Trump says US faces 'economic disaster' if Supreme Court rules against tariffs

 

WASHINGTON, Nov 10 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Monday the United States faced an economic and national security disaster if the Supreme Court ruled against his use of an emergency powers law to impose sweeping tariffs against nearly every country. (REuters)

 

Evil, American hating Forces are fighting us at the United States Supreme Court. 

 

 

Tell Trump this is exclusive him causing America's downfall all by his lonesome.

Voters supported this criminal and can just suck it up and continue to whine to thier hearts content.

2 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

 

 

OMG....I had no idea how good he was until I read that.

 

In reality, I think the SCOTUS will find against, but allow the tariffs collected so far to be retained.

 

Congress will then be pushed to pass new laws allowing Trump to impose tariffs at will, just as he wants.

 

 

 

Call it a toss-up on the merits but the deciding question will be whether any of President Trump's MY 3 JUSTICES appointed in his first term are willing to vote against him.

9 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Call it a toss-up on the merits but the deciding question will be whether any of President Trump's MY 3 JUSTICES appointed in his first term are willing to vote against him.

Not really a toss-up on the merits. Under the Major Questions Doctrine, an innovation by the conservatives on the supreme court, the President can't take major, novel or extraordinary actions under a law  unless Congress authorized it. Of course, given the political sympathies of the majority of the court, who knows what they will decide. Still, in the hearing, most of them seemed skeptical of it.

46 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

OMG....I had no idea how good he was until I read that.

 

4 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Not really a toss-up on the merits. Under the Major Questions Doctrine, an innovation by the conservatives on the supreme court, the President can't take major, novel or extraordinary actions under a law  unless Congress authorized it.

AI quickie Gemini:

 

Justice Kavanaugh's key ruling on the major questions doctrine, found in his recent concurrence in FCC v. Consumers' Research (2025), is that the doctrine generally does not apply to foreign policy or national security matters. 

 

(as team Sauer notes)

1 hour ago, jerrymahoney said:

Trump says US faces 'economic disaster' if Supreme Court rules against tariffs

 

WASHINGTON, Nov 10 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Monday the United States faced an economic and national security disaster if the Supreme Court ruled against his use of an emergency powers law to impose sweeping tariffs against nearly every country. (REuters)

 

Evil, American hating Forces are fighting us at the United States Supreme Court. 

 

Negatives: roller-coaster tariffs, (potentially) higher trade deficit for U.S.; positives: less restricted world trade, (possibly) weaker U.S. dollar (favouring U.S. exports)...

24 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

AI quickie Gemini:

 

Justice Kavanaugh's key ruling on the major questions doctrine, found in his recent concurrence in FCC v. Consumers' Research (2025), is that the doctrine generally does not apply to foreign policy or national security matters. 

 

(as team Sauer notes)

And, as I recall, at least 3 of the other conservative justices sounded dubious.

AI quickie Gemini:

 

Sauer's Argument
During oral arguments in the consolidated cases challenging the president's authority to impose broad tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Sauer asserted that the tariffs were a legitimate exercise of the power to regulate foreign commerce, not a means of raising revenue. He stated: 

 

"These are regulatory tariffs. They are not revenue-raising tariffs. The fact that they raise revenue was only incidental". 

He argued the tariffs would be most effective if no one paid them and American consumption shifted to domestic products, fulfilling a regulatory goal rather than a fiscal one. 

Supreme Court Skepticism

 

(Say What ?)

_________________________

 

One of the admin's main arguments is that the decision in 1971 with Nixon in the so-called Yoshida (zipper) case supports their position .

 

But the Nixon official who over 50 years ago wrote the case for Nixon is against the government position in a submitted supreme court amicus brief.

Sure revenue is only incidental.  So lets do away with the revenue part of the tariffs since they are only "incidental".Tell the american companies that have so far been paying the tariffs that they don't need to pay the "incidental billions".

 

  They are not revenue-raising tariffs. The fact that they raise revenue was only incidental". 

The man's barking mad and unfit to remain in the White House

2 hours ago, Stocky said:

The man's barking mad and unfit to remain in the White House

From the Truth Social above:

 

WE HAVE ALL THE CARDS, and with a smart President ...  Evil, American hating Forces are fighting us at the United States Supreme Court. Pray to God that our Nine Justices will show great wisdom, and do the right thing for America!

 

NB Evil forces including Libertarians who brought the original case.

 

AI quickie Gemini

 

The case name is V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States, which the Supreme Court of the United States decided to hear on September 9, 2025. The case challenges the President's authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). 

The "Uihlein" connection is that the legal firm representing the businesses challenging the tariffs, the Liberty Justice Center, has previously received funding from Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein, who are Republican megadonors. 

1 hour ago, jerrymahoney said:

 

The "Uihlein" connection is that the legal firm representing the businesses challenging the tariffs, the Liberty Justice Center, has previously received funding from Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein, who are Republican megadonors. 

So, Trump is right. They are evil.