Trump admin faced deeply skeptical Supreme Court in tariff arguments today

[Hephaestus]

Hopefully they'll beat him down, he's already crying huge economic disaster if they overturn his tarriffs.

What you need to know

• In the most significant economic case to reach the Supreme Court in years, the justices are weighing whether President Donald Trump acted lawfully when he imposed sweeping emergency tariffs against most global trading partners. Those actions have been challenged by a group of small- and medium-sized businesses, as well as a dozen states.

• Throughout arguments, which spanned more than two and a half hours, Trump’s attorney faced deep skepticism from several key conservatives — including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

• As plaintiffs presented their case, Kavanaugh repeatedly noted that courts had previously allowed then-President Richard Nixon to use similar emergency powers to impose tariffs during his administration.

• Both sides framed the appeal in existential terms, with Trump warning that a ruling against him could have “catastrophic” consequences for the nation’s economic health. The companies challenging the policy say the on-again-off-again tariff announcements have driven costs – and uncertainty – to intolerable levels.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/supreme-court-trump-tariffs-11-05-25

 

[Ceiling Cat]

Trump has the authority to impose tariffs only in cases where there is a genuine threat to the nation’s security or economy. Since lower courts have already ruled against him, I suspect the Supreme Court will do the same. Whether Trump will abide by that ruling is another matter entirely.

 

[Hephaestus]

Trump has the authority to impose tariffs only in cases where there is a genuine threat to the nation’s security or economy. Since lower courts have already ruled against him, I suspect the Supreme Court will do the same. Whether Trump will abide by that ruling is another matter entirely.

I don't think he has much of a choice if the supreme court rule against him, he has to follow the law.

 

[squeezer]

I don't think he has much of a choice if the supreme court rule against him, he has to follow the law.

I doubt corporations would collect and submit the tariff tax if the court knocks the piss out of the orange shithead. It would be surprising to see this partisan group of judges voting against their cult leader, but this case does have the backing of some normal-thinking republicans.

 

[Frankfooter]

I don't think he has much of a choice if the supreme court rule against him, he has to follow the law.

I don't think he's going to start following the law now, at this stage of his life.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1985964248514904330

 

[Anbarandy]

I don't think he has much of a choice if the supreme court rule against him, he has to follow the law.

Why would he have to follow the law?

Who is going to physically stop him, the Justice Dept., the Treasury Dept., the Army, Navy, Marines .......?

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

Of course he is crying.
How else will he pay for all the tax cuts that he's given to his billionaire cronies or fund his gestapo force?.

 

[Ceiling Cat]

I don't think he has much of a choice if the supreme court rule against him, he has to follow the law.

How many times has he broken the law in his second term as president, and he has not even been in a full year. He will put up fake new and null shit to win. Some people are speculating that he is in bad health and not make it more than a few more months. I am no where close to Trump's age, but I would not want to keep up a pace of activity he is doing. He is liable to have a Big Mac Attack on night in bed.

 

[silentkisser]

Why would he have to follow the law?

Who is going to physically stop him, the Justice Dept., the Treasury Dept., the Army, Navy, Marines .......?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/conservative-justice-admits-supreme-court-214559348.html

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett basically says the court doesn't really have a mechanism to punish theTrump administration if he/it decides to ignore their rulings...

So, if he decides to ignore it, it opens up another constitutional crisis. One that the court could have avoided by not giving the president the ability to not be prosecuted for virtually anything....

 

[silentkisser]

Here's the crux of the anti-tariff argument: Trump claims that he has the power to impose them outside of congressional approval by saying there is an emergency. It might have worked if he kept the focus on, say, Canada and Mexico and the illegal drugs crossing the border. That though is pretty weak sauce. By throwing it on literally the entire world, is undercuts those claims. And, by randomly adjusting the tariffs (raising them for a stupid anti-tariff video or reducing them because a world leader kisses his ass), he basically proves there is no emergency. Hell, just by negotiating with countries for new trade deals proves this isn't an emergency.

Now, this court is corrupt. They four or five of the justices perjured themselves during the nomination hearings when they lied and said Roe v Wade was settled case law. They have routinely pushed back against previous rulings of the court, and are obviously very conservative. The other issue is that they are beholden to big business, especially Thomas, who as we all know has accepted lavish gifts and other perks from the ultra-wealthy on the right. So, who the fuck knows how this will play out. Ideally, the court will rule Trump's "emergency" is not valid, and the tariffs will be removed. Maybe Trump can make the case to Congress to impose some targeted tariffs on some products, not a blanket tariff regime.

 

[WyattEarp]

Sorry guys. Again you're inhaling the smoke from American media.

The Trade Act of 1974 was put into law by Congress and President Ford.

Per Google AI:
The Trade Act of 1974 is a U.S. law that promoted fair trade, created "fast track" authority for the President to negotiate trade agreements, and gave the government the power to respond to unfair foreign trade practices. Its most well-known provision is Section 301, which allows the President to enforce trade agreements by imposing sanctions, such as tariffs, on countries that violate agreements or engage in unfair trade. The act was signed into law by President Gerald Ford with the goal of stimulating economic growth and fostering competition.

Please don't shoot the messenger. I'm guessing the Courts will try to say something about the limits of such expansive Presidential tariff authority. Perhaps they will say Congress should authorize Presidential authority at some point. However, the U.S. Supreme Court does not overturn clear Congressional legislation.

PS- @squeezer is that clear enough for you? I don't want my posts to create a pretzeling event in your mind.

 

[Ceiling Cat]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/conservative-justice-admits-supreme-court-214559348.html

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett basically says the court doesn't really have a mechanism to punish theTrump administration if he/it decides to ignore their rulings...

So, if he decides to ignore it, it opens up another constitutional crisis. One that the court could have avoided by not giving the president the ability to not be prosecuted for virtually anything....

If Trump ignored a Supreme Court ruling that struck down his tariffs, it would cause a major constitutional problem. The Court’s rulings are final, and presidents must follow them. In that case, Congress would be the only branch able to act. Lawmakers could investigate, hold hearings, or pass resolutions against him. If he still refused to obey, Congress could block funding for his tariff plans or even start impeachment proceedings. In the end, Congress would need to step in to show that no president is above the law.

 

[Frankfooter]

Now, this court is corrupt. They four or five of the justices perjured themselves during the nomination hearings when they lied and said Roe v Wade was settled case law. They have routinely pushed back against previous rulings of the court, and are obviously very conservative. The other issue is that they are beholden to big business, especially Thomas, who as we all know has accepted lavish gifts and other perks from the ultra-wealthy on the right. So, who the fuck knows how this will play out. Ideally, the court will rule Trump's "emergency" is not valid, and the tariffs will be removed. Maybe Trump can make the case to Congress to impose some targeted tariffs on some products, not a blanket tariff regime.

I guess we will find out if the oligarchs who control the SCOTUS think tariffs are a good or bad idea soon.
They seem to tolerate trump but even they appear to have some limits.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1986110261858889956

 

[squeezer]

PS- @squeezer is that clear enough for you? I don't want my posts to create a pretzeling event in your mind.

I'm still waiting for my pretzel drizzled in maple syrup from you!

 

[glamphotographer]

Trump will ignore SCOTUS and impose tariffs anyway. The US is a dictatorship, and Trump has unchecked powers. Has a U.S. president been put in prison for neglecting SCOTUS rulings? No. Can SCOTUS order Trump to go to prison? No. Unchecked Presidential power = dictatorship.

 

[Frankfooter]

Trump will ignore SCOTUS and impose tariffs anyway. The US is a dictatorship, and Trump has unchecked powers. Has a U.S. president been put in prison for neglecting SCOTUS rulings? No. Can SCOTUS order Trump to go to prison? No. Unchecked Presidential power = dictatorship.

true enough.
trump seems busy enough offing his own team with his diaper issues.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1986534027147300964

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1986492921399373852

 

[Valcazar]

Now, this court is corrupt. They four or five of the justices perjured themselves during the nomination hearings when they lied and said Roe v Wade was settled case law. They have routinely pushed back against previous rulings of the court, and are obviously very conservative. The other issue is that they are beholden to big business, especially Thomas, who as we all know has accepted lavish gifts and other perks from the ultra-wealthy on the right. So, who the fuck knows how this will play out. Ideally, the court will rule Trump's "emergency" is not valid, and the tariffs will be removed. Maybe Trump can make the case to Congress to impose some targeted tariffs on some products, not a blanket tariff regime.

Besides the monetary cross-pressure here (their corruption actually pushing them to be more anti-Trump than usual) they also have to deal with the way the Admin's argument is phrased, it involves the court not being able to weigh in or have a say and besides losing money they also don't like losing power. Thirdly, showing "independence" against Trump here might buy them some credibility if they want to allow him to run for a third term.

So there is reason to suspect they might actually block him more than you would expect given their track record.

(I also just thought of something else. Roberts could use this decision to try and force the liberal justices to sign on to something that offers support for his "major questions doctrine", which they wouldn't want to do. That would be a win for him long term.)

 

[Valcazar]

Sorry guys. Again you're inhaling the smoke from American media.

The Trade Act of 1974 was put into law by Congress and President Ford.

Per Google AI:
The Trade Act of 1974 is a U.S. law that promoted fair trade, created "fast track" authority for the President to negotiate trade agreements, and gave the government the power to respond to unfair foreign trade practices. Its most well-known provision is Section 301, which allows the President to enforce trade agreements by imposing sanctions, such as tariffs, on countries that violate agreements or engage in unfair trade. The act was signed into law by President Gerald Ford with the goal of stimulating economic growth and fostering competition.

Please don't shoot the messenger. I'm guessing the Courts will try to say something about the limits of such expansive Presidential tariff authority. Perhaps they will say Congress should authorize Presidential authority at some point. However, the U.S. Supreme Court does not overturn clear Congressional legislation.

PS- @squeezer is that clear enough for you? I don't want my posts to create a pretzeling event in your mind.

That's an interesting argument.
As you know, Trump and his administration are not claiming tariff power under that law.
So is your proposal that the Supreme Court should give him whatever powers he wants under a different law because a law that mentions tariffs - a law Trump has expressly avoided using as the basis for his tariffs - exists?

What is the logic here? "Trump should get to do what he wants, so find an excuse to give him that power"?

Squeezer is going to be asking for extra pretzels, I think.
If your argument is "However, the U.S. Supreme Court does not overturn clear Congressional legislation." then the fact Trump isn't using this law means that all his tariffs have to be thrown out, right?

(Out of curiosity, did you edit out the AI's explanation of the actual powers and restrictions on them in Section 301, or is this just a case of you using AI and not bothering to investigate even when you know AI is bad at answering things?)