The Supreme Court considers Trump's Tariffs

[Zincwarrior]

Congress IS the power in that regard as per the Constitution moron

Even if SCOTUS agrees completely, Congress is free to pass legislation permitted the executive to negotiate or impose tariffs based on parameters set by Congress.

 

[Rawley]

He added 50% because he got mad - literally.

It was actually 10%. And FAFO. Don't be an asshole to the guy that holds you fate in your hands.

 

[ThisIsMe]

This will be very interesting. Trump's wild, fluid, constantly changing, often punitive & random, impossible-for-businesses-to-plan-for tariffs -- which have played such a significant role in ruining longstanding global relationships -- are very important to him. He is just assuming that he can take the power to issue tariffs from Congress, and he is fully expecting "his" Supreme Court to let him.

This is a big deal. Will the Supreme Court fold for him? And if not, how does he react?

Live updates: Supreme Court is hearing arguments on Trump’s tariffs

What would be the avenue to remedy the unfair trade practices?

 

[citygator]

Not uh oh but rather a declarative that the refund idea is unachievable
Stop lying

You wouldn’t be worried about refund logistics if you weren’t considering authorizing it.
Stop being a dipshit.

 

[Mac1958]

What would be the avenue to remedy the unfair trade practices?

Smart auditing, planning, and tough but organized and respectful negotiation.

As opposed to juvenile chaos.

 

[Rawley]

Smart auditing, planning, and tough but organized and respectful negotiation.

As opposed to juvenile chaos.

By Congress? LOL Your cult can't even agree to open the frigging government. Driving it into the shitter.

 

[WEATHER53]

You wouldn’t be worried about refund logistics if you weren’t considering authorizing it.
Stop being a dipshit.

She’s posing the question rhetorically because there is no refund method
Stop lying

 

[citygator]

Several members of the court’s conservative majority, including Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Justice Neil M. Gorsuch joined the liberal justices in sharply questioning the Trump administration about its assertion of power to unilaterally impose tariffs without Congressional approval.

Justice Barrett, who is seen as a key vote, questioned the scope of President Trump’s reciprocal tariffs, which she described as “across the board.”

Several justices also noted that Mr. Trump is the first president in 50 years to claim the emergency statute allows the president to impose tariffs.

Several members of the court’s conservative supermajority, including Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined the court’s three liberal justices to express some skepticism of Mr. Sauer’s arguments.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/11/05/us/trump-tariffs-supreme-court?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

 

[pknopp]

Not uh oh but rather a declarative that the refund idea is unachievable
Stop lying

Trump said bringing back Garcia was unachievable.

 

[justoffal]

Other countries have been shitting on Uncle Sam with unfair trade practices for decades and Trump is trying to fix it. TDS lefties don't give a damn as long as they can punish Trump.

As long as the check shows up in the mail you mean.

 

[struth]

Bessent is on record recently saying the longer the tariffs are in place, and the more complicated refunding tariff proceeds is, the better the chances the SC rules in the regime's favor.

That's a novel legal concept. You can get a favorable ruling if you break something so severely it's difficult to fix.

That’s not a new concept, the dems have been saying “too big to fail” for years now. It’s how they justify bailing out their donors

 

[WEATHER53]

Obama in Obamacare.


Trump said bringing back Garcia was unachievable.

Apples to tire irons and he never brought him back, he was sent back

 

[citygator]

She’s posing the question rhetorically because there is no refund method
Stop lying

You are just making that up you can’t read minds.

She asked a question. We can agree on that fact. Questions seek information. We can agree on that fact. Information is needed to make decisions. We can agree on that fact.

She asked a question to get information to make a decision. That means she is considering it.

Everything I stated is a fact and I dont need to read her mind like you are pretending to do. Since you can read her mind is she team on top, under, or team doggie style?

 

[WEATHER53]

You are just making that up you can’t read minds.

She asked a question. We can agree on that fact. Questions seek information. We can agree on that fact. Information is needed to make decisions. We can agree on that fact.

She asked a question to get information to make a decision. That means she is considering it.

Everything I stated is a fact and I dont need to read her mind like you are pretending to do. Since you can read her mind is she team on top, under, or team doggie style?

She asked the equivalency of “can I flap my arms and fly” but you are too dense to recognize the sarcasm

 

[citygator]

She asked the equivalency of “can I flap my arms and fly”

Why?

 

[Zincwarrior]

There are approximately 23 million registered voters in the state of CA. Only seven-eight million came out to vote, passing this prop 50 by two million votes. You get the crooked government you deserve, CA. Proposition 50 should never have passed!

Wrong thread, bro.

 

[cnm]

that is wrong Tariffs are not taxes on Us Citizens it effects the Companies importing the items. What the company choses to do about the increase in price to US consumers is not a tax and not the responsibility of the Government

Those companies have been taxed. Were you really responsible for men?

 

[Mac-7]

Is there another example of executive levying taxes though?

I dont need another example

Congress has been delegating its duties to the Exec for decades

And tariffs are part of that

 

[Mac-7]

Justice Neil Gorsuch, one of six conservatives on the court, pressed Sauer on the fact that Trump had unilaterally imposed the tariffs, citing an international emergency, without Congress authorizing them.

“What happens when the president simply vetoes legislation to take these powers back?” Gorsuch asked.

“So Congress as a practical matter can’t get this power back?”

I dont think Gorsuch is really that stupid

Congress can reclaim that power whenever it wants

But it indisputably is within presidential authority now

 

[citygator]

I dont need another example

Congress has been delegating its duties to the Exec for decades

And tariffs are part of that

Taxing to raise money is a specific power that we fought a revolution over. That power isnt given away lightly.