@kmax87 saidThe SCOTUS kept staying lower court rulings which had almost unanimously held that the IEEPA tariffs were illegal and they waited almost 3 months, after taking the appeals on an "emergency basis", to finally concede the other courts were right. I guess they thought at some point Trump would finally see the handwriting on the wall and rescind the IEEPA tariffs, but he's too stubbornly ignorant to do that. In the meantime, their delay cost US businesses and consumers hundreds of billions of dollars paying an illegal tax.
If you were Trump you would be righteously pissed right now wouldn't you? For everything he did for SCOTUS and now they go bite the hand that fed them?? Sad so sad.....
And the case was really a slam dunk, but somehow he got 3 justices to dissent including one, Thomas, who's opinion suggests something like the Enabling Act of 1933 would be permissible under the US Constitution.
I mean the majority finally got something right but a rational President wouldn't be too displeased with how the SCOTUS has roadblocked the many lower court decisions that have found numerous aspects of his policies illegal and unconstitutional by granting stays of rulings leaving such policies in effect.
@removed-by-poster removed their quoted postI made this post in the other thread:
Trump will have to use other means to put on tariffs which may require further steps and be time constrained (and might not pass SCOTUS review either). Note Footnote 4 in Robert's majority opinion:
"4 The principal dissent surmises that the President could impose “most
if not all” of the tariffs at issue under statutes other than IEEPA. Post,
at 62 (opinion of KAVANAUGH, J.). The cited statutes contain various com
binations of procedural prerequisites, required agency determinations,
and limits on the duration, amount, and scope of the tariffs they author
ize. See supra, at 8–9; post, at 62–63. We do not speculate on hypothet
ical cases not before us. "
Trump can't just declare any tariff rate he pleases and change it whenever he feels like it (like he did, for example, when he raised the tariff on Switzerland because he didn't like how one of its political figures talked to him on the phone). And the SCOTUS is warning him there he must follow the strict letter of the law in imposing any other tariffs or they might be struck down as well.
@no1marauder saidToo right.
The SCOTUS kept staying lower court rulings which had almost unanimously held that the IEEPA tariffs were illegal and they waited almost 3 months, after taking the appeals on an "emergency basis", to finally concede the other courts were right. I guess they thought at some point Trump would finally see the handwriting on the wall and rescind the IEEPA tariffs, but he's t ...[text shortened]... policies illegal and unconstitutional by granting stays of rulings leaving such policies in effect.
@removed-by-poster removed their quoted postIncluding the new one he whipped out right after the ruling because his diaper was full?
@removed-by-poster removed their quoted postIncreased taxation by imperial fiat might be the least American thing I can think of.
Which is exactly what Trump is doing, even after the supreme court told him it was illegal. You then write "well if you don't like it then it's your problem.."
No taxation without representation... that is America. Not whatever garbage propaganda Foxnews feeds you today.
