5 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Not according to the federal appeals court.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c93ywvl7yy5o

 

 

Can you provide text within the appeals court ruling that substantiates the claim you made:

 

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Activist judges undermining the President's negotiations and damaging the country at the same time.

 

Shameful. 

 

 

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

There’s a small matter of the Constitution, separation of powers and the rule of law.

Trump promising to do things beyond the power of the Presidency in his election campaign does not give him the power to do things beyond the power of the Presidency.

 

The President has his powers within the  purview of the Presidency and the Courts have theirs.

 

The fact that the particular court is titled ‘Inited States Court of International Trade’ is a clue to what the court’s purview is.

 

I recommend adding the history of the United States Court of International Trade along with the Constitution of the United States to your reading list.

 

If after that you have some spare time, the courts actual  ruling is an informative read.

 

 

I read it, thats what I do. Its well written, well reasoned and skirts the issue: Article II.

 

The Court cannot second guess a Presidents findings within the scope of his authority.

 

Its just wasting time in lawfare to give guys like you something to salivate over. 

10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

If after that you have some spare time, the courts actual  ruling is an informative read.

 

 

Yes the appeals court made an excellent ruling.

 

That's why tariffs are still in place. 

 

If you want to undermine your own country/President you'll need to try harder.

3 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

I read it, thats what I do. Its well written, well reasoned and skirts the issue: Article II.

 

The Court cannot second guess a Presidents findings within the scope of his authority.

 

Its just wasting time in lawfare to give guys like you something to salivate over. 

Now you are assuming the appeals court and eventually the SCOTUS agrees with the DOJ filing.

 

The ruling handed down by the US Court of International Trade is replete with legal precedence, case law and SCOTUS rulings.

 

It is folly to dismiss it on the basis of what the administration claims.

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Yes the appeals court made an excellent ruling.

 

That's why tariffs are still in place. 

 

If you want to undermine your own country/President you'll need to try harder.

So that’s a no then, the appeals court has not substantiated your ill informed nonsense.

May 14, 20252:05 AM GMT+7Updated 16 days ago

Jeffrey Schwab *, a senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, which represented the business plaintiffs, told the (CIT) court that Mr. Trump’s position essentially would allow him to “impose tariffs on any country at any rate at any time, simply by declaring a national emergency.”

The nonprofit has past ties to Richard Uihlein, who is an Illinois industrialist and a Republican megadonor.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-court-weigh-small-business-bid-block-trump-tariffs-2025-05-13/

* NB Schwab argued and won a US Supreme Court case against mandatory union membership fees.

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

Grab power arbitrarily, through free and fair Democratic elections. 😆

 

For the Rule of Law to be relevant, Trump must abide by the Rule of Law and the Constitution which he took an Oath to Defend. Trump is heading towards another impeachment though the cowardly GOP will also not abide by their Oath of Office.

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The ruling handed down by the US Court of International Trade is replete with legal precedence, case law and SCOTUS rulings.

So are the DOJs filings

 

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It is folly to dismiss it on the basis of what the administration claims.

Its folly not to. Read critically

6 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Jeffrey Schwab *, a senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, which represented the business plaintiffs, told the (CIT) court that Mr. Trump’s position essentially would allow him to “impose tariffs on any country at any rate at any time, simply by declaring a national emergency.”

Thats what the law allows.  Congress needs to change it, but the Courts cant control what the Pres does re foreign policy within the law.

11 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So that’s a no then, the appeals court has not substantiated your ill informed nonsense.

 

So why are the tariffs still in place? 😆

Just now, JonnyF said:

 

So why are the tariffs still in place? 😆

That’s a function of how appeals work.

 

Look at that as something new you’ve learned while at the same time having your nonsense claims debunked.

 

 

Ruling of the CIT Court now under adminstration appeal:

The Constitution assigns Congress the exclusive powers to “lay and collect
Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,” and to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cls. 1, 3.

The question in the two cases before the court is whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (“IEEPA”) delegates these powers to the President in the form of authority to impose unlimited tariffs on goods from nearly every country in the world.

The court does not read IEEPA to confer such unbounded authority and sets aside the challenged tariffs imposed thereunder.

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Let's just forget democratic elections and let the judges run the country then. 

 

Trump told everyone about his plan for the tariffs before the election, and the people elected him on that basis.

 

And of course Trump has done everything he promised in his election campaign. On top of that he has abided by the rule of law at every turn. He has given himself selflessly to the service of the American people, foregoing his salary, giving up his hugely successful real estate empire, working day and night at the White House, saving the taxpayers billions by cutting waste fraud and abuse, through the imaginative creation of a new department authorised by Congress, diligently observing the separation of powers, (including but especially the power of the purse invested in Congress), following the rulings of the Supreme Court to a "T", appointing the most competent and professional cabinet in the history of the world United States...

 

...oops, I was just offered a job in Washington; better get my empty suitcase ready for all the green heading my way.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Yet more ill informed nonsense.

 

 

Can you provide a link that its nonsense? Considering more informed experts than you think it is?

 

"The Trump administration has won the right to keep its sweeping global tariffs in place after “activist judges” tried to block them."

 

Besides even before this appeal the Trump admin had plenty of other options.

 

1. Section 301 

2. Section 232 

3. Section 338

4. Sec. 122

 

I will let the experts explain just in case you want to claim its more nonsense

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/29/trump-expected-to-find-a-workaround-after-trade-court-blocks-tariffs.html

 

 

 

 

44 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

That’s a function of how appeals work.

 

Correct. That's why I linked to it so that you might understand why the tariffs are still in place. 

5 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Can you provide a link that its nonsense? Considering more informed experts than you think it is?

 

"The Trump administration has won the right to keep its sweeping global tariffs in place after “activist judges” tried to block them."

 

Besides even before this appeal the Trump admin had plenty of other options.

 

1. Section 301 

2. Section 232 

3. Section 338

4. Sec. 122

 

I will let the experts explain just in case you want to claim its more nonsense

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/29/trump-expected-to-find-a-workaround-after-trade-court-blocks-tariffs.html

 

 

 

 

I trust you understand the meaning of workaround. Trump is staring at defeat in his appeal and have to look at other means to have some sort of tariffs to salvage the humiliation. Those sections that you quoted do allow some form of sectoral tariffs but is confined to 150 days after which congress approval will be required for extension. 

3 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

I trust you understand the meaning of workaround. Trump is staring at defeat in his appeal and have to look at other means to have some sort of tariffs to salvage the humiliation. Those sections that you quoted do allow some form of sectoral tariffs but is confined to 150 days after which congress approval will be required for extension. 

Yes I do understand the meaning of work around, I even provided examples in the link that are explained by experts and no only one of those  Sec. 122 is for 150 days. I trust you will not make any further false claims.

6 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Yes I do understand the meaning of work around, I even provided examples in the link that are explained by experts and no only one of those  Sec. 122 is for 150 days. I trust you will not make any further false claims.

Glad you understand that this workaround is big step down of his illegal blanket global reciprocal tariffs. I thought you trying the divert his major setback. 

Just now, Eric Loh said:

Glad you understand that this workaround is big step down of his illegal blanket global reciprocal tariffs. I thought you trying the divert his major setback. 

After your previous false claims I think you need to reflect on your honesty.

Boy this throws a wrench into the 90 deals in 90 days… 

All of this nonsense is headed for the US Supreme Court.  It should be fun to watch.

 

Of course, the Senate has always had the opportunity to weigh in, and so far, they have declined to do so.  That's probably what should happen, though.  At that point, the legality of it all would be settled.  There's nothing illegal about tariffs, the only question is whether Trump has that authority under the emergency authorization.  The trade court thought he did not.

 

 

There are companies both small and not so small that are dependent upon imports from China where there is no current alternative source. Some of the tariffs proposed would exceed their profit margins and I will presume, to them, this not all nonsense.

7 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

 

Ms. Karoline Leavitt isn't an idiot just that her job requires her to sound like one.

 

I'd call that selling your dignity.

I dono I think trump aught to avail himself of the fig leaf provided to exit this tariff nonsense outside of the law and perhaps try being more targeted selective and going through congress to address grievances.but that would require work and diplomacy…..as we all know now his (art of the deal) only consists of bullying so not much chance of that he’s just to lazy.

26 minutes ago, Tug said:

I dono I think trump aught to avail himself of the fig leaf provided to exit this tariff nonsense outside of the law and perhaps try being more targeted selective and going through congress to address grievances.but that would require work and diplomacy…..as we all know now his (art of the deal) only consists of bullying so not much chance of that he’s just to lazy.

Engaging with Congress would also negate the ever present opportunity for TACO.

 

Which is the absurdity underlying the whole unforced error Trump is engaging in.

8 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Grab power arbitrarily, through free and fair Democratic elections. 😆

Yep, it has happened already in history ...

18 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

And of the 3 judges on the 'activist' CIT court 1 was appointed by first term Mr. Trump and another by President Reagan.

Correct - these activist judges have to be dealt with.  Democrats put them in place to hinder  President Trump.

1 hour ago, thaipo7 said:

Correct - these activist judges have to be dealt with.  Democrats put them in place to hinder  President Trump.

Lol! 2 of them have been appointed by Republican Presidents! 

“The Supreme Court must put an end to this for the sake of our Constitution and our country,” said Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, who opened her Thursday briefing by attacking judges for having “brazenly abused their judicial power.”

9 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

“The Supreme Court must put an end to this for the sake of our Constitution and our country,” said Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, who opened her Thursday briefing by attacking judges for having “brazenly abused their judicial power.”

When SCOTUS weighs in (and this is an issue they can't ignore), it will indicate going forward whether or not the US continues as a land of the rule of law, or that an autocratic tsunami has hit the shores.