) through Foreign Trade.
The President needed to bring these Countries back to the Table, So he chose Tariffs to do it.
Opinion: Trump is acting ‘diligently’ and within the parameters of the Executive Office, wherein the Congress has neglected it duties.
Opinion: First, what justification does Trump (or any other president) have for placing these tariffs on all those countries where the trade deficit is on OUR side – instead of theirs? For example, nations like our allies the UK, Australia, etc where their far smaller population buys far more in trade goods than we do of theirs.
Second: what is the intelligent justification of choosing to calculate trade deficits on the basis of gross dollars each country spends on trade with us, when many of these countries have a fraction of the population we do? Rather than a different method, as just one example, trade on a per capita basis of each country’s population?
As an example: it’s rational to demand that our northern neighbor, Canada, with one tenth our population, must spend at least as much importing American goods as we import of Canadian goods?
Is that to be our American version of how we calculate what is and what isn’t fair trade?
The rationale is pretty simple
If you restrict US imports into your country, The US will restrict your importants into the US
As to the specific choice of measures – there is bno correct means to do so.
But Zero should be matched by Zero.
We can debate the criteria for setting tarriffs – but you pretend there is a right answser – there is not.
Put differently regardless of what Trump or the left may say – there is no such thing as fair trade.
There is only free trade. Possibly more free and less free but still free trade or not free trade.
Fair is anything the parties to a negotiation freely agree to.
John says says:The rationale is pretty simple. If you restrict US imports into your country, The US will restrict your importants into the US
How is that generalization a libertarian defense of ANY president (or Congress) using their power to pick who will be his winners and losers among American businesses and the American economy?
How does that generalization cover the countries where we’re the ones on the wrong side of the trade imports deficit equation – but Trump is still hitting them with tariffs nonetheless?
If the basis is: “He’s going to get more good shyte done than doing harm, so I don’t care too much how he gets the win”, that’s fine. But definitely not libertarian theology.
“How is that generalization a libertarian defense”
It is not but you asked what the argument was.
As is typical of the left – you constantly confuse what YOU beleive to be the RIGHT way to do something,
with what the constitution requires.
“pick who will be his winners and losers among American businesses and the American economy?”
Every single act of govenrment picks winners and losers. There is no such thing as government action that has no losers.
As a libertarian I would prefer that government acted as little as possible and allowed the free market to determine the winners and losers,
The contracts clause in the constitution requires that – but the Left and SCOTUS under FDR obliterated the contracts clause with Wickard Vs. Filburn.
Without that government has significant power to pick winners and losers in the economy.
“How does that generalization cover”
Does not matter – you keep trying to pretend there is one and only one clearly right answer.
There is not. One of the reasons that we shoudl leave as much as possible to the free market is because no matter how sure we are we rarely KNOW the right answer ahead of time – and even if we do, it is often only right for the moment. The free market is dynamic and will find the right answer for the moment and adjust as things change – government sucks at that.
You keep trying to argue
“X is tnot fair”
Fair is NOT an objective term.
As I said in another post – anything two parties willingly agree to is as close to fair as you can get.
“If the basis is:”
I have not claimed a specific basis – I have not claimed that there is one right answer – aside from that the economic optimum is 0/0
I would note that – economics is not inherently the only criteria for a decision.
In the instance of Tarriffs – Trump correctly beleives that they will increase US jobs.
“But definitely not libertarian theology.”
Libertarianism is not theology – there is not faith involved, it is logic and the factual understanding that on the whole humans act in their own interests.
Regardless I have not claimed that Trump’s tarriffs are my prefered policy.
Or that they are libertarian.
Or that they are optimal.
Only that they are NOT irrational, and that “fair” has no place in this – especially with respect to other countries.
Presidents and countries are obligated to act in the interests of their citizens – NOT the world.
That BTW is very libertarian.
Most posters here are addressing constitutionality and legality.
That is a different debate. As I have said – I would greatly limit all presidents emergency powers.
But that ship sailed long ago and you will need a constitutional amendment to change that.
You are claiming that Trump’s tarriffs are irrational.
Without arguing that ALL tarriffs should
John Say wrote: “As is typical of the left – you constantly confuse what YOU beleive to be the RIGHT way to do something,…You are claiming that Trump’s tarriffs are irrational.”
John; you build a better strawman to feebly attack than X… but not by much. Claiming that somebody confronting you with a question you waffle about must be someone from the left is pretty damned stupid on your part.
You posted this: The rationale is pretty simple. If you restrict US imports into your country, The US will restrict your importants into the US
You were asked what should be a very rational and easy question for an adult making that statement: How does that generalization cover the countries where we’re the ones on the wrong side of the trade imports deficit equation – but Trump is still hitting them with tariffs nonetheless?
Lying like a Biden that I posted that Trump’s tariffs are irrational – when anybody reading my post (and question to you) can clearly see I didn’t post that – is a lie that just makes you look more dishonest in your lines and lines of waffling in response. You can do better than that if and when you choose to do so.
Now you have yourself a nice non-libertarian evening.
ATS – pretending that you are in an entirely different argument is a faallacy.
You do not seem to know what an actual straw man is.
X is full of Schiff – that is nothing new. He has a long long reputation for pulling claims out of his ass.
We are all guessing what the supreme court will do.
But all guesses are not equal. Some of us are far better at this than others.
All of us have heard the claims of left wing nut legal pundits and professors over the past decade.
These so called legal experts who absolutely graduated from and teach at what once were the best law schools in the country have been near universally WRONG.
While those of us who purportedly know nothing about the law and are not qualified to offer an opinion have been close to universally right.
That is called Reputation and credibility and it is far more important that credentials, etc.
If you want a bridge built – do you hire someone with a nobel prize in physics who has never built a bridge that did not collapse – or someone who has built thousands of safe bridges. With a degree from podunk.
In a different era – the highly educated and the highly skilled were nearly the same group – NOT today.
I do not recall X asking a question – he certainly did not “confront” me with one.
He merely did what he always does and pulled garbage out of his ass.
Elsewhere he claimed China has the best logistics system in the world – of first world nations – and China does get kudos for moving fromt he bottom of the third world to the bottom of the first world since Mao;s death – China’s logistics are the worst in the first world – nor should that be surprising.
With limited knowledge you could guess that with a high probability of being right.
Further is was obvious from his claims that X does not even know what logistics is or why it is important.
X also claimed that China had a higher standard of living that the US – again false – it is less than 1/4 of the US standard of living – China was Approaching US GDP under Obama but Xi has been a disaster and in 2025 US GDP is more than 50% higher than China and China has atleast 5 times as many people. China’s GDP would have to be $160T – not 19T to have a standard of living equal to the US. No nation in the world with a population over 20M has a higher standard of living than the US.
And few nations with lower populations do, and nearly all of those have small numbers of people and large amount of oil.
Those of you on the left CONSTANTLY push completely idiotic claims.
Wikipedia increasingly sucks as a reliable source – they are heavily left wing biased.
But even Wikipedia’s depliberate left tilt does not come close to supporting the idiotic claims of left wing nuts on most issues of fact.
Do not try to blame me because you are too stupid to check your own facts beforfe posting and pull crap out of your a$$ and pretend it is true.
“You posted this: The rationale is pretty simple. If you restrict US imports into your country, The US will restrict your importants into the US”
Correct.
“You were asked …” what rational argument there could be for the structure of US Tarriffs.
That is the rationale – you may not like it – but it is not stupid or illogical.
I did not say – it was the best rationale.
All I have argued – correctly, is that there is a rationale and it is not stupid as X and others on the left have claimed.
Elsewhere I have REPEATEDLY posted that ideas that you do not like are not stupid just because you do not like them.
The ideas of the left are stupid – because they do not work in theory or in practice.
If they even came close to working – capitalism would have died long ago.
Free markets or njearly free markets dominatge the world today because evertything else significantly underperforms them. Because if you want peoples standard of living to improve rapidly – the greater freedom you give them the more that will happen,
And their is massive data, theory and scholorship over the past 20, 50, 100, 200, 2000 years to support this.
While socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried directly in proportion to how pure the socialism was.
Conversely libertarian government and economics – which has mostly not been implimented in a pure form – works better the closer to pure it gets.
I said mostly – because the relations of nations to each other is a multi millenia successful form of anarcho-capitalism – i.e. more extreme than libertariansism.
That is real and it works.
“How does that generalization …”
Sorry you do NOT get to reframe the argument or control the debate.
No – I do not owe you or anyone else answers to questions you did or did not ask.
I offer MY arguments to the issues As I wish to frame them.
I am not interested in idiotic efforts to pretend to control debate and shove it in your direction – by debating YOUR straw men – straw man soes have a meaning – and while you are good at creating straw men you are clueless about what the straw man fallacy is.
We had this debate with some anonymous – possibly you yesterday when they falsely labeled analogies by OMFK as straw men.
Regardless we have established you do not know what a straw man actually is – but you are good at manufacturing them.
In the words of Strunk and White – “Omit needless words.” Get a copy of “The Elements of Style” Also, get and use a spell checker or hire a spelling tutor. It makes the arguments you have look unhinged to have so many misspelled words.
A “straw man” is a logical fallacy where someone distorts, exaggerates, or misrepresents an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack.
This is a tactic you continuously employ.
Just asking a question does not entitle you to get the answer you want.
You do not control the debate,
you do not control the economy
you do not control other countries.
you do not get to decide for everyone what is “fair” no one does – and fair is not an objective standard.
I may not have answered as you hoped I would
But I answered you. Without an actual straw man in sight.
There can never be a totally free market. This is something those claiming to be libertarians refuse to acknowledge. Every market that is totally free soon devolves into monopolies as slight advantages accelerate the leader’s position.
Libertarianism depends on irrational evaluation of outcomes and exists at the opposite end of economic theory from Marxism.
There are few to no countries which restrict imports from the US. There are countries which have citizens who don’t want to buy American products and there are countries which cannot afford to buy American products. Of those countries trotted out as “restricting” imports from the US, those restrictions often apply far above what the US companies manage to sell.
Japan, for example, is generally self-sufficient for rice but still buys a small amount of American rice; there are tariffs on imports of American rice that kick in when that importation reaches far more than what the Japanese typically buy. It’s a fuse/circuit breaker that only kicks in if things get bad for the local producers, not typically applied for all imports.
What Trump has said is that in every market segment what should happen is simply identical swaps of goods. This is why he is trying to tariff a country that is incredibly poor and sells the US coffee beans, because they don’t buy coffee beans from the US, a country that produces nearly no native coffee at all. This isn’t economic trade, it’s not even barter. It makes no economic sense.
What it tends to do is to seal the US border against any contact with foreign nations, a goal of the Project 2025 backers. To pull the US away from contact with the rest of the world. Trump is their front man.
There have been many tarriff’s in US history – Smoot Hawley was one – while it did not work as expected, its contribution to the great depression was inconsequential.
The great depression in the US was caused by interest rates too low for too long – just like the housing bubble,
Resulting in massive over investment in illiguid assets like homes and factories.
There is almost no reputable economist that blames Smoot Hawley – though inarguably Smoot-Hawley was a mistake.
The US federal governemnt operated for more than half its existance funded almost entirely by tarriffs.
As a very general rule – economicly the nation with the lowest barriers to trade will outperform the nation with higher barriers to trade. That is a general pattern – NOT a law of economics.
All government actions – including when government acts to end BAD policies have winners and losers
Tarriffs are no different. The fact that some people win and some people lose is not a good reason for doing something bad, nor a reason to not undo something bad.
But as the supreme court wades into this- Tarriffs are unavoidably going to be clearly a complex issue involving multiple areas – not just simple things like taxation.
Tarriffs have myraids of positive and negative impacts. They are Tax instruments, they are foreign polciy tools, they are economic policy tools, they are many many things. And whether adding them or removinvg them – there will be winners and losers.
You attack the Laffler curve – and SOME of your criticism is correct – all tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
But the actual laffler curve is NOT some myth – it is not a law of economics – it is really just a derivative of basic math and the laws of supply and demand.
The Laffler curve correctly notes that there is a tax rate for a given tax above which revenue declines.
Further because it is a curve the peak of that cure is relatively flat – there is a large reason where higher or lower tax rates have very little impact on government revenues.
The peak is at different places for different type taxes and is even effected by combinations of taxes.
But according to work by Obama’s CEA Christine Romer the approximate perigee of the income tax curve is 33%.
Above that revenue goes down, below that revenue goes down. But in NETHER case is the decline rapid.
Nor is the laffler curve the only relevant economic curve.
The Rahn curve is more important than the LAffler curve – it establishes that there is a point perigee to the tax curve related to economic growth – and the economic growth curve has a peak at significantly lower rates than the laffler curve.
Massive amounts of economic data over all the nations of the world suggest that the growth optimizing maximum is government at or below 20% of the economy as awhole.
“As a very general rule – economicly the nation with the lowest barriers to trade will outperform the nation with higher barriers to trade.”
Ha, no. First you misspelled “economically.”
Second, the nation with the lowest production costs and/or the products with the best value with outperform those with higher production costs or lower value products. If products have equal quality the one having a lower price will typically win. If products have equal price, the one that is a better value will typically win.
Barriers to trade can make a nation perform better, if those barriers are sensible. Barriers to allowing dangerous imports, for example.
To those on the left.
This is not really a major case, a major question, a major issue or even an issue of ideology.
There is a small constitutional issue regarding the amount of power that congress has delegated to the executive.
However that is decided it will effect republican and democrat presidents alike.
Aside from the TDS of the left there is NOT a consequential ideological issue to this.
While this is a complex case involving foreign relations – which is the exclusive domain of the president.
Taxation which is the domain of congress
The presidents emergency powers as delegated by congress
There is not some right left ideological issue.
The supreme court is NOT going to commit economic suicide. They might twiddle with Tariffs, but it is highly unlikely they will do anything dramatic.
While many people await this decision with bated breath – as if it is significant – it is not.
Trump’s tarriffs created massive economic uncertainty with respect to foreign trade.
It did so in a world were that uncertainty was already high and where the prospect of moving production for US markets to the US was increasingly attractive economically.
Any decision by the Supreme court will NOT change any of that.
The most favorable decision for foreign countries would at most slow the rate at which production for US markets shifts back to the US.
John Say,
“ To those on the left.
This is not really a major case, a major question, a major issue or even an issue of ideology.
There is a small constitutional issue regarding the amount of power that congress has delegated to the executive.”
It’s amusing when you try to minimize an important decision by the Supreme Court that would determine whether the President can have more power over the economy by using vague emergency declarations and twisting interpretations of statutes to justify it.
There is nothing small about it. The ruling can have major implications on the U.S. economy and the basis of how much power a President truly wields.
It is signifcant. Even the President is waring of dire consequences if the Court rules against his tariff authority. Congress will face a big problem when the issue of reimbursment comes up and companies start to sue over the ill gotten money from unlawfull tariffs.
This is about the President’s lawless actions regarding tariffs and the flawed reasoning behind it. The deep skepticism from the conservative wing of the court is already making the Trump administration consider “plan B”. That means there is no high confidence the court will rule in their favor.
This is a major case for Trump and for the court. It will show the court can be a check on the president’s lawlessnes. The court will not risk giving one single person the ability to upend the economy and the power to bypass Congress by simply declaring an emergency.
X says It’s amusing when you try to minimize an important decision by the Supreme Court that would determine whether the President can have more power over the economy by using vague emergency declarations and twisting interpretations of statutes to justify it.
It’s amusing watching X attempt to drive right past the years when he was George, celebrating Biden claiming the power over the economy to transfer a trillion dollars in voluntary adult student loan debt onto the backs of all those blue collar taxpayers and retired senior citizens and their children. All done while claiming he had to do it to save the 6% of borrowers who claimed they couldn’t figure out how to repay their debt.
Then you doubled down by attempting to defend and justify King Joe claiming the authority to ignore SCOTUS telling him he couldn’t do that, and repeatedly attempting to find a way to bypass SCOTUS as well as Congress and put that student loan debt on taxpayers.
Those are cute little “I’m Your Everyday Democrat Hypocrite” markings on that Marxist Democrat clown car you drive, George X. Which is why you still have zero credibility.
The overwhelming singular failure of the American republic rights and freedoms experiment has been voters allowing the continued existence of the vile and violent, seditious DNC and their equally vile members like King George X.
It’s amusing to watch george say “It’s amusing that…’
since that phrase was first and numerously used against George in reply to him for his naive, disingenuous, hypocritical, and dishonest opinions. Now he likes to tell others how “amused” he is.
“Now he likes to tell others how “amused” he is.”
That is, when Mad King George X isn’t claiming those gleefully beating him with the ease of clubbing a baby seal just don’t understand his astute brilliance because of their poor levels of reading comprehension.
Amen.
“It’s amusing when you try to minimize an important decision by the Supreme Court that would determine whether the President can have more power over the economy by using vague emergency declarations and twisting interpretations of statutes to justify it.”
Is congress in court challenging Trump’s tarriffs or his emergency declarations ?
If not – then it is EXACTLY as I described – an inconsequential matter.
I do not like the broad powers that congress has given to presidents to declare emergencies – but that is NOTHING NEW – and if you are expecting SCOTUS to do anything about that you are pi$$ing into the wind.
Regardless every single presidential emergency declaration – and there are ones Still active going back to the 80’s MUST be brought before congress – I beleive it is every 180 days for review.
The appropriate congressional committees review the presidents claim of a continuing emergency and if they vote it down – the full congress gets to vote on it – and can vote that emergency out of existance – there is a fairly significant body of law on congresses power to terminate presidentially declared emergencies.
It is rarely done, but it is inside the power of congress.
It is extremely unlikely SCOTUS is going to interject itself into that.
If you do not like a particular presidential emergency declaration – get congress to vote it down – a simple majority is all that is needed. Lawfully and constituionally congress can do so at any time. Though the norm is when the declaration comes up for regular review. And they almost never vote them down.
“There is nothing small about it.”
As I stated above – SCOTUS is NOT going to step in regarding a presidents power to declare an emergency.
The constitution and law on that is well settled and there i no way that SCOTUS is going to want to open it up to allow judges to second guess congress and the president. Further second guessing what is an emergency is NOT a legitimate Judicial role. What constitutes and emergency is between congress and the president.
“The ruling can have major implications on the U.S. economy”
Nope. The left has been ranting for over 6 months – but there has been no observable “MAJOR IMPACT” on the US economy – Further – the US economy is AGAIN the business of congress and the president NOT the courts.
You keep trying to pretend that the courts have a role in anything beyond what is the law and what is the constitution.
“the basis of how much power a President truly wields.”
Presidents have too much power – congress has delegated far too much to the president, and SCOTUS should limit congresses ability to delegate its power – but this is not even close to the right case for that.
As noted the emergency powers of the president are sttled law the courts are just not going to change.
This is NOT an issue of regulation, it is more one of foreign policy – and that is the near exclusive domain of the president. Even foreign trade is largely the domain of the president – though the Senate (not the congress) gets veto power over treaties – and treaties frequently are about tarriffs and trade. So there is ZERO doubt the president has the authority to negotiate tarrifs.
“It is signifcant. ”
Because some people say it is significant does not mate it significant.
“Even the President is warning of dire consequences if the Court rules against his tariff authority.”
Trump can say it is a big problem if they rule against him – but it isn’t.
Further as noted above – the BIG rullings you are after are NOT happening.
First they remain SETTLED LAW, next SCOTUS NEVER going to issue a truly disruptive ruling. ‘
“Congress will face a big problem when the issue of reimbursment comes up and companies start to sue over the ill gotten money from unlawfull tariffs.”
Again – there is absolutely no way SCOTUS rules that any money has to be returned.
Just not happening.
But lets say they did – congress will just pass another law putting them back.
This is a dead horse.
Do you really think that either SCOTUS or Congress is going to give anyone hundreds of billions of windfall profits.
And I would note these ARE windfall profits. The goods were already tarriffed – they were then sold at higher prices. Assuming that anyone is due money – it would be those who bought the goods – and even that is weak – they voluntarily paid the price with tarriffs.
The correct price for anything is the price a buyer and seller mutually agree to.
These deals are DONE – there was no coercion involved.
There will be no windfall given back to anyone.
The very best case would be a company that went bankrupt because it bought goods prior to tarriffs, found itself exposed to unexpected tarriffs, and as a result went bankrupt.
And even that is a loser – Trump telegraphed tarriffs through the election.
If you gambled they were not happening – that is YOUR RISK.
“This is about the President’s lawless actions regarding tariffs”
But you have not shown any lawless actions.
The argumets I am hearing are that CONGRESS acted lawlessly by giving the president power over taxes that it can not delegate.
“the flawed reasoning behind it.”
Again – you keep trying to make this idiotic argument that courts get to decide what is good policy and what is bad policy – they DO NOT. The courts decide whether laws are constituional and whether acts are lawful or constitutional – not whether they are “flawed reasoning” – When SCOTUS talks about flawed reasoning – it is LEGAL REASONING not policy or economic reasoning.
“The deep skepticism from the conservative wing of the court is already making the Trump administration consider “plan B”. That means there is no high confidence the court will rule in their favor.”
The court is not going to rule that the president has unilateral authority to impose Tarriffs.
It is also not going to rule that the president ca not declare and emergency to invoke whatever emergency powers congress has granted.
It is no going to require the government to give any money back.
I doubt they will do more than impose minor constraints on the presidents power here.
This is also a complex case because foreign policy is the near exclusive domain of the president.
Taxes are the near exclusive domain of congress but Trade is a JOINT power.
My Guess is that SCOTUS will say that Trump can do EXACTLY what he is doing, but that at some point Congress must actually VOTE on the tarriffs that Trump imposes.
They MIGHT do something different – but the impact will be about that small.
“This is a major case for Trump and for the court. ”
You say that. Trump says that. But it is not.
“It will show the court can be a check on the president’s lawlessnes.”
Not at all – because THERE IS NO LAWLESSNESS, your out in lala land.
“The court will not risk giving one single person the ability to upend the economy”
But this has NOT upended the economy – and presidents have ALWAYS had the power to “upend the economy”
Biden made a total hash of the economy. That is a silly argument.
“the power to bypass Congress by simply declaring an emergency.”
ROFL
You keep returning to emergency powers – look – I share your unease with the vast emergency powersof presidents.
But Trump is not even close to UNIQUE in the use of emergency powers.
SCOTUS is not going to touch the presidents emergency powers – atleast not in this case.
As I noted above – Congress is NOT bypassed, they get to review EVERY SINGLE presidential emergency declaration I belive it is every 180 days. But even without the mandated review – they can vote to end any presidentially declared emergency at any time.
Congress has NOT been bypassed.
I would prefer if the presidents emergency powers had a strict time limit, and that Congress would be required to vote on the emergency to sustain the emergency after that time limit. But that is NOT current law, and SCOTUS is not going to change the law, and there is absolutely no constitutional issue regarding the way congress has setup presidential emergency powers.
The biggest weakness in Trump’s Tarriffs is that Tarriffs are a tax and Tax authority belongs near exclusively to congress. But Trump’s tarriff strentgh in that area is that foreign policy is the domain of the president – and trade deals are treaties that must be blessed by the Senate (not the house). Of course a treaty requires a 2/3 vote.
But I would love to see Trump negotiate Tarriff deals with the world and have Democrats in the Senatge vote them down. That would be a disaster for democrats.
And that i the CORE to your problem with this case.
The plantiffs are demanding that SCOTUS act on an issue of politics and policy – which is outside their jurisdiction,
when we have a president and a congress who can do so.
There is absolutely no way that SCOTUS is going to try to decide the policy merits of Tarriffs.
They do NOT want in that debate – or atleast 6 justices do not.
Which is why I am betting the BEST possible outcome for the plantiffs, is some muffled SCOTUS decision that preserves the status quo but requires congress to vote eventually – because Tarriffs are a tax.
There is NOT going to be some sweeping limits to presidential emergency powers.
Just not happening.
I would be happy to join you seeking to change the law or even add a constitutional amendment providing limits to the presidents emergency powers.
As I noted before we have presidential emergencies declared in the 70’s that are still in effect.
What I would WANT is something like – the appointments clause – presidents can act but they get 30 days of unilateral power if congress is in session and 120 days if they are not, after which congress must vote.
But that would require a constitutional amendment.
Those of you on the left CONSTANTLY confuse what you beleive to be the RIGHT policy with what the constitution allows.
“The goods were already tarriffed – they were then sold at higher prices.”
Trump assured everyone that the tariffs would be born solely by the seller with no pass-through of the cost.
Still no spelling checker? “Tariff” is spelled with one “r”. The poor spelling distracts from the equally poor arguments, but not in a positive way.
John Say says: Aside from the TDS of the left there is NOT a consequential ideological issue to this.
I’m not actually surprised to hear alleged libertarians as well as conservatives say they agree with any president using tariffs or any other policy to pick who the winners and losers will be in the American economy. It’s not new: presidents including Trump have been doing it since long before Trump did the same as every former president who was alive when he took office.
“I’m not actually surprised to hear alleged libertarians as well as conservatives say they agree with any president using tariffs or any other policy to pick who the winners and losers will be in the American economy. It’s not new: presidents including Trump have been doing it since long before Trump did the same as every former president who was alive when he took office.”
The libertarian position is that Govenrment should keep its grubby hands ENTIRELY out of the economy
For much of US history the contracts clause in the constitution served as a weak but real constitutional limit to all government economic power. But FDR and the supreme court ended that with Wickard v. Filburn.
If you are ready to return to the Lochner ERA – getting rid of Trump’s tarriffs is not difficult.
But we are way past that constitutionally.
All of us – libertarians included are forced to deal with the world and politics AS IT IS.
Not as we wish it would be.
We do not have a libertarian supreme court. Further the role of SCOTUS is NOT to decide questions based on ideology – but on the text of the law and constitution.
As Judge Gorsuch said on his appointment – Judges often must rule against their own beleifs and values – when the constitution and the law require it.
This supreme court is NOT going to buy a libertarian argument. Nor is it going to restore the meaning to the contracts clause. It is not going to decide if tarriffs are a good idea or a bad idea.
SCOTUS has not been asked to decide whether Tarriffs are a good idea.
The court has asked that arguments focus on specific questions.
The applicability of the contracts clause is not one of those.
Left wing nuts – here and elsewhere claim that the hearing went poorly for Trump.
But we have heard that over and over again – even when Trump has won 9-0.
I have expressed my analysis of what the court WILL do repeatedly here.
That is not what they SHOULD do.
If they did the constitutional and libertarian thing their decision would invalidate nearly all laws enacted since FDR was elected.
That is what they SHOULD do.
Ilya Somin at Reason has argued the libertarian case for striking down Trump’s tarriffs.
It is a good libertarian argument. But like many many good libertarian arguments
IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
SCOTUS might tinker arround the edges.
But the odds of a major Trump loss are near ZERO.
I would welcome that because it would apply to all future presidents and there is no means to a severe Trump loss that is not a severe restriction of presidents emergency powers – and I would love that.
But it is NOT going to happen.
You can as you have many times before delude yourself into beleiving that SCOTUS is going to craft some Trump specific decision – but they are not. They are not going to impose a limit on Trump they do not impose on ALL presidents.
And the odds are ALWAYS highly against SCOTUS disrupting the status quo.
But you are free to drown in your own TDS.
“The libertarian position is that Govenrment should keep its grubby hands ENTIRELY out of the economy”
OK then. No Department of Treasury. No US currency. No protection in the courts for intellectual property. No protections for consumers from tainted or adulterated food or ineffective or dangerous drugs. There can be monopolies and open warfare between corporations. Individual banks will once again issue their own currency and the valuation between banks allowed to float as the market decides.
I do love how libertarians leave out the consequences of their stupid ideas.
Also, the spelling of “government” uses the sequence “rnm” in the center and not “nrm” as you do.
Dear Prof Turley,
The key word in IEEPA is ’emergency’.
As a general rule, I’m all for free speech, free trade and the free market. .. makes the world go around.
There is no Plan B. There is no Plan A. .. Joe Biden tried ‘sanctions’ for his pet project in Ukraine, and the spike in gas prices was immediate and long lasting.
It is estimated Trump’s initial ‘liberation day’ sweeping global tariffs wiped out $10 Trillion in market capitalization in 1 day. This is not congressional policy or U.S. public policy – it’s Trump’s policy. He is single-handedly wrecking the world economy, and most economists expect the damage to the U.S. will be done by Christmas . .. before it’s un-done.
As weary shoppers rain down blows upon each other over the last remaining China teddy bear they can’t afford to buy, one can only hope SCOTUS can find a better way. .. expedited!
* the ’emergency’ is a crisis of American leadership.
dgsnowden – in what world do you live ?
SCOTUS will address the constitutionality of this.
Separately you claim this is some global economic disaster ?
Why would a few months of US tarriffs be a global economic disaster when decades of high tarriffs from the rest of the world are not ?
Will the Trump tarriffs have cause some economic damage ? Absolutely.
They will also cause some economic benefits.
Like everything govenrment does – there will be winners and losers.
For the most part these tariffs merely accelerate already existing trends.
Tarriffs do not repeal the laws of supply and demand.
The interaction of the laws of supply and demand and tariffs is slightly different for different goods.
For commodities like SOY that have a global supply that is not very elastic, and global demand. all the Chinese tarriffs on Soy do is change who sells soy to who with very small impact on costs.
For items where supply is elastic – some producers will be harmed and others will profit.
For items where demand is elastic – producers of tarriffed goods will be harmed if they have nowhere else to sell those goods.
You claim the destruction of trillions in capital. Capital is only destroyed globally when production declines.
Governmnt policies can AGAIN pick winners and losers – but without a change in production changes in capital are zero sum.
The economics of Europe and China are in trouble – and not because of Trump Tarrifs. Some of the reasons are shared others are unique.
Both have massive demographic problems – though China’s is worse.
Europe has massive and rising energy costs and shortages.
In myriads of different ways Europe is increasingly uncompetitive economically.
Europe has had atleast 1% lower growth than the US for most of the past 40 years.
The american 4th Quintile is as well off as the European 3rd Quintile – even accounting for the cradle to grave socialist state.
Conversely China’s standard of living has reason so much that its competitive advantage in trade is dwindling.
China has ALWAYS had siginficant logistical problems – China does not and can not meet the logistical demands of US and developed world markets it has survived and thrived to this point because the lower cost of Chinese goods compensated for the logistics problems.
That is increasingly not the case.
Everything made elsewhere int he world must be transported to the US to be sold here – the same is true in reverse – but the US imports more than it exports – so that additional cost is more significant for imports.
For decades the lower labor costs or other factors allowed other nations to be competitive in US markets – that is increasingly not the case.
Tarriffs aggrevate that – but they did not create the problem.
John Say,
“ Will the Trump tarriffs have cause some economic damage ? Absolutely.
They will also cause some economic benefits.”
What are those economic benefits? The damage outweights the benefits.
“ Why would a few months of US tarriffs be a global economic disaster when decades of high tarriffs from the rest of the world are not ?”
It’s not just “a few months of US tariffs” that are the issue. It’s the irrational and unpredictable imposition of the tariffs based on the President’s mood. Trump’s constant threats and backtracking on tariffs showed his incompetence earning the TACO moniker coined by Wall Street.
The world has has carefully calculated tariffs over decades of negotiations and rational business decisions by competent people. Trump imposes tariffs according to his mood or how easily his ego is bruised, like when he threatened Canada with 100% tariffs because of an ad he did not like.
There is a distinction between smart use of tariffs and those of Trump which are based on his feelings and moods.
Trump has single handedly upset the order of trade worldwide. Because he thinks tariffs are paid for by the countries he imposes the tariffs on.
“ Conversely China’s standard of living has reason so much that its competitive advantage in trade is dwindling.
China has ALWAYS had siginficant logistical problems – China does not and can not meet the logistical demands of US and developed world markets it has survived and thrived to this point because the lower cost of Chinese goods compensated for the logistics problems.”
John, you’re confusing China with the US. China does not have logistics problems. The US does. China has developed vast supply chains and infrastructure supporting their manufacturing and distribution. It’s so well made it’s the reason why US companies choose to produce in China.
China’s standard of living is surpassing ours and it has improved much faster than anticipated.
China can meet AND exceed US legistical needs. That is why they are a manufacturing powerhouse and their logisitics are highly adaptable to whatever they need. We don’t have that. If we did we would have the capacity to reshore manufacturing in mere months instead of decades.
You seem terribly confused about China’s capabilities and ability to adapt. China flexed it’s economic power a few months ago why limiting the export of rate earth metals to the US and they used it effectively as leverage against Trump. Remember, Trump claimed he would produce hundreds of deals and win benefits for the US. None of that has materialized because he loves to talk more than he knows how to negotiate.
X says It’s the irrational and unpredictable imposition of the tariffs based on the President’s mood.
And what would you call The Oval Office House Plant repeatedly attempting to not only bypass Congress, and then add to that by declaring that as King Joe, he could also bypass SCOTUS telling him he couldn’t do that to impose a trillion dollars in student debt on blue collar American taxpayers and retired senior citizens.
Was that irrational, or depended on who was offering Bribery Biden a free ice cream cone if he let him use the AutoPen to attempt to do that?
What’s irrational is your terribly confused belief that you and your hypocrisy somehow or other have earned yourself trust and credibility.
Your history of hypocritical dishonesty in conjunction with your handicap of being saddled with an undeveloped prefrontal cortex result in your inability to recognize that your efforts here are a perfect 100% fail.
X – I have addressed pretty much every stupid claim you made here in other posts today and repeatedly in other posts in the past.
You are completely clueless – you know nothing about china, nothing about economics, nothing about tarriffs,
and nothing about reality – not even the last few months that we have all lived through.
I you can not get basic facts right – China GDP $19T population 1.4B US GDP 32T – population approx 350M.
If you can not do the math – Google will do it for you.
Regardless claiming that China has a higher standard of living than the US is simply moroninc.
“Logistics
Logistics is the part of supply chain management that deals with the efficent forward and reverse flow of goods, services, and related information from the point of origin to the point of consumption according to the needs of customers, and a logistician is a professional working in the field of logistics management. Logistics management is a component that holds the supply chain together.”
From wikipedia.
Again I have addressed this with you many many times before – there is not any significant china analyst – not even on the left, that does not think China has a very rocky future.
I have explained some of the reasons why. That has gone in one ear and other the other, because your skull is empty.
Eventually SCOTUS is going to decide this.
They are not going to do ANYTHING close to what you or your left wing pundits say.
It is likely there will be some minor constraint they impose – and you will declare victory over a decision that is 99% at odds with your predictions and disrupts nothing.
And once again I will be pretty close to spot on – not because I am brilliant – but because this case is not that consequential. SCOTUS is not going to use this case to reverse massive amounts of prior law.
This is a very complicated case in terms of the details. And those details will impact SMALL aspects of the decision in ways that no one is going to be able to predict.
But the big overarching issue is NOT complex – no SCOTUS is not going to hit Trump with a huge setback.
They are not going to do any of the things you and left wing nut pundits claims.
Grasping that is easy.
What SCOTUS decisions have you EVER been right about ?
SCOTUS occasionally surprises me by the logic in their decisions, but very very rarely suprises me with their decisions.
Chief Justice Taney found that the power that the Constitution and laws conferred on him was insufficient to resist that of the executive branch.
All of the executive power is vested exclusively in a president of the United States.
The Supreme Court has the judicial power, and no executive power, and may issue a determination.
The president should proceed with his exercise of executive power.
Congress, which the president should consult, has the power to impeach and convict if it is so inclined.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“The clause in the Constitution which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is in the ninth section of the first article. This article is devoted to the Legislative Department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the Executive Department.”
“I can see no ground whatever for supposing that the President in any emergency or in any state of things can authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or arrest a citizen except in aid of the judicial power.”
“I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome.”
– Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, May 28, 1861
Chief Justice Taney found that the power that the Constitution and laws conferred on him was insufficient to resist that of the executive branch: “I can see no ground whatever for supposing that the President in any emergency or in any state of things can authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or arrest a citizen except in aid of the judicial power.”
Chief Justice William Rehnquist later wrote that his predecessor racist Chief Justice, Taney, of the infamous Dredd Scott decision was wrong. He spent 300 pages explaining and dealing with Confederate racist Chief Justices and their racist/Marxist fan boys of today. No doubt his explanation is well beyond the reading comprehension of our resident Democrat Kluxxers like King George X – but any normal American adult can certainly understand his explanation:
ALL THE LAWS BUT ONE: CIVIL LIBERTIES IN WARTIME
https://www.amazon.com/All-Laws-but-One-Liberties/dp/0679446613
And that was the exact same Chief Justice Taney who said the Constitution DID give him the power to declare that the Confederate slave owners’ Darky’s like Dredd Scott were just another type of mammal farm animal, not human beings.
Now there’s the kind of Chief Justice that today’s Confederate Kluxxers would just love to quote as an authority! Chief Justice Rehnquist… not so much.
AI Overview
The user’s statement is incorrect. While Chief Justice William Rehnquist did write about the Dred Scott decision, he did not argue that Chief Justice Taney was wrong. Instead, he wrote that the decision was “erroneous” and that the Court should overrule it in the future.
Did AI Overview give you the page numbers along with your cheat sheet?
Did AI tell you who wrote this? Scott v. Sandford was the result of Taney’s effort to protect slaveholders from legislative interference.
Understanding that slavery, which persisted for 250 years by valid and formal legislation, was and is reprehensible, were the American Founders, most of whom were slave owners, also detestable racists? And yet, there they were. Taney was right on the law, in my opinion, until you can prove otherwise.
And yet, there they were. Taney was right on the law, in my opinion, until you can prove otherwise.
Nobody will convince today’s Kluxxer Democrats that Taney was wrong in ruling their ancestors’ Darkies were just another species of farm animal – not human beings. And you aren’t going to convince anybody you’re right while regularly making that claim without a comprehensive argument to back it up. Prior to Chief Justice Renquist criticizing Taney’s perfidy, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote that Taney’s Dred Scott decision “was our great self-inflicted wound that it took generations to heal from.”
The decision has been described by many scholars as the most egregious example in the history of the court of applying a judicial solution to achieve a desired political result. Sound familiar?
So there you and Taney are, best buddies. On the other side are at least two other SCOTUS Chief Justices and many constitutional scholars saying the two of you are full of racist BullSchiff.
The Founders who were slave owners were realists for their time, not racists. If they hadn’t been realists in debating with the slave states, there would be no USA. More than a few of them wrote about their inner conflict because they were slave owners and more than a few of them ultimately freed their slaves.
The debates of the Congressional Congress show how close a thing it was to get the major slave states on board with signing on to the Union that would be the USA. Ultimately it came down to allowing those slave states to use the slaves they denied as being human beings as having a percentage of human worth to be counted for the distribution of seats in the House.
The slave states wanted their Darkies to be partially considered as human beings in exchange for providing them more Congressional power. Then it was back to the barracoons with the Darkies.
The Three-Fifths Clause, Article I, Section 2, stipulated that three-fifths of the enslaved population of a state would be counted alongside five-fifths of the free population for determining how many members in the House of Representatives each state received.
That’s how the Founders got their actual racist states on board.
Actually, you don’t have a problem with people who adhere to fundamental and statutory law like Chief Justice Taney; you have a problem with fundamental and statutory law.
Fundamental and statutory laws are passed by majority vote.
Lincoln and other elected representatives could have, at any time in their terms, passed legislation to cause slavery to be illegal.
They didn’t.
In a society of laws, the laws must be adhered to…
or abrogated.
In fact, reprehensible slavery was legal, however unfortunately, by the law of representative government for 250 years.
Taney was correct on law if not emerging “morality.” Two clear points:
– The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was unconstitutional—Americans could not be deprived of private property.
– The petitioner did not have standing.
How ironic and frankly, disgusting for Roberts to quibble tariffs vs. tax after his Obamacare penalty vs. tax betrayal.
Why must we continue to have such a creep in the position of Chief Justice when we could have Clarence Thomas?
Read Article 1, Section 8; the entire welfare state is unconstitutional. Why has the Supreme Court not decided that the welfare state is unconstitutional? The Supreme Court has allowed the Constitution to be morphed into the Communist Manifesto, quite literally, right before our very eyes. The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
Greed is good
There is a new law in corporate America. You either do it right, or you get eliminated.
Actual economic reality from Adam Smith – 200 years before “Wall Street”
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.”
This is reality.
it is true not just of butchers and bakers and corporations, but also of individuals.
You do not buy a burger from McDonald’s if it is not in your “Self Interest”.
You do not buy a burger unless you value the burger more than the money you pay for it.
McDonalds will not sell you a burger unless they value the money you pay more than the burger.
We all act in our self interest.
No system EVER that attempted to operate on any other basis has ever worked.
Even a bad or questionable man is capable of telling the truth. In this case the man is fictitious, and whether you regard him as good or bad, he did tell the truth. A desire for gain, when properly employed, helps a person focus on what other people need, and produce that thing and supply it to them . . . because only by producing that will he get those other people’s money. That’s what Gekko was talking about.
The problem with greed only arises when it induces someone to break the rules, to get dishonest gain, or to obtain gain through the improper use of government powers – as with the 2008 bailouts.* In that instance, his wealth is not obtained through free trade on a level playing field with people who want what he produces.
*In 2008, only Sarah Palin, to her credit, opposed the bailouts. And of course she was the most reviled candidate that year. All of the other three top-ticket candidates supported them.
oldmanfromkansas says to obtain gain through the improper use of government powers – as with the 2008 bailouts.
For context: that was the bailouts of banks and other commercial institutions who were forced by government to give those no-money-down-zero-interest-chase-me-around mortgages and loans to borrowers who were unqualified to borrow under normal rational principles of banking.
Other than government coercion and blackmail, why would ANY financial institution lend money out to borrowers they aren’t even going to make a profit from if those borrowers actually do repay those loans?
Why loan to them instead making a profit for your shareholders by loaning to qualified borrowers in the commercial markets that have both equity and down payments to secure the loan and a willingness to repay at a profitable interest rate?
Follow that by asking why those financial institutions bought all those heavily underwater junk loans when the government allowed them to be bundled together and then offered for sale as derivatives? Risk free derivatives because Senator Barney Frank assured all those financial institutions that they weren’t just underwater junk loans and mortgages they were being offered bundled for sale – no, they were guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the US government!
That is; they were guaranteed by the Democrats’ through Barney Frank – until they weren’t. Bait and switch – just like the promise of Obamacare that you could keep your doctor and save $2,500 a year at the same time.
Pretty much everybody has forgotten (or pretends to forget), why those companies then went back to the government to tell them the economic activity they forced and then lured them into with false promises left them failing financially and they needed the government to at least make them partially whole with bailouts.
The 2008 bail outs were a government attempting to be accountable for earlier government’s improper coercive use of government powers to force those financial companies into economic activity they otherwise would not have engaged with. And that started with Carter, and Clinton then letting it out of the cage that Reagan had put that “redlining” initiative in.
The whole story is important – not just the most appealing small parts of the story.
The government coerced the banks to make the loans? How so?
I’m not saying you’re wrong, only that you’re the first person I’ve heard make that claim since the crash happened 17 years ago. Genuine question: can you provide a little more detail on that, perhaps linking to one or two sources to back you up?
The government coerced the banks to make the loans? How so?
Headed for bed if I’m going to get out harassing pheasants tomorrow morning with my pup. The fraudulent government blackmailing of banks over “redlining” started with Jimmy Carter, got shelved through Reagan and Bush v1.0, then came roaring back with Clinton. It was hardly unseen in the news. This only took a few seconds to find:
https://www.nytimes.com/1994/08/30/business/redlining-under-attack.html
Or perhaps my favorite liviing economist and social commentator, the very black and very conservative/libertarian economist Dr. Thomas Sowell regularly mentioned the fraudulent claims of redlining:
https://www.dailynews.com/2008/07/22/thomas-sowell-dont-blame-the-lenders/
The pretense that they were forcing banks and other lending institutions to make amends for their racist redlining led to banks having to offer loans to unqualified borrowers that wouldn’t have even produced a profit for the lenders even IF the borrowers had repaid the mortgages/loans in full at the interest rate.
Other than that, summon your common sense:
Why would a bank’s shareholders be happy with the bank they had invested in offering loans at unprofitable interest rates to unqualified buyers under normal bank lending rules? With nothing in the way of equity or a down payment to secure the loan? Why wouldn’t banks lend that money instead to banks and other reliable borrowers – businessmen like Trump as one glaring example?
Or if you prefer the opposite: why would a bank seeking lenders in order to make a profit off the money they held, prefer to hold that money on their books not generating income by way of interest paid on loans, rather than loan that money to qualified borrowers, whatever their skin color or wherever they lived, as long as their background suggested they would repay that loan?
And common sense can’t find an explanation for why large investment firms would pounce on normally high risk derivitives made up of those bundled junk bank loans and mortgages to sell to their investors? Unless there was no risk, because Barney Frank, head of the House Financial Services Committee, told America and the world that these particular derivatives had no risk, because they were backed by the full faith and credit of the USA… We can only provide two links per post here, but you can search that as well.
Democrats for the last four years have been back to claiming banks within the Biden administration were redlining black voters.
Redlining discrimination towards black Americans was a real thing during the FDR and Truman administrations. By the 1970’s and beyond… it had just become the leading edge of the “America is systemically racist” Marxist attack. The fact that poor white borrowers were refused loans as much or more than black borrowers was just ignored.
“The government coerced the banks to make the loans? How so?”
Here is what I saw personally and what was later reported:
A bank said “no thanks” to the TARP loans. Government regulators then coerced: Nice balance sheet you got there. It’d be a shame if an audit (on top of the one you just had) revealed “improprieties” in that balance sheet. And don’t blame us if that new audit is leaked to the financial press.
The bank had no choice but to cave to the extortion and accept the TARP loan. (See for example BB&T bank.)
I’ve always thought Trump fancies himself as Gordon Gekko. .. greed is good.
*see also the ‘banality of evil’
You mean the whole Biden family. Just look at their history
Trump knows he could have been far wealthier by staying out of politics. And he donates his whole salary. You, on the other hand, suffer from a mental illness known as TDS, which is why your comments are so disconnected from reality.
dgsnowdenI’ve always thought Trump fancies himself as Gordon Gekko. .. greed is good.
We’ve watched you gandy dance as a hysterical tunnel-vision Never-Trumper with terminal “Trump is Hitler” for several years.
*one who has never donated as generously as Trump has done his entire life, before or after entering politics.
**see also “Trump is Hitler, with the banality of evil on display by Adolf Eichmann during his trial”.
If you believe that, you aren’t engaged in deep thinking.
Sauer (and the Justices) were wrong to say that the predecessor law was used in a similar manner.
“Only once before has a president imposed a blanket tariff as an emergency measure. President Richard Nixon declared a balance of payments emergency and imposed a 10 percent import surcharge in 1971. It was upheld by an appellate court in 1975 in the case of Yoshida International, Inc. v. United States. It is universally assumed, including by the lower courts in the current case, that Nixon used the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA)—the nearly identical predecessor authority to IEEPA—for the 1971 import surcharge.
However, this reading of history is wrong: Nixon did not claim emergency authority for the measure under TWEA. Nixon claimed authority to impose sanctions under trade agreement laws for the tariffs he put into place.”
https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2025/how-unprecedented-are-trumps-emergency-tariffs
https://www.thefreedomfrequency.org/p/the-tariff-powers-case-the-fissure
I really hope this historical inaccuracy is not the reason the Justices side with the Administration!
This is why judges make bad historians.
I really hope your ”historical inaccuracy” is not the reason that people might believe your take from your own link, which actually says “The government attorneys defending Nixon’s position in the Yoshida case said the president could suspend prior proclamations lowering tariffs to put the additional 10 percent levy in place. The courts deciding Yoshida in 1975 did not find that trade agreements authority allowed the president to suspend trade agreements in order to raise tariff levels. The Customs Court decided that the president had no authority at all to impose the surcharge. That decision was reversed on appeal, with the appellate court deciding that sanctions authority, the Trading with the Enemy Act, authorized the surcharge under emergency authority to ‘regulate trade.'”
I suppose you skimmed rather than read the piece. The very next two paragraphs after your quote:
“The government had given a post hoc rationalization of the authority for the Nixon surcharge, citing the TWEA, and commentators ever since have accepted that assertion. What is the evidence for this version of events? There is no mention of TWEA in any of the documents released at the time of the 1971 proclamation. What the president did is consistent with his seeking to use only his authority to terminate temporarily (suspend) prior tariff proclamations and is inconsistent with use of the 1917 wartime statute. This is because the president did not raise any tariff above the level previously set by Congress by statute, prior to any trade negotiations. If the authority was TWEA, there was no reason to be fastidious about prior rates previously set by an act of Congress. The emergency would have justified waving them aside.
“It has been an article of faith in the courts and in US trade law history and literature that there is a legal precedent of a president invoking a trade sanctions statute to impose an additional tariff blanketing nearly all imports. The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) upheld Nixon’s surcharge, incorrectly assuming that he had used TWEA. But it has been considered settled law. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals mentioned Yoshida 82 times in its opinion ruling against the use of IEEPA. That court notes that after Yoshida was decided, balance of payments authority was granted to the president in 1974, and it would have to be used for any future surcharge imposed after January 3, 1975. It is also true that IEEPA was enacted in 1977 with the supposition that the use of TWEA was upheld in Yoshida to support imposition of a blanket tariff.”
In other words, there is no historical precedent for a president invoking a trade sanctions statute to impose a blanket tariff on nearly all imports.
Nixon never invoked his presidential emergency powers to impose blanket tariffs.
-Never said Nixon did. The quote from your source specifically says, ‘the government attorneys defending Nixon’s position,
-Language from the appeal you mention came YEARS later
You spray a bunch of facts and opinion – but you do not actually make an argument.
Often there are multiple authorities under which a president can act.
Your claim that Nixon might have relied more heavily on something other than TWEA is not a very strong argument.
I am generally a free trader. As a rule the country with the lowest barriers to trade benefits most.
But like many other things that is not absolute, and it is a NET judgement – meaning like all government actions it picks both winners and losers.
I prefer that as much as possible government stay out of picking winners and losers in the economy.
All that said – the world will not come to an end if Trump’s tarriffs are upheld or rejected.
Further the primary purpose of the tariffs – to create sufficient economic uncertainty with respect to Trade with the US to accelerate the migration of manufacturing back to the US has already taken place.
If SCOTUS decides that congress did not give this power to the president – then congress will change the law and give this power to the president. If Congress does not – Democrats will be blamed.
Regardless more and more businesses with seek to minimize the risk of Tarrifs by relocating production to the US.
In some instances that can happen quickly – in others it takes time.
Regardless, given how narrow the competitive advantage to producing outside the US has become and how great the risk of Tarriffs is becoming.
more and more production will relocate to the US.
“ Regardless more and more businesses with seek to minimize the risk of Tarrifs by relocating production to the US.”
No, they won’t. relocating production back here is more costly and time consuming. Jobs will not be brought back. Automation and AI will replace cheap labor. How does that benefit American labor?
Trump is choking off free trade to satisfy his ego and claim credit for “improving the economy”. He’s not doing that at all and signs are pointing to a poor performing economy, a shrinking economy. Not what he promised.
X wrote: No, they won’t. relocating production back here is more costly and time consuming… Trump is choking off free trade to satisfy his ego and claim credit for “improving the economy”.
George claims Apple, Lockheed Martin, Carrier, etc didn’t move any production back and hire tens of thousands of new workers after the Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. They’re going bankrupt according to George!
The Internet never lies about history – but Mad King George X is always doing his Democrat Lyin’ And Denyin’. In the real world outside of BBBBUUTTT…. Muh TRUMP!!!!:
All told, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) reported, some $305.6 billion returned to the U.S. from overseas accounts. That’s a $1.2 trillion annual rate, and far more than the $35 billion one year before.
Ford Motor Company (NYSE:F) had been planning to build a $1.6 billion factory in Mexico. Instead, the company announced it was cancelling the Mexican car factory and added that it would invest $700 million to expand its Flat Rock Michigan factory. The money will go toward manufacturing high-tech electric, hybrid and autonomous cars and adds 700 U.S. jobs.
International Business Machines Corp. (NYSE:IBM) has spent years transitioning its business away from PCs and into IT services. Along the way, it has jettisoned thousands of U.S. workers in favor of hiring support staff based in countries where labor is cheap, such as India. In May 2016 the company announced another round of U.S. layoffs, described by employees as “massive.” But by the end of the year IBM’s strategy had changed, in dramatic fashion.
In December, IBM CEO Ginni Rometty announced her company had plans to invest $1 billion in the U.S. over the next four years, and that it will be filling 25,000 new U.S-based positions.
Lie harder, Mad King George X, lie harder. Just look at all the people whose point of view you’ve changed over the year. This is why you can’t have an adult debate with Lyin’ And Denyin’ Biden style Democrats.