Tariffs in the second Trump Administration [SPLIT]

[rareboy]

 

[rareboy]

This is why I have been saying all along that the GQP Congress is all in on giving Tump unconstrained ability to impose tariffs. The US legislative branch willingly handing over its powers to the Executive as the SC looks to review the legality. With this action...there's no way at all that the SC would ever rule against TrumpCo. imposing tariffs...they will create yet another carve-out that allows the tariffs because Trump 'believes' that there is an emergency.

How Congress delegates its tariff powers to the president | Constitution Center

President Donald Trump is expected to announce wide-sweeping tariffs on Wednesday, in a move with potentially broad consequences. So how does the president have the ability to levy tariffs under the Constitution?

constitutioncenter.org

In a way, it is moot, because it looks like Congress would pass legislation to empower TrumpCo. on tariffs no matter what.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/09/trump-tariffs-supreme-court-congress-smith.html

 

[Norri]

This is why I have been saying all along that the GQP Congress is all in on giving Tump unconstrained ability to impose tariffs. The US legislative branch willingly handing over its powers to the Executive as the SC looks to review the legality. With this action...there's no way at all that the SC would ever rule against TrumpCo. imposing tariffs...they will create yet another carve-out that allows the tariffs because Trump 'believes' that there is an emergency.

How Congress delegates its tariff powers to the president | Constitution Center

President Donald Trump is expected to announce wide-sweeping tariffs on Wednesday, in a move with potentially broad consequences. So how does the president have the ability to levy tariffs under the Constitution?

constitutioncenter.org

In a way, it is moot, because it looks like Congress would pass legislation to empower TrumpCo. on tariffs no matter what.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/09/trump-tariffs-supreme-court-congress-smith.html

I wouldn’t be so sure, the Trump tariffs are up against John Roberts Major Questions Doctrine which is what they used to kill Biden’s attempt to help college loan borrowers. Given their recent past decisions the law Trump is using to give him authority to impose tariffs is not nearly specific enough for the court to allow it under their own reasoning.
Also the court will not look kindly on congress giving up some of its constitutional powers to the executive branch and although I don’t recall the case they have indicated that congress may not have the constitutional authority to do so.

I understand that the court may just ignore their own decisions and roll over for Trump but this one will humiliate those ‘true’ conservatives on the court which maybe is a bridge too far.

 

[rareboy]

I wouldn’t be so sure, the Trump tariffs are up against John Roberts Major Questions Doctrine which is what they used to kill Biden’s attempt to help college loan borrowers. Given their recent past decisions the law Trump is using to give him authority to impose tariffs is not nearly specific enough for the court to allow it under their own reasoning.
Also the court will not look kindly on congress giving up some of its constitutional powers to the executive branch and although I don’t recall the case they have indicated that congress may not have the constitutional authority to do so.

I understand that the court may just ignore their own decisions and roll over for Trump but this one will humiliate those ‘true’ conservatives on the court which maybe is a bridge too far.

I wish I had your confidence.

I beleive that the Roberts Court's conservative members will do what their owners tell them to do at this point to consolidate power in the Executive Branch.

 

[KaraBulut]

I wouldn’t be so sure, the Trump tariffs are up against John Roberts Major Questions Doctrine which is what they used to kill Biden’s attempt to help college loan borrowers. Given their recent past decisions the law Trump is using to give him authority to impose tariffs is not nearly specific enough for the court to allow it under their own reasoning.

The assumption there is that justice is blind.

Based on the number of incidents in the past 3 years where SCOTUS has taken up questions not in court filings, overruled lower court decisions, granted to Trump requests to overturn lower court stays and how SCOTUS has used the "emergency docket" to enable Trump's autocratic actions, I don't think most of us have that much faith in the objectivity of the Roberts Court.

Biden wasn't treated like a king by the Court, as the Founders intended. Suddenly, when power changes hands, the White House looks a lot more like a royal palace, even if a tacky, gaudy one.

 

[Norri]

The assumption there is that justice is blind.

Based on the number of incidents in the past 3 years where SCOTUS has taken up questions not in court filings, overruled lower court decisions, granted to Trump requests to overturn lower court stays and how SCOTUS has used the "emergency docket" to enable Trump's autocratic actions, I don't think most of us have that much faith in the objectivity of the Roberts Court.

Does that mean you believe the court will uphold the tariffs?

Biden wasn't treated like a king by the Court, as the Founders intended. Suddenly, when power changes hands, the White House looks a lot more like a royal palace, even if a tacky, gaudy one.

My copy of the constitution has no section on judicial supremacy over either the executive or congress if yours does please give me the article and section where you see it.

 

[KaraBulut]

Does that mean you believe the court will uphold the tariffs?

To be honest, I don't know.

If you had asked me, what does the law say, I would say that the Constitution says that Congress holds the power to levy taxes and tariffs. Unfortunately, this particular group of 4 to 6 conservatives seems to think that their interpretation of "the law" supersedes both the academic interpretation and historic precedents of interpretation. Stare whateverwedecisis.

My copy of the constitution has no section on judicial supremacy over either the executive or congress if yours does please give me the article and section where you see it.

And that is the danger of where we are. We have one branch that believes that the judiciary is a buffet. If they don't get the answer they want, they just move to the next court on the line. They know that it takes weeks or days for courts to make decisions, so while the court is dragging along, the Administration moves on to the next trampling on the Consitution.

One of Biden's legacies is that he assumed that everything would just work out. He had opportunities to address problems with the Federal Courts. He even had a commission that was tasked with making recommendations for reform. Biden didn't do shit about the problem and he allowed Manchin and Sinema to derail any effort to undo the Federalist takeover of the Courts.

It's just a matter of time before the Congress and the Executive just ignore the Courts. The Courts have no enforcement power. The Courts have no clear Constitutional right to overrule the other branches. Probably the only way out of this is to use the Roosevelt tactic that "If you don't reform yourself, Ima gonna do it to you".

 

[rareboy]

Does that mean you believe the court will uphold the tariffs?

My copy of the constitution has no section on judicial supremacy over either the executive or congress if yours does please give me the article and section where you see it.

I never thought that the day would come when the SC ruled that colleges can't use racial profiling but ICE can.

So there you go.

The Roberts Court have created carve-outs for Trump that no Dem president ever would get.

I will put money on the SC ruling for the Tariffs to continue because the Congress has removed the time limitations that have allowed the Executive to declare an 'emergency' on even the most specious grounds...only to abandon that justification entirely in order to slap them on the whole world (except rrrZZZia) often based on nakedly political and personal animus.

The US is in totally different territory now as it slides into autocracy.

 

[Norri]

To be honest, I don't know.

If you had asked me, what does the law say, I would say that the Constitution says that Congress holds the power to levy taxes and tariffs. Unfortunately, this particular group of 4 to 6 conservatives seems to think that their interpretation of "the law" supersedes both the academic interpretation and historic precedents of interpretation. Stare whateverwedecisis.

I believe this case has little to do with congress’s tariff power and more to do with the emergency powers Trump is claiming under some 1978 law to install his tariffs which is why I think the Major Question Doctrine will be in play. However much the court might want to help him Trumps raising of tariffs on Brazil for the trial of Bolsonaro is gonna be hard to fit into that 1978 law. I concede that this court has given Trump almost everything he has asked for but on a lot of those issues (firing of government employees, clawing back money congress had previously appropriated, anything ICE might wish to do and killing foreign aid) I feel line up nicely with the personal politics of the conservative court members but I’m not sure tariffs do, for one thing they’re bad for business and this has been a very friendly business court.

And that is the danger of where we are. We have one branch that believes that the judiciary is a buffet. If they don't get the answer they want, they just move to the next court on the line. They know that it takes weeks or days for courts to make decisions, so while the court is dragging along, the Administration moves on to the next trampling on the Consitution.

One of Biden's legacies is that he assumed that everything would just work out. He had opportunities to address problems with the Federal Courts. He even had a commission that was tasked with making recommendations for reform. Biden didn't do shit about the problem and he allowed Manchin and Sinema to derail any effort to undo the Federalist takeover of the Courts.

It's just a matter of time before the Congress and the Executive just ignore the Courts. The Courts have no enforcement power. The Courts have no clear Constitutional right to overrule the other branches. Probably the only way out of this is to use the Roosevelt tactic that "If you don't reform yourself, Ima gonna do it to you".

Congress will never have to ignore the courts because they control the docket, excepting those cases listed in the constitution, so there would never be a need. And I do fully agree with your last point that’s one parade they should want to lead.

 

[Norri]

I never thought that the day would come when the SC ruled that colleges can't use racial profiling but ICE can.

So there you go.

The Roberts Court have created carve-outs for Trump that no Dem president ever would get.

I will put money on the SC ruling for the Tariffs to continue because the Congress has removed the time limitations that have allowed the Executive to declare an 'emergency' on even the most specious grounds...only to abandon that justification entirely in order to slap them on the whole world (except rrrZZZia) often based on nakedly political and personal animus.

The US is in totally different territory now as it slides into autocracy.

The ICE decision wasn’t that surprising although outraging. Politically I think the justices are all for that but, as I said above, I’m not sure the politics of tariffs do. I think Trump made a tactical error by asking the courts to fast track the case and by saying we have other ways to do this should the court rule against them they are making it a bit easier for the court to rule against them……and if the court is looking to appear independent for a change in the vain hope they might restore some credibility this is a good case for them use.

So after all that while I’m not really sure what they will do I’ll say they strike down the tariffs 6-3.

 

[KaraBulut]

I believe this case has little to do with congress’s tariff power and more to do with the emergency powers Trump is claiming under some 1978 law to install his tariffs which is why I think the Major Question Doctrine will be in play.

One is tied to the other. "I don't have this power, so I'm going to declare an emergency in order to give myself powers".

It's TWO laws- one from from 1976 and the other from 1977.

It's the same laws that allowed Presidents to freeze Iranian assets in the US or Russian assets after the invasion of Ukraine.

It's dependent upon the premise that the President deems another country to be a threat to the US. That's what Trump set out to do in Executive Order 14257 and Executive Order 14256. It's unclear how a list of hundreds of countries can overnight be a credible threat to the US.

Of course, SCOTUS can just pussy out and say, "Well, the state of emergency is dependent upon Congress, who can undo it at any time". The Ways and Means Committee in the House is actively giving away control of tariffs to Trump. This is going to backfire on the Republicans- both when the American public gets fed up with sticker shock at prices that they are paying at the stores and again, when there's a Democratic President who has a new set of powers to utilize.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/09/trump-tariffs-supreme-court-congress-smith.html

The Republican from Missouri said he has worked with the Trump administration “hand in glove” on tariffs, and he himself has “talked with more than 20 different countries in the last two months.”

“If the courts do upset the apple cart, then we’re going to have to respond accordingly, that’s what’s appropriate and what’s right,” he said on CNBC’s “Squawk Box.”

Smith’s comments came just hours before the Supreme Court granted a request by the Trump administration to take up its appeal of lower court rulings.

 

[fallsguy]

 

[rareboy]

Because vanity mirrors and plush furniture are essential for national security.

 

[rareboy]

Someone is making big money off this inside info. Non-institutional shareholders (including me) will
take the hit on long positions.

 

[rareboy]

And.....

 

[Norri]

And.....

What Trump calls protection most businesses will see as leverage to raise prices as decreased competition means higher prices.

 

[KaraBulut]

Farmers who have rotting soybeans that they cannot sell are pissed about this story:

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/25/trump-argentina-milei-bessent-republicans-bailout-00581449

Trump-pledged support for Argentina stirs anger among Republicans

President Donald Trump’s potential $20 billion financial backstop for his ally, Argentina’s leader Javier Milei, is running into growing opposition from Democrats, Republicans and farm groups over concerns the deal would hurt farmers and use U.S. taxpayer resources to backstop a flailing foreign economy at U.S. taxpayers’ expense.

Trump and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent earlier this week pledged a major economic rescue package for Argentina. Bessent, who has been touting the plans on social media and TV appearances in recent days, says the deal is needed to stabilize the nation’s financial turmoil ahead of October midterm elections that are critical to Milei retaining power and continuing reforms that supporters say will turn around the country’s floundering economy.

 

[Norri]

Farmers who have rotting soybeans that they cannot sell are pissed about this story:

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/25/trump-argentina-milei-bessent-republicans-bailout-00581449

Does anyone understand how bailing out Argentina out will Make America Great Again?

Maybe congressional republicans can explain how cutting healthcare for Americans but bailing out Argentina will MAGA.

Milei has done a better job of reducing inflation than Trump has maybe he should be helping Trump out.

 

[KaraBulut]

Does anyone understand how bailing out Argentina out will Make America Great Again?

Maybe congressional republicans can explain how cutting healthcare for Americans but bailing out Argentina will MAGA.

Milei has done a better job of reducing inflation than Trump has maybe he should be helping Trump out.

Let's add one more to the explanations: Why did USAID stop buying American farm products to send to other nations because America wanted to get out of the foreign aid business, but we're just writing an unconditional check of American taxpayer money to a country known for financial irresponsibility for 75 years?

¿Te acuerdas de esto?

 

[rareboy]

Is he back with this crackpot idea again? How the fuck would this even work?

Does he still think that movies are only sold in hard copy at Blockbuster?

This got laughed at so hardm a few months ago when it was first mooted that it went away and died...I think there is actually no intention of actually imposing any
tariff...this is just performative nonsense for the MAGAt base.