Supreme Court strikes down Trump's sweeping tariffs | AP News
Category: News & Politics
Via: evilone • 9 months ago • 199 commentsBy: LINDSAY WHITEHURST (AP News)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Supreme Court strikes down Trump's sweeping tariffs, upending central plank of economic agenda
By LINDSAY WHITEHURST
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump's far-reaching global tariffs on Friday, handing him a significant loss on an issue crucial to his economic agenda.
The 6-3 decision centers on tariffs imposed under an emergency powers law, including the sweeping "reciprocal" tariffs he levied on nearly every other country.
It's the first major piece of Trump's broad agenda to come squarely before the nation's highest court, which he helped shape with the appointments of three conservative jurists in his first term.
The majority found that the Constitution "very clearly" gives Congress the power to impose taxes, which include tariffs. "The Framers did not vest any part of the taxing power in the Executive Branch," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.
Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.
"The tariffs at issue here may or may not be wise policy. But as a matter of text, history, and precedent, they are clearly lawful," Kavanaugh wrote in the dissent.
The majority did not address whether companies could get refunded for the billions they have collectively paid in tariffs. Many companies, including the big-box warehouse chain Costco, have already lined up for refunds in court, and Kavanaugh noted the process could be complicated.
"The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers. But that process is likely to be a 'mess,' as was acknowledged at oral argument," he wrote.
The tariffs decision doesn't stop Trump from imposing duties under other laws. While those have more limitations on the speed and severity of Trump's actions, top administration officials have said they expect to keep the tariff framework in place under other authorities.
The Supreme Court ruling comes despite a series of short-term wins on the court's emergency docket that have allowed Trump to push ahead with extraordinary flexes of executive power on issues ranging from high-profile firings to major federal funding cuts.
The Republican president has been vocal about the case, calling it one of the most important in U.S. history and saying a ruling against him would be an economic body blow to the country. But legal opposition crossed the political spectrum, including libertarian and pro-business groups that are typically aligned with the GOP. Polling has found tariffs aren't broadly popular with the public, amid wider voter concern about affordability.
The Constitution gives Congress the power to levy tariffs. But the Trump administration argued that a 1977 law allowing the president to regulate importation during emergencies also allows him to set tariffs. Other presidents have used the law dozens of times, often to impose sanctions, but Trump was the first president to invoke it for import taxes.
Trump set what he called "reciprocal" tariffs on most countries in April 2025 to address trade deficits that he declared a national emergency. Those came after he imposed duties on Canada, China and Mexico, ostensibly to address a drug trafficking emergency.
A series of lawsuits followed, including a case from a dozen largely Democratic-leaning states and others from small businesses selling everything from plumbing supplies to educational toys to women's cycling apparel.
The challengers argued the emergency powers law doesn't even mention tariffs and Trump's use of it fails several legal tests, including one that doomed then-President Joe Biden's $500 billion student loan forgiveness program.
The economic impact of Trump's tariffs has been estimated at some $3 trillion over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The Treasury has collected more than $133 billion from the import taxes the president has imposed under the emergency powers law, federal data from December shows.
___
Follow the AP's coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.
LINDSAY WHITEHURST Whitehurst covers the Supreme Court and legal affairs for The Associated Press. She's won multiple journalism awards in a career that's spanned two decades.
Site rules apply. Stay on topic.
Tags
Who is online
86 visitors
I am, and am not, surprised by this ruling. The court has given Trump a lot of leeway over the past year, but I think they are starting to see there has to be a limit on Executive power.
I don't think they are actually concerned with limiting executive power, I think it is a matter of it being so cut and dry they cannot figure a way around the text in the Constitution. Even though the current supreme court has bucked the Constitution to aid and support Trump previously.
There has been talk from some of the conservative Justices about how a future President could wield the Executive. I think they are beginning to discuss it amongst themselves behind closed doors too.
Of course they are.
Just because you don't like a ruling does not mean they "bucked the Constitution".
They are realizing that with how unpopular current GOP policies are, even with their own base voters, a democratic POTUS in 2028 is nearly inevitable.
I wouldn't go that far yet. We don't even know who's running yet. Also it's a difficult line to walk between various factions. Remember the pro-Palestinians voters walked last time.
I think it's time for a true moderate that can articulate why moderation is the key to governing a large diverse population.
Well of of course. That's literally what Justices are supposed to do. Sometimes I forget how progressives never look past the the thing right in front of them and being surprised that judges are not just ruling for or against Trump. Granted since Progressive judges aren't constrained by any principle other than what helps or hurts the party in this case, I can see why that happens.
You really can't help yourself can you?
Well, when you seem shocked judges are literally doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing, I don't know what sort of reaction you expect.
You're projecting again.
So much so that even before that, IMO there's a chance that the Democrats will gain control of both houses of Congress in the upcoming midterms.
And invincable....He/She will be able to do whatever they want.
So you'll be totally ok with it when a Dem takes office and says, "I have absolute power to do whatever I want", because that is what trump is doing now. You sure you'll be ok with it?
Why would anything I've written you give that idea?
Justices rule on the powers of the Presidency, as they should. Those powers don't depend on whether you like Trump or not, which as Gorsuch points out, is essentially the democratic justices position on executive power.
MAGA leader Trump seems 'shocked'—hostile, aggressive, aggrieved even and even today openly spiteful (calling conservative justice in particular: "Disgraceful" and "Embarrassments to their families).
That last one, might make one wonder how that will 'help' Trump in future rulings. . . . What if SCOTUS does not have as thick skins as one would imagine a formal court panel to hold?
From your pen to Heaven's threshold. . . .
Good because actions have consequences
evil never once mentioned he was shocked. You shouldn't put words in other people's mouths
he also called them disloyal.
if the '28 election looks grim, maga ass-lickers in the SCOTUS will have an 11th hour come to geezus moment and remove all POTUS immunity ...
you better believe they will....fair SCOTUS my ass
except for trumpski and vance, all that secret service and US marshal protection disappears on 1/21/29 ...
Wow, who would have thought Trump, like any child, needed boundaries before he broke stuff, as about any spoiled 'child' is bound to do because it is just their nature, to push things, till they break.'
Better late than never, but really, one need not be too clever, to see Trump knows not, when to pull back on a lever, like say one on a voting machine, as he attempts to curtail those able to vote, to the extreme, and yea, an all American 'Dream', known as a knight Mayor, as he wishes for US All to be soaked in his 'wet' stream as he pisses off and on so many, all while squezzing out of US Any and All he can, a penny.
Knot fore his thawts
cause too dirty and disgusting asz his administration needs busting and tossed, as he and a half dozen buds have done gone wild,
on the violated Epstein Child(ren)Lost.
.
When the fck are the courts and the corrupted GOP gonna say WHEN, and after what a Cost....? !
My only surprise was that Kavanaugh joined the minority. I would have guessed that Roberts Alito and Thomas would support the POTUS over the Constitution and Congress.
So, . . .I am left wondering what the other decisions (today) will be by SCOTUS. They seem to like to 'soften' the rough patches with the 'sanding down' of other liberties and freedoms for select PEOPLE groups in the COMMUNITY/NATION.
he's probably had to, since he's banging barrett ...
gee, I wonder which one wears the dog collar ...
... they probably switch off.
Neither am I. The high Court has been fair despite what the lefties want. Think about what a great country we live in. The Court issues a ruling and the President follows it:
US to stop collecting tariffs deemed illegal by Supreme Court on Tuesday
Keep in mind that it was not a unanimous ruling. The Court is needed in cases when the Constitution is not clear in its wording. We now have clarity and the President, though he may not know it yet, might just be a beneficiary of that decision.
The Constitution is clear. Trump was wrong!
No it wasn't. That is what a 6-3 decision means.
Now there is clarity.
Yeah, Trump's counterproductive and unpopular tariffs could have ended right here if the buffoon used reason instead of emotion. But, of course, Trump seeks to impose tariffs through other means. He had a perfect out but he is too stubbornly stupid to use it.
See @10 "... and existing Section 301 tariffs — they’re existing, they’re there — remain in place, fully in place, and in full force and effect, ...". It does not appear that Trump plans to follow the SCotUS ruling. Either that or his administration is following, and he is defying with words alone. How can you continue to support this idiot?
I bet that Susie Wiles was secretly delighted with the ruling.
It does not appear that Trump plans to follow the SCotUS ruling.
Please be honest. He did follow it and that is why I went to the trouble of posting this:
US to stop collecting tariffs deemed illegal by Supreme Court on Tuesday
The ruling only involves IEEPA. It narrowly said there was no mention of tariffs. Trump has every right to explore other acts that might give him tariff powers. He isn't defying anything.
Cut the crap,Vic
Yes he does. But I never even implied otherwise. Pay attention.
His tariffs are highly irrational and unpopular. The SCotUS gave him a graceful out and he is stupidly doing the opposite. Stubborn stupidity armed with the power of the US presidency!
How can you continue to support this idiot?
Good.
His tariffs are highly irrational and unpopular.
They can be unpopular. Many things that are good for people are unpopular. Jack LaLanne used to say he hated exercise but loved the results. In what world did we allow ourselves to rebuild the countries we defeated in WWII plus most of Europe and allow Communist China into the WTO and allow all of them to dump cheap goods onto the US market to the point of not only having enormous trade balances but losing our entire manufacturing sector. We can barely build ships anymore. Congress authorized the Navy to build two submarines per year, yet we are incapable of building them. And the media tells the people that imported goods will cost more? If any of it can rectify this mess, I'm more than willing to live with tariffs. Doesn't that also mean that domestic goods won't cost more?
The SCotUS gave him a graceful out and he is stupidly doing the opposite.
I wish he had taken the out - only until after the midterms, but Trump has this habit of doing what he believes in.
How can you continue to support this idiot?
I've seen what the alternative is.
The tariffs are not good for anyone. They were and are brain-dead stupid.
That is irrational. Trump is clearly the worst PotUS in our lifetimes and likely our history.
tariffs are a tax on all but the wealthy.
They are a tax on anyone buying products subject to a tariff (or products that consist of parts that are subject to a tariff).
The main excuse provided for Trump's tariffs is the bullshit claim that tariffs were the only way for Trump to make deals, and then add to that an exaggeration of the deals actually made. The other excuse is the claim that a tariff deficit with a given nation is always bad; that is flat-out wrong. That represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how trade works.
There is just too much nonsense bought by the gullible. Trump's stupid rhetoric is dumbing down the public.
he does know how to effectively manipulate his ignorant base ...
abuse of tariffs about a century ago led to a few amendments to the COTUS and a federal income tax ...
"Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh dissented."
Resurrect Dick the Butcher!
The Butcher, the Baker , , , the Candlestick Maker?
This is impossible. All the sharp progressive legal experts assured me Trump controlled the conservative Justices.
Trump's true butt sniffers on the Supreme Court did write incomprehensible opposing opinions...
Wrongheaded as can be, but they are real loyal.
How many times have we heard on here that Trump picked the justices he picked so that they would do his bidding.
Truth is, the liberal justices have sided far more times against Trump than the conservatives have sided with him
Look, all we want is for the court to judge justly! One would think justly means making decisions that make for good for 'all' people. . . when and where possible. Instead, unbelievably to me, we have people advocating for suppression of others in the community and asking the courts to support said hurt when it is expressly written into law. Why not rebuke error in law and consider that laws are made for people (us all) - not people made to obey laws?
It'd like arguing with a rock. No matter how many times you point out that so called "Trump justices" often vote against him, and in the biggest cases, the lemmings will be back tomorrow saying the Court is fixed and needs to be packed.
There's never a doubt how the progressives will vote. If the next Democratic president imposes tariffs, the progressive judges will be the first to approve it.
A MAGA supporter distraction side discussion. I hope people do not spend their time and effort trying to talk MAGA supporters off this line of distraction. We know what this is about and its bullshit. The court's decision as MAGA supporters like to suggest is above reproach-especially since three so-called, "conservative" (shameful as that is) justices joined the so-called, "liberal," justices to render it.
What we all should want/wish for/pray for even is a SCOTUS that decides the fine points of law that lead to a more civil and human (rights) for PEOPLE. People have to live under the rules made by other people, therefore, at the least, people should feel that what we are told to ENDURE should be for the greater good of the COMMUNITY/NATION.
We do not aspire to elect leaders that suppress our civil and human rights (as PEOPLE). So yes, the court decisions can be proper without being right or a good fit for those who will live under them.
So we agree when the court gets it right and we push back (from the pain coming) when the court gives in to a wrong-no matter what the law is.
Laws are made to serve PEOPLE- not PEOPLE made to serve laws!
The next Democratic POTUS would go through Congress instead of incorrectly using the IEEPA to bypass them.
But remember...even a stopped clock is right twice a day!
Especially when there is no way to justify, by the Constitution, ruling otherwise. I bet they put in a lot of time looking for loopholes though.
Lol. Like the last Democratic Presidents went through Congress to try forgive student loans? Or hand out amnesty? Or mandate vaccines?
Similar but the focus and risks were different.
How did that affect trade imbalances, inflation or the value of the dollar or our national security?
There was no official amnesty, certainly not a permanent legal status or path to citizenship.
Yeah, God forbid anyone tell Americans they have to wear seat belts or get their children immunized for Rubella or measles.
All three things could be lumped under compassion or duty the citizens.
There was nothing compassionate about Trump taxing Americans through tariffs by declaring every day a different "national emergency" of one sort or another.
Trump seems the most likely to be looked back unfavorably by Lord Acton.
It did not, however, it did put undo extra financial responsibility on those that did not take out loans or paid their loans off without government intervention. No one wants to pay for someone else's debt.
thank you.
Not at all. No one has ever contacted me about the debt's of a non family member, ever. Has anyone ever contacted you about paying your neighbor's bills?
And yet you do it every month without fail.
You pay your taxes and you pay your car and home insurance.
Those funds financed the ships you once lived on,
the Social Security funds that many receive monthly
and insurance premiums pay for car accidents and storm damage or negligent house fires that have nothing to do with you.
The list of things the federal, state and local governments buy with your tax dollars would probably be a lot more offensive to you
than helping out college grads swamped with debt and an economy that can't employ them fully enough to become homeowners
or raise a family.
It all goes back to who changed that Omnibus Bill years ago that made Student loans permanent debt, not dischargeable by bankruptcy.
Yes, they have. They're called the Internal Revenue Service.
That doesn't make it less appalling.
Which are not other people's debts. Those are contracts that transfer risk.
Yes, and there are more painful things that getting poked in the eye. That's not the point.
"Less shitty than you paying for transgender operas in Columbia" isn't a justification for taking money from people who work very hard for it and giving it to people who made poor choices.
Don’t
you think that if we did away with that wasteful spending, including paying other peoples bills that they voluntarily took on, those taxes would be lower?
Well, lets thoughtfully break that down.
Absolutely in a normal world, but really, probably knot, we would just spend the extra cash on more missiles and next genaeration stealh aircraft.
Immature teens who often included uniformed adults? Tell you what, I will somewhat agree when they are granted the same rights as everyone else who needs
bankruptcy in business or their personal lives like our current POTUS.
And if he's the one that changes student loans from permanently non dischargeable debts to regular debts I will praise him for releasing a large part of a whole
generation of people stuck in a permanent hopeless situation.
Of course to challenge the court or claim hardship you need to be able to afford a lawyer and go further in debt. The cards are stacked against the students.
Which administration enabled that?...
Thanks to AI, it's not immediately clear anymore.
It was snuck into the final version of an Omnibus Bill under the Clinton Administration after the final review by a Republican House Member who was on the Education House Committee.
Biden attempted to revise the law in 2024 by Executive action to make Chapter 7 and 13 possible for students,
and Trump stopped all of Biden's student loan reforms by Executive action.
Most logical Americans would have no problem with that, but do have problems with paying others bills thay they took on voluntarily.
"Immature teens who often included uniformed adults?"
Most graduate at 17-18. Most start their first semester at 18, considered an adult.
"bankruptcy in business or their personal lives like our current POTUS."
Just couldn't help it, could ya?
"And if he's the one that changes student loans from permanently non dischargeable debts to regular debts I will praise him for releasing a large part of a whole"
To this we agree
"The cards are stacked against the students."
They....and their parents..should have thought about that before they took on tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.
Legally, but scientifically, they aren't finished brain development for another 6 to 8 years. 24 for women, 26 for men.
Realistically they can drink alcohol and drive cars, sometimes at the same time.
Is it true or not? True, at least 4 to 6 times, but he managed to break those systems too.
Which Trump-branded ventures were closed by bankruptcy...
Should have, predicted the future economy? Scientific changes like robots and AI that wiped out tens of thousands of jobs?
Yeah. sure. /s That's the remedy, blame the parents.
maga hindsight is 20/20 ...
Trump does have 'bigly' pull over the justices, and he is aided by his tenacity to ask daring questions that stretches the knowledge and understanding of the court. Clearly, he did not sound the conservatives out on this matter preemptively, thus the negative outcome. However, what is right for all people is important for people whom like you are under the power of the court! So we have EXPECTATION that when and whatever justices decide should bear in mind. . . people first. Rules second.
Now then, the thinking of the court MAJORITY in this instance suggests that Congress (representative for the PEOPLE) is the imposer of tariffs (taxes) and thus we can extrapolate from that the elected politicians in the PEOPLE'S house would CONSULT or at the least 'feel out' the effect and amount of taxation that the people can bare/stand ahead of just blanketing the COMMUNITY-NATION with painful and smothering superfluous costs—this is 'no permissible time-place' for kingly actions on the part of a president!
Lol. It's the conspiracy that won't die.
Opinions do vary.
Indeed, all the conservatives assured me they would be unbiased.
And they were correct.
Opinions do vary greatly.
Now comes the scramble for refunds. Trump is gonna be pissed over having to give the money back.
BTW, removal of the tariffs ensures a future for internal combustion engines. Now that the tariffs, duties, and levies have been pulled back they're cheaper than ever to produce. SCOTUS knocking down the tariffs is one of the best things that could happen to fossil fuels.
That is going to be a complete mess. I'm going to bet Congress will run interference on this one, except where they stand to personally gain.
Indeed, I see a nightmare unfolding on that front. Some already sensitive industries truly planned around the new tariff paradigm and have begun or continued moving towards reshoring their manufacturing and supply chains accordingly. So large investments have been made as well in many industries.
One such example is the electrical equipment manufacturing industry. Covid exposed a massive problem in reliance on foreign supply chains for minerals, raw materials, and electrical components in the manufacturing of all sorts of critical electrical equipment from transformers to medium/high voltage switching apparatus, to switchgear, panels, and metering equipment. Prices and delivery times in the wake of Covid have still not fully recovered, slowing, delaying, or stopping many projects just when the demand for electrical infrastructure has begun to increase dramatically. Prices for electrical equipment have doubled or tripled in the last 6 years or so, and some equipment still requires well over a year to build, assemble, and ship.
A message today from the president of NEMA (National Electrical Manufacturer's Association) read as follows :
The key is a " practical approach " as indicated here, not simply a wholesale dismantling of what Trump had done. Hopefully Congress will take such matters into account now in the wake of this SCOTUS decision. NEMA's " predictable, targeted approach " is outlined in the link from their statement HERE .
I suspect a larger nightmare will be trade deals negotiated under threat of (illegal) tariffs. Some of those foreign trade partners will likely declare the agreements void. I doubt those countries will be rushing to negotiate new agreements now.
Trump's broad approach could have worked IF (big if) government economic policy had shifted toward supporting small and mid-sized productive businesses. Trump wasted too much time and effort attempting to coax multinational corporations into investing to put big money on the scoreboard. (Multinational corporations are the most inefficient and slowest moving players.) Trump needed to supercharge government sponsorship on small manufacturing operations instead of hosting swank parties for global oligarchs.
Trump created a rare opportunity and he just pissed it away for self aggrandizement. Apparently Trump thought that distorting the market signals would be enough. Maybe that flies with supply-side economics but the real world doesn't work that way.
I don't think that money is ever going back to the ones that it belongs to
corporations and the wealthy get their refunds first ...
Of course they will. But they need to pass some of that on to the consumers who bought their products
LLC's that list Congress critters as owners will get their refunds first.
trump insiders will already have the paperwork ready to submit before it's even available to the public, just like the covid subsidies during the last term of the criminal/traitor/child molester ...
... uh, yeah, ... that always happens. like when prices came down after all the "supply chain" issues ended ...
"I'm shocked, shocked I tell you."
Only Congress has the power to impose taxes on Americans. This is not college level Poly Sci 101. No, this is 5th Grade Social Studies. Trump lied to every American when he and his cronies said that the tariffs he has imposed were taxes being paid by foreign governments.
People also know Trump's economy is based on Crypto. We are in the middle of the biggest stock market pump and dump scheme imaginable...
It is no wonder gold is over $5,000 per ounce!
$5,000 US DOLLARS PER OUNCE!
The gold wholesalers that buy up gold from places like pawn shops have stopped buying it up. They know it's a bubble and don't want to be stuck holding when it bursts.
People have been melting their family heirlooms and throwing away small diamonds that are practically worthless. In any case it shows how uncertain our economy really is. The only way to justify the current stock market pricing is to figure in massive inflation for goods and services. Otherwise it all has to fail...
It sucks for dentists right now. Gold is still, well, the gold standard for dental crowns, bridges, inlays, and onlays, so long as they're in non-esthetic areas. But it's too expensive for most people right now. The lab bill for the last gold crown I delivered made my jaw drop. I hope the bubble bursts soon.
I bet small time jewelers are freaking right now too.
I'm sure.
Interesting. Our local numismatics shops are chomping at the bit to buy our gold coins at over $5,000/ounce. We were seriously considering selling, but then left wondering what do they know that we are missing?
Yeah, that is interesting.
Even Walmart is now selling gold!
Just an FYI.... I am moving to the East Coast as soon as my house sells... All the dentists here with their 14th century implements of pain and suffering.... You may get to torture me yet....
People buy Gold for various reasons. But those involved in the Stock market (well, at least the wiser ones) usually buy Gold as a hedge against inflation.
Traders...and large banks!...have been buying Gold.
What does that mean?
Mainly that thy are thinking that inflation will be rising.
Traditionally "precious metals" (particularly Gold) has been seen as one of the best hedges against rising inflation.
And BTW, one thing that contributes to rising inflation is . . excessive tariffs!
Yes, that conports exactly with what I was saying...
the place that cremated my dad wouldn't let me pull his gold teeth so I told them to contact the VA if they wanted to get paid ...
So, I've had that request twice in my career, and ew. The idea gives me nightmares. I'm seeing myself sucked into the funeral home that I pass on my near-daily walks at lunchtime nice weather, then tortured by the spirits of those whose crowns I removed without so much as a drop of anesthetic.
Also, the alloy contained in gold crowns isn't nearly enough to cover a funeral, even now. The cost is mainly the work to create the crown, and the work to get the tooth ready for the crown. Well, now I'd say the cost is about equal for the gold and for the lab tech's labor. But it's still not enough to help much with funeral costs.
they insisted that only a dentist could do that for me and I countered why, he's dead and I carry a pair of pliers and a screwdriver in my car. they still gave me his ashes in a can, along with his pacemaker ...
Other dentists and I have discussed these requests. The (unanimous, IIRC) consensus was "hell, no!", so I don't know how there's even a policy about it, since it seems no dentist will participate.
ezpz. hammer, chisel, and something to plug the throat ...
It's not a lack of ability stopping us. It's the ick factor. Working on a dead body once in Gross Anatomy was plenty.
years ago my late uncle told me that the medical school at the university where he was professor would harvest any gold and silver fillings from the cadavers before cremating them and returning the remains to the families ...
I honestly don't know if that was true at WVU. I know that we students didn't do so. My group's cadaver had some gold crowns.
it was many years ago, I also seem to recall he said that they paid $35 to the state or county for unclaimed corpses when the donated ones were scarce. my grandparents both donated their bodies to some texas college, as did my aunt and uncle last year. they carve them up in class, cremate them, and send back an urn ...
At WVU, all the cadavers are cremated together, and their ashes are interred in a vault on the Health Sciences campus. There is an annual ceremony to honor them. It's actually a very pretty spot on the campus that you'd never know was there if you hadn't attended the ceremony.
... very efficient, but a bit too hitler-esque sounding.
It wasn't meant to be.
I probably watch too much history stuff on TV ...
I'm now highly entertained by seeing dead fascists on TV for some reason ...
Does your dog bite?
The only dogs I have here are the hot ones that I bite.
Monseur that is not my dog!
It's about time real conservatives start standing up against all Trump's blatantly unconstitutional actions, unauthorized spending and unlawful policies. Where are real Republicans of Olde?
It wasn't Democrats who forced Nixon to resign. It was Republicans who ran him outta town.
Retired.
More like dead and buried or run outta town.
A similar thing happened in NY House Dist 3 on Long Island. Corrupt Republican George Santos was expelled from The House and Democrat Tom Suozzi was elected to replace him (scroll down for more information )-- but many local Republicans were amongst the stronger voices opposing Santos.
As someone who voted for Reagan, it has been very frustrating to watch the Republican Party rerouted by by moronic ideologues, and then turn around only to find the Democrats similarly afflicted.
My choices for president at the last election were a ridiculous orange charicature of a human or an imbecilic woman incapable of coherent thoughts.
As it should have been Democrats who ran Biden out of ever entering the campaign.
None of that has beans to do with tariffs or Republicans in Congress having no backbones to stand against Trump's unconstitutional shenanigans. Only Congress has the power to impose taxes on us. Lying and saying other countries pay them failed. Deal with it...
I realize this may be difficult to understand, but the entire point of executive orders is to circumvent Congress.
Q. What is the point of executive orders?
DuckDuckGo AI:
Purpose of Executive Orders
Executive orders serve several key functions in the governance of a country, particularly in the United States. Here are the primary purposes:
1. Implementation of Laws
Executive orders allow the President to direct federal agencies to take specific actions necessary to implement existing laws. They provide guidance on how laws should be enforced or carried out.
2. Managing Federal Operations
These orders can be used to manage the operations of the executive branch. For example, a President may reorganize agencies or set priorities for specific programs through executive orders.
3. Emergency Powers
In situations that require urgent action, such as natural disasters or national emergencies, executive orders can enable immediate responses without waiting for Congressional legislation.
4. Policy Direction
Executive orders allow Presidents to outline their administration's policy priorities, often reflecting their political philosophy. They can set the tone for issues such as climate change, healthcare, and education.
5. National Security
Presidents often use executive orders to address matters of national security, allowing swift action in response to threats without the delays that can come from the legislative process.
6. Directing Agency Resources
These orders can authorize the allocation of resources and the implementation of specific initiatives, which can be crucial for addressing social issues or public crises.
Executive orders are a potent tool that can have a lasting impact on policy and governance, shaping the direction of the federal government and addressing immediate needs or issues. However, their use can also lead to controversy and debate regarding the separation of powers and the extent of presidential authority.
DuckDuckGo AI
Nothing in the answer above indicates EOs as being a tool to properly 'escape' the wisdom of Congress and the people of this country in the solution providing processes of this country. Therefore, MAGA supporters are wrong.
As it should have been Democrats who ran Biden out of ever entering the campaign.
Some tried. But obviously they were in the minority.
I have not read the opinion with its adjoining dissents, but it is CONFOUNDING to me that justices steeped in similar experiences under our constitution can look at this matter of congress taxation or presidential taxation. . . and, have a difference of opinion! That in itself is. . . truly disturbing. For me, the matter compares to the phrase: "Either one is pregnant or not pregnant—no middle ground to hold!
Therefore, how the heck can we have a justice or several say the "issue is clear" - when it results in a split decision?
This isn't taxation.
It's a question of whether Congress delegated the President to impose tariffs by statute or if it didn't.
Disclaimer: This is a 'hasty' collection of the opinion results from Chief Justice Roberts. I am short on time right now. The point being as to the question of if tariffs are a form of TAXATION:
In any case: The majority of SCOTUS (I have not read the opinion/dissent) agrees: DIDN'T!
That;s why we have several justices on the Supreme Court. It they all always thought alike we wouldn't need several-- we'd just need one!
The entire population of the U.S, doesn't always think the same. (With several justices different segments of the population can have their views represented!)
Good thought/point!
I had not considered this. . . . Now then, maybe. . .it would be helpful if I read the affirmative and negative opinions of the justices. Though, right now is not a time for reading long documents for me.
nothing will happen until republicans in the house and senate have something much worse than trump to fear.
What is it you think they need to fear?
Reelection.
Which could be the fear of losing their seats to Democrats in the upcoming midterms.
! ! !
Not to mention if 1 more republican retires from the House early, democrats take over.
Trump today:
My God, he is a miserable piece of shit. He's going to make the rest of the world suffer as his revenge It's hard for me to believe that adults who are intelligent enough to post anything at all on NT are STILL supportive of him.
For emphasis.
I know of two things that are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity and I'm not entirely sure about the former.
--Albert Einstein.
Mark Twain said:
Suppose I was an idiot. And suppose I was a member of Congress. But I repeat myself!
I've been pondering what I wrote there, and trying to come to some conclusions why grown-up adults would support Trump, considering what he has been doing. There are a number of possibilities:
1. Loyalty - No doubt that Americans are loyal to their nation and leaders, but then why are they loyal to one who has been so destructive not only of the way of life of so many Americans, but of the lives of others around the world.
2. Lack of Education - i.e. inability to think critically. The problem is exacerbated by the failure of America's Education system (a failure I have been aware of since I was a teenager mixing with American teenagers).
3. Being a Republican - But not all Republicans do back Turmp so theire is no good reason for party loyalty to force one to deny reality. Liz Cheney was and I suppose still IS a Republican notwithstanding she has been ostraciszed by other Republicans. There are Republicans who can think clearly and distinguish right from wrong, and are valid beneficial contributors to society.
4. Stubborness - Even KNOWING that Trump is screwing up not just America but the world at large, destroying its relations with long-time allies, neighbours and friends, but staying the course no matter how disasterous it is.
5. Ignorance - i.e. just not knowing that there is a better road to take, so unable to take it, which differs from knowiing there is a better road to take but unable to know how to take it, which is a lesser form of ignorance.
6. Fear - being worried about retribution for NOT being loyal to Trump.
7. Evil Intensions - I think we all know there are those who WANT to hurt others.
8. Not giving a shit about anything - I don't have to say any more than that. Such persons are useless members of society.
9. Argumentarians (I think I made up that word) - Those who are just looking for a fight or any way to shit on or hurt other people. Similar to Evil Intentions but more specifically certain users of social news sites like NT.
Does anyone else have any ideas?
Its not all that difficult to "Post anything at all".
(What is a bit more challenging is to post something intelligent.)
Don't forget concern that the alternative is worse.
Given all that Trump has done and is doing, you insist that Harris as PotUS would be worse. That, IMO, is a fine example of pure partisanship.
... yeah, but having a criminal/traitor/child molester in the oval office is really good for the economy. /s
Hard to imagine the fantasy some have dreamed up about how Harris (or any D) would damage the nation to conclude that they would be worse than Trump. Seems no matter what Trump does wrong, it is never recognized as bad as the fantasized nightmare.
Please show me where I said that, I don't recall it.
"that the alternative is worse." 10.1.6
Currently we are witnessing Trump and his MAGAites hosting a master class on stupidity. It's almost like someone asked facetiously, "How can those on the right get any dumber?" to which they replied in unison "That sounds like a challenge! We'll just have to show yall!!".
Shuffle, shuffle.
Why post something if all you are going to do is run away from the implication?
You stated a concern that the alternative would be worse. So if you were not referring to Harris (note: she was the alternative to Trump), then who precisely are you referring to?
Actually I never said that was my concern. If you look at the comment I was responding to " and trying to come to some conclusions why grown-up adults would support Trump, considering what he has been doing. " ,it is obvious to anyone being objective I was talking about "why grown-up adults would support Trump"
To be a little more clear for those that need it where did I say that is the way I feel or felt?
Nope, nope. Try reading what I wrote and the context that I wrote it instead of just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.
So, let's be even clearer. . . indirectly or directly (you choose which) you ADMIT/ASSERT/ESTABLISH that while Trump is president - you are a Trump supporter.
The alternative of not supporting the President would be worse. Is that right?
Yes, your post was, as usual, wishy washy. Thing is, the mere fact that you brought that up suggests that you give credence to the idea that Harris would have been worse than Trump. A notion that, at this point in time, is flat out absurd.
So clear this up: do you believe that Harris would have been a worse PotUS than Trump? (I think most expect that no direct answer will be forthcoming.)
Lets be clear. I agree with some of what he does, disagree with some of what he does, and agree or disagree with some of what he does but think he takes it too far. If that in your mind makes me a Trump supporter that is your issue, not mine.
No, my post was crystal clear. The fact you made up some meaning is your issue, not mine.
Not in the real world
As to not disappoint, Maybe, maybe not. Trump is a known quantity, Harris as president is not. Anyone that suggests they know Harris would be better is only saying so because they hate Trump
Yup, wishy-washy language that nonetheless illustrates that you think it reasonable to believe that Harris would be worse than Trump.
Look at the level that Trump supporters go to defend Trump. The arguments are laughably feeble yet they keep trying. Why?
Indeed, do so.
A perfect example of non-committal nonsense:
The more people have no issue with what Trump is doing the less likely they would think Harris would be better. Is that a surprise? As for me I have no idea what kind of president Harris would have been, I had very little idea of what she wanted to do. So is it possible she would be worse than Trump? Sure, anyone that states otherwise isn't doing it because of what she would do as much as Trump Trump Trump.
Either they like what Trump is doing more than they dislike what he is doing or they just don't buy into the Trump hysteria that so many on the left subscribe to and they don't support Trump, just some of his policies.
Many on the left have trouble differentiating not buying into the hysteria with supporting Trump. Why do they do that?
A perfect example of a perfectly acceptable answer that you don't like. Not my issue.
When Trump does not want to answer a question, he makes similar claims of ignorance. A dishonest tactic.
Trump is the worst PotUS in our lifetimes and arguably our history. It takes no great insight to recognize that Harris would not be worse.
Feeble defense of Trump.
Cliche bullshit response that most everyone recognizes as such.
You conflate getting elected with governing.
I never liked Harris, but she (as is true for almost all potential candidates) was a better choice than Trump.
I did read it in context, and concluded that you are shuffling. You want to say the words, but you don't want to own them. Such tactics are trollish and dishonest.
Or when he can't resist saying something nasty, it's "People are saying... Not me, but some people are saying..."
You are obviously not serious if you ask such a stupid question. I have a hard time identifying a candidate who would be worse than Trump. Vivek, maybe, but even that obnoxious loudmouth would likely be more presidential, rational, respectful of the office and the nation than Trump.
Looks like we have a 'talking points' poster. Pointing out purely partisan talking point bullshit while ignoring all the damage that Trump continues to inflict on our nation.
What interesting punctuation you use.
I agree.
... along with familiar syntax and comment structure.
Agreed.
All very distinctive.
I get it! You are not the 'ride or die' Trump surrogate or type. And you do like what you are seeing and getting, though the connection to Trump is UNBREAKABLE when it gets too 'dirty.' Following that logic, it is safe to suggest you agree with Trump as president above and beyond having NO president at all. Got it.
Now there is a 'thought' to ponder:
Is Trump better than no president at all?
Processing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Or to put it another way:
The belief that the alternative is worse
I think all the evidence points to poorly educated rightwing conservative rubes embarrassed by their lack of education deciding it's better to double down on sucking the bitter ball sweat from Donald's taint than to admit they were wrong and stupid and should have just shut the fuck up and stayed in school and gotten a better education so they could get a better job in the tech industry of today and tomorrow instead of praying to the gold painted bitch tits God who promised to bring back low IQ/low wages manufacturing jobs.
Your conclusion is wrong. Care to try again
Yes. That would explain why so many voted for Trump and he is president. I dont know why that is such a difficult concept.
Nice rant.
Because a couple of years ago, they thought he would be in prison before the election and no longer a threat to their plan of importing millions more illegals than they had already done.
The hatred of one man is simply a mental illness.
It does seem all consuming and often doesn't allow for rational thought.
Sure, sure. Keep shuffling.
Doubling down on wrong.
Not surprised
Nobody's buying your bullshit. Deal with it.
The hatred of Donald Trump can be justified. That man is relentlessly vindictive and he imagines that everybody in the country should serve "Trump" (the man / the brand). That is some arrogance. We wanted a public servant and what people like you gave us was a "Trump." A "private" man who serves Trump!
The mere fact that Trump stood before the country and publicly told all of us:
And so it is. . . that Trump goes around encouraging hostilities between the COMMUNITY/NATION and creating new divisions between the citizenry simply because he does not have the power or influence he craves with the 'in-crowd.'
Nor will he do unto others as he would have them do unto him. Namely, stop messing around with their finances, hopes, dreams, aspirations, and lifestyles.
Nothing for me to deal with. I am not the one seeing things that are not there.
Saying words one does not want to own is dishonest and cowardly.
Yes it is. As is making things up so you can accuse people you don't know of things they never said.
Look up strawman argument.
Shuffle.
Strawman
So...hating Stalin and Hitler is a sign of mental illness? Good to know
obviously you've made his boyfriends very unhappy ...
Well SCotUS, what do you think now about your extra-constitutional decision to arm Trump with immunity?
If they didn’t know he wouldn’t try something like this they haven’t paid attention.
Does this mean that the 'official' draping of the Trump 'presence' banner over the Supreme Court façade will be postponed or canceled? /s
there's at least 4 in that building that need to hang by their heels from the columns in the front ...
He's not listening!
he never does ...
😂😅😂😅😂😅😂Economic policy?? I think he just throws darts at a list and announces whatever his rambling mind believes at that moment.
the question is just how far is he willing to go to bury his past?
and now we know ...
As a follow-up to this story, HERE is another interesting development.
Federal appeals court rejects Trump administration's push to delay start of tariff refund process after Supreme Court ruling
Some in the discussion above commented about the tariff refund process. Looks like Trump's attempts to delay the refunds has also failed. I wonder what that whole debacle is going to cost us to unravel?
Just a thought, but next time the President wants to do something that is Constitutionally questionable, how about we delay its implementation until after the SC ruling?
The 'rush to act' was part of the 'sell' for Trump. Remember how he and his team used 'difficulties of refunding' as an argument for not ending the tariffs? It was a part of the intent to lock the tariffs in place for the duration.
he also did it on a friday to dominate the news cycle, and when his thumper rentboy had the house in recess ...