Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 11/05/2025 8:52:52 PM PST by SeekAndFind
In the most significant economic case to reach the Supreme Court in years, Trump’s authority to issue emergency tariffs faced deep skepticism from key conservatives — including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.
• While justices had tough questions for both sides, a majority expressed reservations about the administration relying on declared emergencies to issue the unchecked tariffs.
• 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 previously 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.
Former Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said Wednesday he expected “a split decision” from the Supreme Court on whether President Donald overstepped his authority in implementing global tariffs.
The main arguments made by those challenging the tariffs were that “tariffs… are equivalent to a tax but taxing authority is reserved to Congress,” and that emergency powers allow for license fees to be imposed, “which also could be construed as a tax,” Ross told CNN after arguments ended.
“I would be extremely surprised if the Court would rely on such nit-picking to create chaos in international trade and the securities markets,” Ross said, “especially since in most cases the other country has agreed to pay them and to lower the tariffs on our exports to them.”
“My guess is that it will be a split decision that, at most, will knock out a few of the specific ones,” Ross said.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
CNN all the spin all the time. Other sources including Bessent paint a positive picture.
I was just reading about this my different site. It doesn’t look good for Trump.
They should be “deeply skeptical.” You can’t have presidents waking up with the willy-nilly tariff of day
One for India, cuz Ukraine, and one for Canada, cuz A TV COMMERCIAL.
A dem prez will do the same for Poland not opening its borders, or Hungary for defying the EU.
I actually like *most of what Trump has done, but the methods are blatantly unconstitutional, and sometimes wreckless.
Hmmm no looks bad for old Trump...I heard the arguments as the SCOTUS justices defined these tariffs as a tax on Americans, big no-no.
OK, if Trump loses in the Supreme Court, we can kiss all the tariff revenues that his administration has accumulated goodbye. The money ( about $750 Billion ) would have to be REFUNDED.
Goodbye to all the plans of using the money to pay off our accumulated debts or other nice ideas.
Tariffs based upon hissy fits is not conservative economic policy.
there are supposedly other congressional acts/regulations applying to tariffs that could be used by Prez if this doesn’t survive constitutional scrutiny. i would like to know what Plan B is and also whose legal advice pointed POTUS in this direction.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76zXT7gs2xQ
Interview with Bessent
I predict that SCOTUS will rule that Trump's negotiated tariffs that are a part of bilateral multi-point trade deals will be allowed under the foreign affairs power of the executive, because theses were mutually-negotiated deals that were signed by heads of state.
SCOTUS will rule that the foreign countries knew what they were doing, that mutual tariffs were a negotiated element of the trade deal, but not the entire trade deal, and that unwinding trade agreements between heads of state is beyond the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court cannot rule that a foreign country ignore the American tariffs that are a part of their trade deal.
This way, SCOTUS will "split the baby" and let the trade deals with tariff components stand, but President Trump can no longer arbitrarily declare a retaliatory tariff on another country.
-PJ
With the fact the USSC is to decide the case, obviously they need to ask questions about it.
Nobody in this situation has standing to sue the executive branch for a violation of COTUS.
U.S. taxpayers have no standing because they are not directly paying the tariffs.
The U.S. Congress has no standing because its taxing authority is not being infringed.
Foreign governments don’t have standing under the U.S. Constitution to sue the federal executive branch for supposedly illegally taxing them because it’s a tariff, not a tax.
I agree with you. That’s in general how Roberts operates.
Thank you for your post.
I see the low intellect keyword spammers are back. What cowards - can’t argue the point.
Also lotsa talk of other ways for Trump to get these tariffs done....AND.....that this decision will not effect ALL existing tariffs.
We're seeing agreements between Heads of States...how are they taxes??
Tariffs are paid by importers, many of them small businesses. A group of independent business owners, together with the attorney generals from several blue states, are the plaintiffs in this case
Remember SCOTUS’s Obamacare decision...?
This isn’t about the Constitution.
The penalty...Except I agree with Roberts and the other 4 justices that the penalty is a tax. I can't see where it can be anything else. It goes into the tax coffers.
Court rules against 47’s tariffs, US and Global economies crash.
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.