The hearing was a bloodbath for the Trump administration: Six justices lined up to bash the Justice Department’s defense of the tariffs, barely disguising their annoyance with the government’s barrage of blustery nonsense...Trump’s signature trade policy—which he expected to raise trillions of dollars for him to use as he wished—looks dead on arrival at SCOTUS. 

https://archive.ph/xNoIw#selection-1247.192-1251.293

From the link above:

 

But some of her colleagues may have been. Justice Brett Kavanaugh emerged as, at a minimum, tariff-curious early on, and grew increasingly active in his defense of Trump’s plan. He kept citing Nixon’s tariffs—a precedent that Barrett so deftly deconstructed—as evidence that Congress did intend to let the president tax imports all on his own

 

This is who submitted an amicus brief on the case in opposition to President Trump:

 

Ambassador Alan Wm. Wolff has spent more than a
half-century practicing trade law both serving in the
federal government and as private counsel.
Ambassador Wolff was the U.S. Department of
Treasury’s international trade lawyer from 1969 to
March 1971, in which capacity he drafted President
Nixon’s Import Surcharge Proclamation 4074 of
August 17, 1971 and defended this import surcharge
at the GATT in September 1971 as counsel with the
U.S. delegation.

_____________________________________

 

AG Sauer from the oral hearing:

 

And I want to make a very important
distinction here. We don't contend that what's
 being exercised here is the power to tax. It's
 the power to regulate foreign commerce. These
 are regulatory tariffs. They are not
 revenue-raising tariffs. The fact that they
 raise revenue is only incidental.

 

-- Say what?

 

 

 

 

I think SCOTUS will find against Trump, but without retrospective action. The tariffs collected will remain in the coffers and congress will then be pushed hard to pass a new law expressly giving Trump new powers to unilaterally impose tariffs at will.

34 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

The tariffs collected will remain in the coffers and congress will then be pushed hard to pass a new law expressly giving Trump new powers to unilaterally impose tariffs at will.

I really hope this does not happen..........

1 hour ago, xylophone said:

I really hope this does not happen..........

 

I know, but the chaos it will cause otherwise will be enough to persuade the conservatives to allow.

I'm skeptical - SCOTUS is majority conservative and quietly backs Trump on his main wish list. They had to look tough in questioning (for the cameras/public), but wait to see the verdit - I bet they back Trump (unfortunately).

1 hour ago, ronnie50 said:

I'm skeptical - SCOTUS is majority conservative and quietly backs Trump on his main wish list. They had to look tough in questioning (for the cameras/public), but wait to see the verdit - I bet they back Trump (unfortunately).

I sincerely hope you are mistaken im tired of taxes levied on my back at the whim of some mental trust fund baby who has never suffered or wanted for anything…..not to mention the hardship and chaos caused amongst our neighbors.

Removed a post (and responses) that claimed others were paid to post. If you have any actual evidence please forward it to support. 

 

Some other posts trolling about other members have been removed.

13 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

AG Sauer from the oral hearing:

 

And I want to make a very important
distinction here. We don't contend that what's
 being exercised here is the power to tax. It's
 the power to regulate foreign commerce. These
 are regulatory tariffs. They are not
 revenue-raising tariffs. The fact that they
 raise revenue is only incidental.

 

-- Say what?

Well it took the NY Times a day but today's headline:

 

Trump Team Now Claims Its Trillions in Tariff Revenue Are ‘Incidental’
In arguments before the Supreme Court, the White House backed away from its claims that President Trump’s tariffs were about raising revenue.

________________________

Trump is the first president to try use the IEEPA to set tariffs without Congress, and the justices pushed Solicitor General John Sauer to justify the sweeping authority.

 

Sauer argued the tariffs are "regulatory" in nature, and that any revenue raised is incidental. That, despite Trump often boasting the billions of dollars he says the administration has raked in as a result of the levies.

 

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-hears-trump-tariffs-case-staggering-importance/story?id=12695090

_____________

Does this sound 'incidental'?

President Donald Trump responded to a question from Fox News' Bret Baier about "overly skeptical" Supreme Court justices during Wednesday's hearing over his executive ability to unilaterally impose far-reaching tariffs.

 

Trump responded during Baier's Special Report interview, "I heard the court case went well today. But I will say this, it would be devastating for our country if we lost that. It's one of the most important cases in the history of our country.

 

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-reacts-skeptical-supreme-court-tariffs-fox-news-11000541