Below is my column on the tariff decision and the question of who will pay the costs in the aftermath of the decision. While many Democratic politicians and pundits were positively gleeful about the costs, any refunds or policy changes are unlikely to follow anytime soon.
Here is the column:
Friday’s blockbuster ruling on tariffs was hardly welcomed by the Trump administration, but it was also widely expected. The Supreme Court clearly established in its 6-3 decision that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not afford presidents authority to issue sweeping, unilateral tariffs like those imposed by President Trump over the last year.
The justices fractured on other issues. And they left one issue conspicuously unaddressed: What happens to the hundreds of billions of dollars collected from these tariffs so far?
Many of us predicted that the administration would lose this fight. That view was reinforced after oral arguments, when a majority of justices raised possible reasons why the president might not possess this power.
Then again, he does possess similar powers under other laws, which the administration has already announced he will use.
Although Trump said he was “ashamed” of the conservative justices who ruled against him, their opinion is consistent with the conservative interpretive approach taken in prior statutory cases.
The majority defended Congress’s core power over the purse, maintaining the balance among the branches of our tripartite system. There were good-faith arguments on both sides, but these conservative justices ruled regardless of the political or practical repercussions, based on what they believed was demanded by the Constitution.
The most surprising votes were not the three conservatives but the three liberal justices, who historically have not been deterred by ambiguity in statutes in deferring to presidents. They have repeatedly also found delegated authority in independent agencies without worrying too much about the separation of powers.
Democratic politicians openly celebrated the loss. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) seemed elated by the prospect that the country will have to incur massive penalties, costs that could undermine the current economic growth figures. Newsom, who has led his state into a deep deficit and triggered an exodus of taxpayers, eagerly called for economic penalties for the country: “Every dollar unlawfully taken must be refunded immediately — with interest. Cough up!”
In reality, the tariffs are not going away. Trump will just have to rely on less nimble laws, but he can pursue the same policies in the name of other causes, such as securing greater market access and other concessions from foreign governments.
So what about “coughing up” those past tariff dollars? Newsom may ultimately be disappointed. Unless members want to further add to the deficit, Congress should intervene to uphold the tariffs retroactively. But that may not be possible.
Democratic politicians like Newsom are not likely to want to help Trump, even if that means wounding the national economy and the federal budget. But this may offer Republicans a unique opportunity to force such a vote. Do Democrats truly want to vote to give hundreds of billions back? There are already more than 1,000 claimants.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh dealt with the problem directly in his forceful dissent. He criticized the majority for its silence on whether or how such refunds would be made. Most pointedly, Kavanaugh noted that the federal government “may be required to refund billions of dollars to importers who paid the … tariffs, even though some importers may have already passed on costs to consumers or others.”
In other words, importers could be double-compensated if they are repaid, since, in many cases, the public paid for the tariffs in the form of higher prices. That is precisely what Democrats have been arguing for months, claiming that prices were raised to cover the added cost of the tariffs.
Trump could therefore further force the issue by offering to pay the money directly to taxpayers as a tariff bonus as part of legislation that would ratify the tariffs. Would Democrats vote against such checks for average citizens?
Even if Congress does nothing, this will take years to sort out. In the meantime, the administration has already utilized the other tariff powers recognized by the court.
What is most striking is how the very people calling to pack the Supreme Court are celebrating this decision. The court has once again shown that it continues to exercise independent judgment on important questions. Yet figures from Eric Holder and various liberal pundits will continue to demand court-packing as soon as Democrats retake control of Congress. The tariff decision exposes the dishonesty of their plan.
Democratic strategist James Carville recently cut away the pretense: “I’m going to tell you what’s going to happen,” he said. “A Democrat is going to be elected in 2028. You know that. I know that. … They’re going to recommend that the number of Supreme Court justices go from nine to 13. That’s going to happen, people.”
It is all about power and radically changing our political system. It does not matter that the Supreme Court continues to rule unanimously or near-unanimously in most cases. It also does not matter that the court continues to rule both for and against the president based on the precedent, not the politics, of cases.
For some, this decision is one of the most resounding demonstrations of the court’s continued independence. But if these Democratic politicians and pundits have their way, that independence may not last much longer.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and author of the New York Times bestseller “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Turley- “The most surprising votes were not the three conservatives but the three liberal justices, who historically have not been deterred by ambiguity in statutes in deferring to presidents. They have repeatedly also found delegated authority in independent agencies without worrying too much about the separation of powers.”
I suspect that their thinking is often more political than legal and that their goals are generally to advance raw power to the Left rather than strengthen the Constitution.
They would likely prefer that all actual authority be gathered among unelected ‘elite’ bureaucrats rather than elected representatives. Basically they want the far left faculty of universities to control the machine and make ample room for gifting. Think California’s ‘high speed’ rail done everywhere.
Trying to get the tariff money back should be interesting.
The most transparent administration of the universe. BS
A federal judge on Monday permanently barred the release of a report by special counsel Jack Smith on his investigation into President Donald Trump’s hoarding of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate.
Want to reference where in reality this can be found?
Do you mean the documents that Trump was legally authorized to possess, or the docs that Biden, Hillary, and Pence stole?
A cite would be nice!
Source!
There is this pesky thing called the 4th amendment.
Which is also why the Epstain files could not be constitutionally released.
Our desire to see something does not create a right to do so.
Trump’s IEEPA tariffs came up agsinst a roadblock when they ran into the “major questions” doctrine. While Congress had authorized the president to regulate importation, it had failed to include the word “tariff” as means to do so. In failing to specifically so state Congress had failed (?) to delegate its authority, its “power of the purse,” to tax. While we might be tempted to label this defective legislation, it seems the true intent of the statute was to simply allow the president the ability to prohibit importation.
I felt it was the correct decision; further that it is the correct path forward: Nothing in statute should be assumed as inferred or implied but only as specifically so stated, particualry so if it involves major questions and/ or the separation of powers.
I say this as a full-on MAGA supporter – I was Tea Party before Tea Party was cool – who also, incidentally, fully agreed with the Citizens United decision. Yes, I understand the implications,, but we should not afford presidents, congress, or the judiciary, powers they are not constitutionally entitled to.
Add that in IEEPA tariffs are not in any way inferred or implied, rather that they were assumed to be “inherent.” Add also, we are as much concerned about the unlegislated assumption of powers by governmental agencies as we are about the separation of powers.
I found Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent much more persuasive than Justice Roberts, who was hunting high and low for the word “tariff” because “regulate … importations” was too unclear. And it seems Justice Gorsuch has no faith in the powers granted to Congress, by the Constitution, to counter the Executive, so he felt he had to put his thumb on the scales. Regarding the “major questions” argument, I think Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent clearly showed how Roberts, Gorsuch, and Barrett ignored their own rules of analysis to deliver the majority opinion.
We are free to disagree.
I do not support the personal insults at the justices.
While there is a bit of hypocracy in the 3 left leaning justices, as well as the3 disenters, and roberts who failed to apply the same legal reasoning when it was Obama acting on unclear delegations.
Still the decision was correct.
The key is NOT the claim that “regulate” might include Tariff, it was that regulate was one of a long list of allowed actions that did NOT include duties or tariffs.
When a law specifies many legitimate actions – anything NOT specifically included is barred.
You can try to put great weight on regulate when it stands alone.
When it does not, it must be read narrowly. Finally we MUST presume that congress is capable of saying what they meant,
If they meant more, they could have said so. If the current congress disagrees with SCOTUS’ narrow reading of the law, they can add “duties” to the list of allowed actions.
excellent
There are a large number of people on the right in one form or another than agree.
Congress should bless these tariffs by law.
But the president should nto have braod powers under weak statutory claims – even when the presidents actions are wise
The president does not have the power to levy taxes, no matter how idiotic Trump’s tariff strategy is.
And your point please?
That was not the question. The question is whether IEEPA had delegated broad tariff power to the president.
Congress has already delegated the power to tariff to the president – but the other delegations have limits IEEPA did not.
The real test is the Jersey flip.
If you’re fine with a president using emergency authority to impose sweeping tariffs when it’s your guy, then you must be fine with the next president doing the exact same thing when it’s not your guy. Same power. Same precedent. Different jersey.
That’s the test of whether you believe in constitutional structure or just outcomes. The Constitution gave tariff authority to Congress for a reason. Not because tariffs are good or bad, but because taxation power must remain accountable to the people.
If you only support the authority when your side holds it, then you don’t support the structure. You’re just betting on the current jersey.
Olly
$38trillion and rising…
There aren’t enough trees on our planet to print that in $100 bills.
I believe in a balanced budget and limited debt, you either achieve that through leveling trade and limit spending or war.
Charging American companies an import tax won’t level trade whatsoever. Who believes the lie that Trump keeps telling that importing countries pay tariffs? Only two large economies since 1900 have ever enacted a comprehensive tariff strategy with the aim of propping up their economies: Stalin’s USSR and Mao’s China. That strategy kept their economies in perpetual recession but more significantly concentrated even more power into the hands of the head of state.
Won’t change? Please prove it.
Keep in mind USSR and Red China are not capitalist economies.
Every other country in the world uses tariffs to some extent to protect their domestic manufacturers. Having access to cheap stuff is nice, but in many cases, the customer isn’t always right. The cost of having access to cheap stuff is that it is not longer viable to manufacture those things here. In some cases, it doesn’t matter, in others it creates a national security problem. If I brought a bottle of wine into a restaurant it would be better deal for me because I can buy a cheaper bottle somewhere else. Not such a good deal for the restaurant owner, because he is trying to sell wine, and he owns the marketplace. Much like tariffs, that’s why he charges a corking fee to do this.
“Only two large economies since 1900”
False nearly every country in the world has done so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tariff_rate
The US prior to the 16th amendment did so.
What does “propping up” their economies mean ?
Again just about every nation in the world has/or has had protectionist tariffs.
Protectionist tariffs intended to create or grow weak segments of the economy – pretty much always fail.
Free Markets including foreign markets make internal producers stronger – not weaker.
Presuming something close to a level playing field.
Tariffs as a means to raise Government revenue are among the LEAST economically damaging ways to tax.
Sales taxes are even better.
In a perfect world we would have zero tariffs and zero subsidies anywhere.
But we do not live in a perfect world.
Regardless the Trump Tariffs have proven the conventional wisdom since Smoot Hawley to be nonsense.
Trading at the margins did not cause the great depression, The stock market did not cause the great depression Tariffs did not cause the great depression, Like all economic downturns poor MONETARY choices caused the depression.
Tariffs are NOT the greatest things since sliced bread,
They are like every other form of Taxation and/or foreign policy – both positive and negative.
Trees? U.S. dollar bills are made from a special 75% cotton and 25% linen blend, not wood-pulp paper.
🎱: The $38 trillion debt is not a party failure. It’s not an expertise failure. It’s a citizen failure. It is the clearest indicator that the people have ignorantly handed over the reins of government to those they were supposed to be supervising.
Self-government does not fail because leaders suddenly become ambitious. It fails because citizens stop paying attention to structure and authority. They focus on outcomes, personalities, and promises, while the machinery itself quietly shifts out of their control.
No republic collapses from the top down first. It weakens from the bottom up, when citizens no longer understand their role in maintaining it. Debt at this scale is not just an economic number. It is a civic diagnosis.
He’s makes-up nonsense and passes it off as theory. Ever deal with facts and sources, would help your lack of credibility.
After reading Justice Thomas’s opinion there seems to be confusion on the Court on whether or not the role of president has the authority to conduct acts of foreign affairs that Congress has already delegated to the Executive including, ‘regulating importation of foreign goods’. Instead the majority (mostly Roberts) twists itself into a theory-pretzel just as when Roberts found the word “tax” in ACA – where the word itself is not found in the act. It seems this Court may have a touch of schizophrenia. Your assessment, Olly, is also correct. Which begs perhaps a bigger (rhetorical) question: what *should* happen when Congress passes legislation that gives the Excutive unclear discretion, direction, and authority that can be misused or completely ignored by one administration then when implemented by the next with only howling and knashing of the teeth by the previous? I agree with Thomas, “international” is the key component of the case and the Court erred by citing the Major Doctrines theory instead of relying on the text of the statute as passed.
Turley says that Trump has several other authorities to impose tariffs, which is technically correct, but he ignores the elephant in the room, nay the HERD of elephants in the room.
Trump has already invoked Section 122 that allows him to impose temporary tariffs for no more than 150 days.
Suits have already been filed against this action.
The basis for the suits ?????
In the recently decided case, John Sauer, the fast talking but slow witted Solicitor General, forcefully argued that Trump had to use the IEEPA authority because Section 122 was not relevant or applicable.
So when the new cases get to SCOTUS he is going to have to explain why Section 122 is now mysteriously applicable.
This administration is a total clown show.
BTW, it wasn’t admin who made the argument, it was the DOJ. Understand the difference? The outcome was inevitable but had to be tested. Now plan B is enacted. Didn’t see that coming did you? Of course not. A clown you are, indeed.
The current administration has had to clean up after the elephant who previously occupied the White House.
I believe the “elephant” who most recently occupied the White House, before “the current administration” would be Trump himself.
https://www.skinit.com/cdn/shop/products/stkprsbmp05cir4x4_510x.progressive.jpg?v=1688880358
The correct term for Biden would be potted plant.
No one has claimed that other authorities cn fully make up for Trump’s inability to use IEEPA
As to SG Sauer – only idiots insult people far smarter than them.
He has a stellar record.
Professor Turley,
While I understand your intent, the comment section offers less of an exchange of well-thought ideas, and more of partisan ideology, much of it no relevant value. I recommend that you eliminate it.
Steve doesn’t like the comments section so he wants it gone?!?!? Hey Steve…”change the channel”. The left hates something they want it banned, like Fox News, Hannity, Ingraham, conservative speakers on campus, Jews in Hollywood, and men in general. The right folks hate MSNOW and CNN…and we don’t watch them.
Folks, and this here clown is the cause of it all. You have been screaming that Turly remove commenters because… they hurt your feelings.
Note, we have over 500 of your comments cataloged. Why don’t you just move on …
HullBobby,
Good point about “changing the channel.” Or in this case, just scroll past.
His simp has arrived.
@Steve
Oh, it’s only one side posting partisan rubbish (very likely often in a paid capacity, though a couple have been haunting the blog for years), and it isn’t the independents or conservatives. The rest of the discourse is always quite good, and we aren’t going to let trolls obliterate something that is for everyone.
Sorry the DNC has become a non-viable option, but that is a reasoned position for most, not blind vitriol or partisanship. Most of us enjoy the comments because we don’t want an echo chamber. 🤷🏽♂️
You believe that there are paid trolls here? Got proof?
I’m not convinced, because 90% of the commenters here can’t write a coherent sentence.
Proof ⬆️⬆️
Really, anyone new to the site, you can safely scroll past the anonymous posters, not miss anything, and spare your sanity.
James,
Well said.
Their lack of self-awareness is quite impressive.
Or at least moderate it.
Steve,
As an advocate of free speech, I believe the professor wants the most access to free speech in the comments section. Censorship is not the solution but more and better speech. Generally you can just ignore something like 99% of the anonymous comments. They offer no relevant value. Just scroll past them and you can find other interesting and useful comments.
I have never see you exhibit an opinion here that you actually generated. You plagiarize rightwing news sites and pass it off here as yours. As for value, tell us, what is the value of your 11:09 comment?
Unusual that you think that only comments with fake names etc. are worth reading?
Pray tell, is “upstate farmer” on your birth certificate? The point, you are anonymous. Can you comprehend that?
I have never seen a single opinion here that you can not find elsewhere.
Being exposed to a variety of views, and using critical thinking to come to your own conclusions is not plagarizem.
I thought the reason that preliminary injunctions were blocked was that money isn’t considered “irreparable harm” because it can be returned. The Administration stated as much during the CIT portion of the case.
Of course the money should be refunded. It was taken illegally from Americans who otherwise would have used it to invest in their businesses and create jobs.
Prove it.
Prove what?
How the heck do I know. Just prove something.
I shop ar a German import store at least four times a year. Prices dor everyday grocery items have gone up 30-40%. How do I get my tariff refund?
You’re referring to Aldi. Is not a import store, but an internationally soured comgloerate.
Not all items in Aldi stores are German-made. The store’s strategy relies on private-label products and limited assortments, and while many are produced in Germany, others are manufactured in the U.S., EU countries, or globally to maintain low prices. For example, some products labeled “Inspired by Germany” are made in the U.S., while others like German Bean Soup are imported directly from Germany.
In summary, while no official percentage is provided, the vast majority of Aldi’s private-label items in Germany are sourced locally or regionally, with a strong emphasis on German quality and authenticity.
You have it wrong. The levy was against Chinese imports. Price rises were incidental and irrelevant. Wouldn’t it draw more blood if Trump was forced to write and sign each check to each Chinese company? That’s what you really want isn’t it?
Wrong? Without sources you just claim he’s wrong?
The cost of the tariffs was distributed between foreign producers, foreign exporters US importers and consumers.
With the largest portion going to those with the highest profits as they can absorb the most.
The laws of supply and demand push hard to preserve prices to consumers – because raising prices reduces demand.
One of the problems with tariffs is that it pushes foreign producers to become more efficient while llowing national producers to become less efficient.
It is going to be very hard for anyone to win a lawsuit for these Tariffs because they will have to prove they ate them and the cost was distributed, not born by a single party.
What escapes my ability to reason some of the Robert’s Courts decisions is his Obamacare (ACA). It seems to fly in the face of Robert’s majority opinion on this issue.
Congress kicked the leg out from the ACA’s Constitutionality. Roberts had argued the penalty for being uninsured was a tax, and thus valid under Congress’s taxing and spending power. As i recall.
And then later argued it was not a tax to save it.
There were TWO major challenges to PPACA – one asserted that it was unconstitutional because it was not a tax,
The other because all taxing bills must originate in the House, and the death of Sen. Kennedy required the house to accept the senate version unaltered – so the house took an existing spending bill, amended it to remove Everything, and then insert the entire text of the Senate Bill.
There could not be even a tiny difference betwen the house and senate bill – otherwise the senate would have to vote again, and without Kennedy the bill could not pass.
But the law that became PPACA was a tax bill and was constitutionally required to start in the house – which it did not.
Yes, there is much hypocrisy all around – even with the justices that got this right.
So far I’ve not seen one reasonable solution to solving the trade deficit which was $1.1 trillion last FY and steadily increasing. Same as the fiscal deficit and the ballooning debt. Do we really think Congress will fix it! They don’t have any problem with either, just spend baby spend and keep the money printing presses greased.
The trade deficit has actually been falling with the tariffs in force.
The United States recorded a trade deficit of $901.5 billion in 2025, a negligible 0.2% decrease from $903.5 billion in 2024. Despite aggressive tariffs introduced by the Trump administration aimed at reducing the imbalance, the deficit remains near historic highs. Source BBC.
Monthly deficit trends showed volatility, with December 2025 reaching $70.3 billion, up from $53 billion in November. This was driven by a 3.6% increase in imports to $357.6 billion, particularly in capital goods like computer accessories, while exports fell 1.7% to $287.3 billion. Source CNBC.
Bilateral deficits shifted significantly: the gap with China narrowed to $202.1 billion from $296 billion in 2024, but deficits with Mexico, Vietnam, and Taiwan reached record levels, rising to $196.9 billion, $178.2 billion, and $146.8 billion, respectively. Source: tradingeconomic.com
Trump rants about the Trade deficit, but it is both inflated and ultimately meaningless.
Lets assume the number is correct – it is not because the deficit is calculated based on the sale price of foreign produced items in the US, not the price the foreign manufacturer sells them to a US importer.
Regardless, if there si a 1.1T trade deficit that means that 1.1T in green slips of paper left the US and on the surface never came back.
While there are complications because the US is the global reserve currency. Ultimately that does not change the fact that unless those splips of green paper are used to buy something in the US eventually – then they are meaningless – a foreign country has given the US alot of goods essentially for free.
But the fact is ultimately all those slips of green paper come back.
They purchase US debt, they invest in US businesses, in the long run those slips of green paper must come back to the US.
While technically these are not slips of green paper – they are 1’s and zero’s of electronic transfers they still hve no value in and of themselves.
Their value is the promise that they can be redeemed for something of value.
“All money is a matter of beleif”
Adam Smith
A trade deficit means there is an approximately equal capital accounts surplus.
It should absolutely be put to a vote re tariff refunds. Turley holding this up as a scare tactic just exposes his inherent corruption.
I believe in Turley’s court packing scheme when D’s had power he suggested moving to 13. The Court should move to 19 in the next D administration though, and term limits should be part of the deal…
But R’s are hard at work in bringing us to full autocracy as we speak, which apparently has Turley’s full support as he is an American equivalent of a collaborator in the 3rd Reich. So this may be completely moot — as the goal in this administration is to move beyond electoral politics entirely.
Bottom line…, Turley is shilling for you to never be repaid for the the extortion the trump administration has run on you under the name of tariffs.
Shilling you say? Funny thing, he never stated such.
Biden was the Third Reich. Susan Rice is a Third Reich wanabee.
Biden was just a warm body, a potato, a place holder. The Biden admin was Obama’s third term. They needed someone corrupt that wouldn’t rock the boat. Susan Rice is no wanabee. She was one of the real players over the past four years. When she issues a threat, I would believe it.
The TDS is strong in this one
Do you have an argument that is not your mind reading and guesses as to the motives of others
Lets get motives out of the way – republicans want power, democrats want power.
The constitution is a framework to give government the power it must have without giving it power it should not have.
There are always differences between the parties – but neither party is fundimentally about ideology – it is about power.
Each party manipulates its policies to try to attract voters who do often act based on ideology.
The parties each try to construct a set of polices that appeal to enough people to secure power.
Both parties are constantly trying to lure some faction of the voters of the other party.
Trump has very effectively stolen a significant portion of democrat voters – at the cost of losing a smaller portion of republicans.
Thus far democrats have not put up a fight and doubled down on pleasing a small core without broadening their appeal.
In the 19th century Republicans were progressives,
Both the current GOP and current DNC are much different from 50 years ago.
Another lovely academic exercise by the author. Professor, We The People know how our system of government is supposed to work! Our problem is that it doesn’t work! Placing the power where it’s intended, in Congress, is as radically flawed as anything imaginable. Giving unlimited power to the Executive Branch? Well, that seems a bit dubious. Remember Joe Biden and the AutoPen? And those Supreme Court Justices? Seriously? They can’t decide on lunch! So, what do we do? Democrats are going to remain focused on their own lunacy. Republicans will continue to be the masters of nothingness. The Independents will stay comfortably locked in to their own brand of all-things-to-all-people, stand for nothing, pseudo-intellectual nonsense. And the academics will write about the problem without solving anything. We are so screwed!
This is a ridiculous ruling, it doesn’t prevent President Trump from using tariffs to equalize trade it is just another hurdle for him to position our country to take care of OUR citizens. How can an Executive run the company if he doesn’t have the power over financial policy to control the CFO, he cannot.
We aren’t screwed Clarke…..but YOU are !!!!
wouldn’t wanna see that.
This Supreme Court decision was anything but CLEAR. It was a mish-mash of blathering about the various justidces’ personal opinions. The issue decideed was narrow and the analysis was not at all what aniyone would call “correct.” The dissenting opinion by Justice Kavanaugh was outstanding and let us all know about the erroneous thinking of the six justices in the “majority.
Are you a constitutional lawyer, accredited to stand before the SCOTUS?
SO now we have to be accredited to argue before the SCOTUS in order to comment here? This guy is something else.
Wanna rethink that stupid comment of yours you drunken lout?
To argue before the U.S. Supreme Court, a lawyer must be admitted to the Supreme Court Bar. This requires meeting the following criteria:
Active membership in a state, district, or territorial bar for at least three years immediately before applying.
Good standing with the state bar, with no adverse disciplinary actions during the three-year period.
A certificate of good standing from the highest court in the state where the lawyer is admitted.
Two sponsors who are current members of the Supreme Court Bar and personally know the applicant (not related by blood or marriage).
Filing a completed application with the Supreme Court Clerk’s Office, including original wet signatures and an admission fee of $200.
Participation in a swearing-in ceremony, which may be held in Washington, D.C., and includes special privileges like front-row seating during arguments.
Once admitted, a lawyer may argue cases before the Court. However, only a small number of lawyers—typically those with extensive appellate experience—actually argue before the Supreme Court, as the Court hears only about 100 cases annually out of thousands of petitions.
And you have stated numerous times that you are a retired lawyer. Right? I wanted to say more like, retarded, than retired. But I won’t.
Funny how 90% of the commenters here claims to be lawyers.
Actually, yes, and have done so. And, BTW, am undefeated there.
Undefeated? No you are not. As is so typical here. You old farts lie non-stop.
So, why not prove it? Here and now.
I dare you, double dare you. Triple dare you.
I hate to break this to you, but admission to the SC is mostly ceremonial. The framed license makes a nice decoration for your office. He could be “undefeated” not because he has actually argued a case, but be because he has never lost a case. Both of those can be true. Even the quality of the trolling has become pathetic. The pay must not be very good these days.
Understood. Nice try though. Just another pompous troll using AI again.
Ceremonial huh? At least offer up proof. You won’t and can’t
Oh dear, you actually think it something significant. It’s mostly about having a fun day, getting your pic taken on the steps of the SC, and receiving a plaque for your office. Next time, do your own homework.
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/senior_lawyers/events/supreme-court-trip/#:~:text=The%20US%20Supreme%20Court%20swearing%2Din%20ceremony%20includes:,Bar%20*%20Access%20to%20the%20Court’s%20library
Why would you make-up such a obvious falsehood.
I know the facts. You do not.
Unless its been verified, it is not a fact. A legend in your own mind.
Why do Republicans not introduce a Bill to make nine justices of the Supreme Court, the law of the land. If the Democrats vote against this bill, then the Republicans should pack the court now while they have the ability
That law would last only until the Democrats next have the trifecta.
Good read on tariffs. https://torrancestephensphd.substack.com/p/to-tariff-or-not-to-tariff-that-is
That author is economically ignorant. As just one example:
“Using coffee as an example, if tariffs were placed on Columbia, other coffee export nations would fill the void.”
Trump’s tariffs tax *all* coffee from *every* exporting country.
Democrats love illegals, foreigners, and shipping jobs out of America
They WANT poor Americans…to skim tax money from!
If you are a poor American, you can’t pay tax money? Right?
“What happens to the hundreds of billions of dollars collected from these tariffs so far?”
Easy: That money is returned to its rightful owners — the American companies that paid the illegal tax.
Just as when a court rules that government illegally seized your car. Your car is returned to you. Or the IRS illegally seized your wealth and property. Your wealth and property are returned to you.
Should there be a penalty? Absolutely. At minimum, a fair interest rate.
Will that balloon the budget deficit? Yes. And the administration should have considered that possible outcome *before* it went rogue on tariffs.
So, the companies that passed on the tariffs, as the Democrats assured us they would, should double dip? Why?
“. . . double dip . . .”
First, it would be *single* not double dip.
Second, your complaint amounts to: Customers were also harmed by Trump’s illegal tariff-tax. Something many conservatives assured us would not happen. And who kept denying it even while it was happening.
But to be fair to those customers: Calculate their loss, also. Add it to the refund amount (with a reasonable penalty).
Well since this is a fiscal matter, it is quite possible that the House and Senate might pass the tariff part during reconciliation and not require a 60 vote mountain to climb. They might have to fire a parliamentarian but it could be done.
Where do you come up with such nonsense. Listen, everything you MAGAotts read from rightwing press is pure hypothetical. SCOTUS is the final arbiter in this matter. They said no. What do not understand … no is no.
you mean like Democrats imported millions of illegals…to steal jobs, taxpayer $ and drive down wages?
So that’s you take on the tariff issue? You are incredibly … obtuse.
Read a bit more deeply. There are several additional laws under which the President can impose tariffs. Some of these laws already have been adjudicated so there are SCOTUS precedents supporting their use. Any monies collected from them could be used to repay importers. If importers raised their prices then their loss is limited or non-existent. If its limited they get limited compensation. If there is no loss they get no compensation.
And the important thing is, if they want compensation, they have to prove losses. Good luck with that.
So when the dems take over congress in Nov. , dems will then throw money at the importers?
“Everything you liberals read from the leftwing press is pure hypothetical.”
“. . . the House and Senate might pass the tariff part . . .”
A retroactive tariff?
That’s called ex post facto “law.”
Explain it further for the commenters.
Newsom wants Californians to pass later this year a wealth tax on ppl present in the state on Jan 1, 2026. I’ll tell him it’s ex post facto and thus unconstitutional.
I think extremists post facto refers to felonies.
The Republicans could even call this year’s reconciliation bill the Deficit Reduction Act.
“The most surprising votes were not the three conservatives but the three liberal justices…”. Not surprising at all. Their decision wasn’t based upon constitutional law, it was based upon their hatred of Trump (i.e. “Rage and the Republic”).
True. They can make up a justification. They did.
I think that was kind of his point.
When Trump loses in the Supreme Court, he insults some of the Justices. When Democrats lose in the Supreme Court, they threaten to pack the court, to impeach Justices they dislike, and impose term limits to remove conservative Justices. Notice the difference? This is how leftwing Fascism deals with judicial rulings with which they disagree.
The difference. One group threatens to dismantle the system the one say FU, I’ll now move into overdrive and burn down the economy. Donny is pissed, so throw a tantrum.
He isnt burning down the economy he is going to collect the tarrifs by other means. He had a back up plan going in.
So you think the economy is fine and dandy?
Without those tariffs, the economy is not sound. Its no better than Biden’s.