President Trump Press Briefing re: Supreme Court Decision

[Marener]

Weaksauce.

Trump exhibits the kind of authoritarianism that compels people to believe absurdities. The most dangerous kind.

If Trump says there’s an emergency, then it’s an emergency.

 

[martybegan]

Trump exhibits the kind of authoritarianism that compels people to believe absurdities. The most dangerous kind.

If Trump says there’s an emergency, then it’s an emergency.

He tried something he got pushback.

Now he's trying to use laws that take more effort or are time limited.

He's doing what I wanted him to do. That the SC never ruled on it means he wasn't breaking any law at the time.

 

[Marener]

He tried something he got pushback.

Now he's trying to use laws that take more effort or are time limited.

He's doing what I wanted him to do. That the SC never ruled on it means he wasn't breaking any law at the time.

SCOTUS hasn’t ruled on a lot of things that no one has ever tried because they’re not emotionally unstable authoritarians.

Other presidents used IEEPA to sanction terrorists, arms dealers, and drug traffickers.

Trump declared an emergency because someone in Canada hurt his feelings.

 

[SweetTea]

What a pathetic excuse.

His whole administration is full of tantrum throwing children.

As is your entire constituency. I'm not sure what you're complaining about.

Current Democratic members of Congress have decided they will just shut the government down anytime something doesn't go their way. It's pathetic.

 

[Marener]

As is your entire constituency. I'm not sure what you're complaining about.

Im complaining about the behavior of the Trump administration and how it’s a total embarrassment.

Compare Pam Bondi’s testimony with that of someone competent like Jack Smith. It’s night and day different in their emotional stability.

Current Democratic members of Congress have decided they will just shut the government down anytime something doesn't go their way. It's pathetic.

This is a new opinion on the right. Because it used to be that they loved shutdowns when they did it.

Remember Trump shutting the government down because they didn’t fund the border wall in 2019?

 

[TimFitz]

He tried something he got pushback.

Now he's trying to use laws that take more effort or are time limited.

He's doing what I wanted him to do. That the SC never ruled on it means he wasn't breaking any law at the time.

That’s asinine. (NNo wonder Trumpster liked it)

As if the Supreme Court has to render a opinion prior to trying his go around Congress stunt.

And, of course, the Court ruled on it, handing Trump a serious defeat for his lawlessness.

 

[TimFitz]

Im complaining about the behavior of the Trump administration and how it’s a total embarrassment.

Compare Pam Bondi’s testimony with that of someone competent like Jack Smith. It’s night and day different in their emotional stability.

This is a new opinion on the right. Because it used to be that they loved shutdowns when they did it.

Remember Trump shutting the government down because they didn’t fund the border wall in 2019?

Or the timescGingrich shut the government down, or when Carnival Cruz led one to the brink of default?

 

[martybegan]

SCOTUS hasn’t ruled on a lot of things that no one has ever tried because they’re not emotionally unstable authoritarians.

Other presidents used IEEPA to sanction terrorists, arms dealers, and drug traffickers.

Trump declared an emergency because someone in Canada hurt his feelings.

Nope, the law was suited enough that 3 justices dissented.

 

[martybegan]

That’s asinine. (NNo wonder Trumpster liked it)

As if the Supreme Court has to render a opinion prior to trying his go around Congress stunt.

And, of course, the Court ruled on it, handing Trump a serious defeat for his lawlessness.

again, 3 justices agreed with Trump's administration's position.

 

[struth]

Trump exhibits the kind of authoritarianism that compels people to believe absurdities. The most dangerous kind.

If Trump says there’s an emergency, then it’s an emergency.

Well yeah dumbass

The president declares federal states of emergency

https://www.fema.gov/disaster/how-declared#:~:text=The%20President%20can%20declare%20an,if%20this%20amount%20is%20exceeded.

 

[Marener]

Nope, the law was suited enough that 3 justices dissented.

If I respected any of them, that would mean something.

Kavanaugh is particularly notable for being such an intellectual light weight.

 

[martybegan]

If I respected any of them, that would mean something.

Kavanaugh is particularly notable for being such an intellectual light weight.

LOL, you got Kendall Jackson on your side. She's an absolute moron.

 

[Marener]

LOL, you got Kendall Jackson on your side. She's an absolute moron.

You’re part of the groupthink that sees any black woman in a high level position and assumes they’re incompetent.

Kavanaugh was using his dissent to give Trump advice on how he could have legally levied taxes. It’s not the position of the court to act like Trump’s lawyer and it’s embarrassing.

 

[martybegan]

You’re part of the groupthink that sees any black woman in a high level position and assumes they’re incompetent.

Kavanaugh was using his dissent to give Trump advice on how he could have legally levied taxes. It’s not the position of the court to act like Trump’s lawyer and it’s embarrassing.

Nope, just that particular PERSON.

And now you are just making shit up like the ***** you are.

 

[johnwk]

You’re part of the groupthink that sees any black woman in a high level position and assumes they’re incompetent.

Kavanaugh was using his dissent to give Trump advice on how he could have legally levied taxes. It’s not the position of the court to act like Trump’s lawyer and it’s embarrassing.

A majority on our Supreme Court ruled against Trump’s imposed tariffs, and in doing so, the majority imposed its personal predilections as the rule of law rather than being obedient to the text of our Constitution and its documented “legislative intent” which gives context to its text.

In United States v. Yoshida International, Inc. (1975), the U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) held that the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA) authorized President Nixon’s temporary 10% import duty surcharge. The court specifically interpreted the “regulate… importation” language—which is identical to the language later included in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—as granting the President the power to impose such a surcharge during a national emergency.

Seems to me a President does have authority to impose tariffs under IEEPA if specific conditions are met as outlined in the Act and the conditions stated constitute a political question which is not within the Supreme Courts authority to decide.

Roberts should not have stuck his nose in this political question.

Madison concluded in Federalist No 47 that ”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

Justice Roberts has certainly expose himself for the notoriously evil person he is by using his office of public trust to impose his personal predilections as the rule of law rather than being obedient to the text of our Constitution and its documented “legislative intent” which gives context to its text.​

 

[johnwk]

Surprise! Justice Roberts reveals why he has meddled in Congress’s exclusive and reserved power over IEEPA​

Justice Roberts unwittingly revealed in his written opinion why he intruded upon Congress’s exclusive authority to restrain a president who may have abused the delegation of authority granted by Congress to a president under IEEPA. Justice Roberts writes:

"Against this backdrop of clear and limited delegations, the Government reads IEEPA to give the President power to unilaterally impose unbounded tariffs. On this reading, moreover, the President is unconstrained by the significant procedural limitations in other tariff statutes and free to issue a dizzying array of modifications at will. See supra, at 3. All it takes to unlock that extraordinary power is a Presidential declaration of emergency, which the Government asserts is unreviewable. Brief for Federal Parties 42. And the only way of restraining the exercise of that power is a veto-proof majority in Congress. See 50 U. S. C. §1622(a)(1) (requiring a “joint resolution” “enacted into law” to terminate a national emergency). That view, if credited, would “represent a ‘transformative expansion’” of the President’s authority over tariff policy . . . “

So, as one can plainly see, Congress’s reserved power under IEEPA to deal with an abuse of authority delegated to a president by a “joint resolution”, terminating the president’s asserted national emergency, is insufficient in Roberts opinion and would allow a ‘transformative expansion’” of the President’s authority over tariff policy.

Let us not forget a fundamental truism articulated by our Supreme Court indicating the Supreme Court “. . . is not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress’ action, however, is not within the Supreme Courts province to second guess.” See ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003)

The irrefutable fact is, Justice Roberts and those who joined with him have flaunted our constitutional system’s separation of powers, and indicated Congress’s remedy to address a presidents’ potential abuse of a lawfully delegated power by a joint resolution is insufficient in the majority’s view and would allow a ‘transformative expansion’” of the President’s authority over tariff policy.

Justice Roberts along with Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, have proven to be global activists in this matter by using their office of public trust to subjugate and meddle in a political decision, and a lawfully delegated authority to a president by Congress, and they substituted their personal beliefs as the rule of law.