jerrymahoney

Trump does not want to be losing the conservatives.

Dr. Burns is a research fellow at the (conservative) Hoover Institution on the Stanford U. campus.

From the above NYPost link: Justice Sonya Sotomayor slammed the majority for writing an opinion “without mention of the grave harm Plaintiffs will face if they are erroneously removed to El Salvador or regard for the Government’s attempts to subvert the judicial process throughout this litigation.” Justice Amy Coney Barrett, an appointee of Trump, joined portions of the dissent.

CIGNA policies offer $1 million PER YEAR in coverage. Do self-insurers set aside that much?

You asked a question "Who gives a flying ...?" -- I answered.

Maybe these folks from The Guardian headline today: Rightwing group backed by Koch and Leo sues to stop Trump tariffs New Civil Liberties Alliance says president’s invocation of emergency powers to impose tariffs is unlawful BTW that NYTimes opinion piece was not by Paul Krugman

From NY Times opinion 7 APR 2025 President Trump’s imposition of high tariffs on friend and foe alike has stunned the world and stumped economists. There is no economic rationale, experts say, for believing these tariffs will usher in a new era of American prosperity. But the slash-and-burn approach of the Mar-a-Lago Accord isn’t the answer. For one thing, it is hard to find an economist outside of Mr. Trump’s inner circle who thinks it is a good idea. https://archive.ph/MpKM0

Oh Humor (cultural reference Mork & Mindy)

My simple explanation why the plaintiff has standing, even though she is not Chinese, is that she purchases products from China for resale. If she had to pay legitimate tariffs on her imports, that would be one thing; the filing claims that the tariffs are unlawful and injurious to her business based in Pensacola, FL. as the IEEPA, as invoked by named defendants, does not authorize tariffs.

As here: The 2022 debt relief program, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, did not waive or modify the existing student loan laws, but instead “created a novel and fundamentally different loan forgiveness program.” The 2022 debt relief program, Roberts continued, also ran afoul of the “major questions” doctrine, which is the idea that if Congress wants to give an administrative agency the power to make decisions of vast economic or political significance, it must say so clearly. https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/08/supreme-court-temporarily-bars-latest-biden-student-debt-relief-plan/ Noted in the Pensacola lawsuit: The IEEPA does not contain the word tariff(s)

The case as above claims that Trump has no authority to implement tariffs under the IEEPA. It cannot be said that the case, if in favor of the plaintiff, is the machination of an 'activist liberal judge' as the Judge assigned to the case, T. Kent Wetherell II, was nominated to the federal bench by (then) President Donald J. Trump in 2019.

NB : The Pensacola IEEPA tariff case has been assigned to US District Judge Kent Wetherell, a Trump appointee who previously issued a ruling halting a key component of President Joe Biden’s immigration policy in 2023.

Trump stated that the tariffs are authorized under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (“IEEPA”): President Trump is invoking his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) to address the national emergency posed by the large and persistent trade deficit that is driven by the absence of reciprocity in our trade relationships and other harmful policies like currency manipulation and exorbitant value-added taxes (VAT) perpetuated by other countries. The IEEPA does not authorize tariffs.

Well then ...

April 4, 2025 12:39 PM A conservative legal organization is suing to prevent President Donald Trump’s emergency tariffs on Chinese goods, the first attempt to challenge Trump’s authority to impose tariffs since he returned to office. The New Civil Liberties Alliance, a law firm that fights federal overreach, filed a complaint Thursday in Florida federal court on behalf of north Florida paper company Simplified and its owner Emily Ley to stop Trump’s 20 percent tariffs on all Chinese imports under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. “The President purported to order these tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (‘IEEPA’), but that is a statute that authorizes presidents to order sanctions as a rapid response to international emergencies,” the lawsuit asserts. “It does not allow a president to impose tariffs on the American people. President Trump’s Executive Orders imposing a China tariff are, therefore, ultra vires and unconstitutional. This Court should enjoin their implementation and enforcement.” https://www.nationalreview.com/news/conservative-legal-group-brings-first-suit-challenging-trumps-authority-to-impose-tariffs/

Per the topic heading: Donald Trump standing in the White House Rose Garden saying that, with his Tariff and trade policy agenda: "With today’s action we are finally going to be able to make America great again — greater than ever before ... Jobs and factories will come roaring back into our country."

Well Mr. Spider, just say to yourself over and over: It's just an overdue market correction.

RE: Topic title dumbest thing ... Ms. Kristi Noem, Homeland Secretary, standing in front of Salvadoran prison holding extradited detainees wearing (per NY Times) a $50,000 Rolex watch:

Thanks. And I'll throw it back.

He has 4 votes pretty much in-the-pocket but Roberts maybe not so and Barrett could end up being his David Souter.

The analysis in the OP comes from an affiliate of the Brookings Institution. Seems to me, if Trump has carte blanche to create tariffs, he wouldn't have had to invoke the IEEPA to do so.

President Trump’s tariff war waged in the name of a national emergency over fentanyl imports is an abuse of power. In an unprecedented move, President Trump justified the imposition of tariffs on Canada. China, and Mexico under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) based on an “extraordinary threat” from illegal immigration and drug trafficking. The problem for the president, however, is that IEEPA does not explicitly grant tariff authority at all—indeed, the words “duty” or “tariff” appear nowhere in the statute—and to the extent that it grants power to restrict imports, it requires that there be a direct connection between the action taken (here, broad-based tariffs) and a properly declared national emergency (here, migrants and fentanyl crossing the southern border). But there is no direct connection between tariffs on imports of all goods—no matter how innocent or far removed from fentanyl—and the declared national emergency. <SKIP> The words “tariff’ or “duty” appear nowhere in the statute, in contrast to other laws in which Congress has clearly delegated tariff authority (such as Section 301, specifically authorizing “duties” to respond to unjustifiable acts that burden U.S. commerce; or Section 201, permitting “duties” or “tariff-rate quotas” to respond to a surge in imports that seriously injures a U.S. industry). Indeed, the most commonly used additional tariffs (antidumping and countervailing duties) are imposed following detailed procedures focused on calculating the appropriate level of duties along with developing a formal record of the factual predicate for such duties. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/trump-s-use-of-emergency-powers-to-impose-tariffs-is-an-abuse-of-power

Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Declares National Emergency to Increase our Competitive Edge, Protect our Sovereignty, and Strengthen our National and Economic Security The White House April 2, 2025 PURSUING RECIPROCITY TO REBUILD THE ECONOMY AND RESTORE NATIONAL AND ECONOMIC SECURITY: Today, President Donald J. Trump declared that foreign trade and economic practices have created a national emergency, and his order imposes responsive tariffs to strengthen the international economic position of the United States and protect American workers. https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/04/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-declares-national-emergency-to-increase-our-competitive-edge-protect-our-sovereignty-and-strengthen-our-national-and-economic-security/ -- The bigger national emergency may be the one he just created: In an unprecedented move, President Trump justified the imposition of tariffs on Canada. China, and Mexico under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) based on an “extraordinary threat” from illegal immigration and drug trafficking. The problem for the president, however, is that IEEPA does not explicitly grant tariff authority at all—indeed, the words “duty” or “tariff” appear nowhere in the statute—and to the extent that it grants power to restrict imports, it requires that there be a direct connection between the action taken (here, broad-based tariffs) and a properly declared national emergency (here, migrants and fentanyl crossing the southern border). But there is no direct connection between tariffs on imports of all goods—no matter how innocent or far removed from fentanyl—and the declared national emergency. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/trump-s-use-of-emergency-powers-to-impose-tariffs-is-an-abuse-of-power

I'm not getting into that. All I posted was to show that a win-or-lose mindset was his going back 30+ years.

He was right back then, too. Whether right or not, what's going down now should not be such a big surprise.