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 01/18/2026 12:53:24 PM PST by DFG
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Sunday said it’s “very unlikely” that the Supreme Court will overturn President Donald Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs, with a potential decision from the court looming as early as this week.
“I believe that it is very unlikely that the Supreme Court will overrule a president’s signature economic policy,” Bessent said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “They did not overrule Obamacare, I believe that the Supreme Court does not want to create chaos.”
In June, the Supreme Court upheld a key Affordable Care Act provision that set up a panel to recommend preventive care services that insurers must provide at no cost to patients.
Bessent’s comments come one day after Trump said he would impose a new slate of tariffs on goods coming from Europe until “a Deal is reached for the Complete and Total purchase of Greenland.”
Trump did not specify in his Truth Social post which statute he was invoking to impose the tariffs, though the move appears to mirror the “liberation day” duties he has imposed on dozens of nations under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
The tariffs on goods from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Finland will begin at 10% on Feb. 1, Trump said. They will then escalate to 25% on June 1, Trump said.
The Supreme Court is set to rule on Trump’s use of the IEEPA to impose tariffs before the end of its term, but a decision could come as soon as this week. IEEPA gives the president wide latitude to use economic tools in response to an “unusual and extraordinary threat.”
Bessent said Trump’s new tariffs on Europe regarding Greenland are a response to an emergency.
“The national emergency is avoiding a national emergency,” Bessent said. “It is a strategic decision by the president ... he is able to use the economic might of the U.S. to avoid a hot war.”
Trump has long sought to acquire Greenland, the Arctic territory of Denmark, and has ratcheted up his pressure campaign for a U.S. takeover of the island in recent weeks. Leaders in Greenland, Denmark and across Europe have widely rejected Trump’s demands to take over the island.
European leaders of countries targeted by the new tariffs responded on Sunday.
“Tariff threats undermine transatlantic relations and risk a dangerous downward spiral. We will continue to stand united and coordinated in our response,” the leaders of Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom said in a joint statement.
“We stand in full solidarity with the Kingdom of Denmark and the people of Greenland. Building on the process begun last week, we stand ready to engage in a dialogue based on the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity that we stand firmly behind,” the statement read.
Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen and Greenland’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Vivian Motzfeldt at the White House last week in a meeting that Rasmussen described as “frank but constructive.”
After the meeting, the group said the U.S. and Denmark would establish a high-level working group to chart Greenland’s future.
The Trump administration claims that a U.S. acquisition of Greenland is critical to national security to counter the expansion of Russia and China in the region.
CNBC has reached out to the White House and the Treasury Department to clarify what statute Trump is using to impose the new European tariffs.
CORRECTION: Vivian Motzfeldt is Greenland’s Minister of Foreign Affairs. A previous version of this article misstated her title.
This story is developing. Please check back for updates.
|
|
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. |
The Supreme Court could make a stupid decision.
But could they enforce it?
Only republicans obey the judiciary
The Supreme court has no business hearing this case.
Congress passed the law that delegated to him the power.
Congress could overturn that law.
Why would the Court get involved in that?
Of course they have right to hear this. Tariffs are in the Constitution.
Bessent is the highest IQ member of the cabinet, Bondi the lowest.
Bessent needs to shut his yap unless he can get the message straight: to Trump, tariffs are a tool of FOREIGN POLICY, an exclusively Presidential power.
Belongs to Congress but they passed a law delegating that power to the President.
Too much work for Congress.
But if they don't like Trump, they can write a new law taking away that authority from Trump.
The president has a lot of latitude, but it isn’t exactly clear for all cases. I hope the SC doesn’t dare wreak the kind of havoc if they say they’re not binding. Here is a good, short piece:
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/how-congress-delegates-its-tariff-powers-to-the-president
They reasoned O care was a tax. Congress approved it.
Trumps tariffs are a tax. No congressional approval.
SC will rule against Trump. Bennie is trying to steer the court with his wishful thinking.
Clever of Bessent to bring up Obamacare: that’s a good shot across SCOTUS’ bow and especially that crapweasel Roberts who declared Congress dictating the mandatory purchase of private health insurance a “tax”.
Congress has explicitly given the President wide authority to levy tariffs whenever a "national emergency" or other exigent circumstance exists.
The only question is whether the wording of those grants of authority makes the President's decision solely his or subject to judicial review and if subject to review, did the President's decision meet the criteria required by law.
Key Accomplishments in 2025
DOJ Policy & Structural Shifts:
Elimination of DEI: Issued directives to eliminate Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies and offices within the DOJ.
“Weaponization Working Group”: Established a task force to review previous federal prosecutions of Donald Trump and investigate alleged “prosecutorial abuse” related to the January 6 Capitol riot investigations.
Resource Reallocation: Shifted department focus toward “Operation Take Back America,” prioritizing immigration enforcement and the elimination of cartels over previous civil rights and environmental priorities.
Law Enforcement & Public Safety:
Opioid Crisis: Targeted synthetic fentanyl, specifically focusing on supply chains from China and Mexico. In May 2025, the DOJ reported seizing over 22 million fentanyl pills.
Anti-Trafficking Operations: Coordinated the arrests of suspects in major human smuggling and drug trafficking cases.
Antisemitism Task Force: Launched a multiagency task force to combat antisemitism on university campuses, including an investigation of UCLA and the cancellation of $400 million in federal funds to Columbia University due to “inaction” against harassment.
Immigration & Federal Authority:
Sanctuary City Funding: Froze federal funding for “sanctuary cities” and initiated a “sanctuary cities working group” to litigate against local jurisdictions that refused to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.
D.C. Police Takeover: Oversaw the temporary federal takeover of Washington, D.C.’s police force following the President's declaration of a “crime emergency” in August 2025.
Transgender Policy Challenges: Issued legal warnings to California, Maine, and Minnesota, threatening federal lawsuits if they continued policies allowing transgender athletes to participate in women's sports.
Transparency & Legal Reviews:
Jeffrey Epstein Case: Directed the release of DOJ files related to Jeffrey Epstein in December 2025, though the resulting disclosures were criticized by some for containing little new information.
Review of Political Adversaries: Reportedly launched a grand jury investigation into the Obama administration's handling of the 2016 Russia probe.
Why not?
The article said the SC was likely not to overrule Trump quoting nonsense from Bessent as proof.
I explained why the SC will overrule Trump. It will make perfect sense to the SC.
Trump’s recent tariff threat for Greenland is so over the top that it can only be Trump providing the SC even more reason to overule him.
Trump promises to use tariffs. Promise made promise kept. Promise struck down by the SC so no blowback on Trump.
Nonsense. The Founders saw tariffs as means of collecting revenue, not as a Presidential bargaining tool in international negotiations. Transportation technology added the latter function. I agree that there needs to be Constitutional clarification on that, but that is not how this nation functions. The Slave Party Globalists would withhold their assent no matter how evident are the benefits to the people.
But tariffs are Trump's signature policy: he is not simply going to roll over if SCOTUS tries to rein him in. There are dozens of tariff granting statutes: he can simply apply some not addressed by the current SCOTUS' ruling and start the legal game again.
Because congress gave the power to tariff to the POTUS. Also tariffs in this case is part of foreign policy. Nowhere in the constitution does it give foreign policy power to the SC or the Congress. Except the Congress can declare war. Where in the constitution does it say the SC gets to referee over what powers Congress can delegate to the POTUS? They are all co-equal. The SC is not more equal.
“Building on the process begun last week, we stand ready to engage in a dialogue based on the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity that we stand firmly behind,”
That doesn’t sound like a hard,”No!”, that sounds like, “Let’s make a deal! What’s your initial offer?”.
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.