Posted on 05/16/2025 4:46:07 AM PDT by MtnClimber
The Court defined boundaries under the Tariff Act of 1890, which no longer exists, and therefore is not something on which Trump relied.
As I've said elsewhere, Trump's legal argument for targeted tariffs against China and other countries is much stronger than it is for the blanket 10% tariff. That one is legally dicey.
Was there ever any doubt?
Yes, but the court rule that Congress allowed the President to set tariff rates.
Trump (we) will lose in Trade Court.
We will work around it - like everything else
Arresting judges in my view is not the answer.
The way forward is to basically appeal and ignore the rulings - treat them like
Boasberg and Xinis and the rest.
It’s obvious John Roberts is compromised.
It’s obvious that many GOP senate and house members are compromised.
It’s obvious that Trump and Bondi and Patel are acting with their future after they are out of office in mind.
If they start arresting people now - they themselves will end up in jail in 4 or 8 or 12 years.
They tried to kill the guy twice - that we know of.
For all we know Roberts may have been threatened.
My opinion is that the FBI - as in the J Edgar era has everything- including
Kash - on lockdown.
How else can one reconcile two assassination attempts, the Covid hoax,
Russia, Russia hoax, hunters laptop, joint chiefs conspiring behind Trumps back, J6, election fraud , congressional insider trading, etc.
all of this is right there and there is plenty of evidence- but no one has been
charged with anything.
Stalemate.
NY court, like who didn’t see this coming?
Ya think?
The left screams and cries that Trump is trying to be a king, but then they try to make him just like the figurehead UK monarch, who has no political power.
THE problem is Judges all over the country are now assuming they can override Presidential EOs and the US SUPREME COURT sits and lets the clock run out.
CHECKS and BALANCES were created to resolve these issues not to find an endless number of ways to avoid confronting them.
Wasn't it Andrew Jackson who asked how big an army the US SUPREME COURT had? We seem to be headed in that direction again. I hope not.
The Court ruled that the statute permitted the President to set specific tariffs based on specific authorizations in that specific statute. The Court did NOT say that the President gets to set whatever tariff he likes without such a statute. The statute in that case was repealed two years later - in 1894 - so Trump obviously can't rely upon the same statute now.
New statutes, new tariffs, new case. That's how it works.
Maybe, maybe not. Just have to find a friendly judge like the Libs do….
“Last month, five domestic businesses filed a lawsuit in a little known trade court in New York challenging Trump’s tariffs, arguing they have to rely on imported goods that are not reasonably available to them in the U.S.”
Tough. That’s their problem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.