sturg33
I
Goodness
Legal/scotus thread
- Thread starter cajunrevenge
- Start date
sturg33
I
Nice little gift to Trump. When the recession gets worse he will be able to blame the tarrifs going away as the reason
Kind of annoying that Mike Johnson gets to wriggle his way out of ever calling for a vote on this national emergency for which he’s supposed to immediately vote on upholding.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
I’m expecting the court to save Trump from his unpopular policies (that I support) on this one. He doesn’t have to back down, rates are already dropping, tariff costs disappear, the economy seems better for midterms, and nothing of any lasting impact changes.
acesfull86
Well-known member
https://reason.com/2025/11/06/on-tariffs-it-was-gorsuch-vs-trump-at-scotus/
Shortly before yesterday's oral arguments kicked off, I wrote that if Gorsuch "lean in on non-delegation and separation of powers concerns," it would mean that "Gorsuch may vote against Trump."
Well, Gorsuch certainly leaned in. Under "your theory of the Constitution," Gorsuch demanded of Sauer, referring to the Trump official's repeated invocation of Trump's inherent power over foreign affairs, "what would prohibit Congress from just abdicating all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce, or for that matter, declare war to the President?"
A few minutes later, Gorsuch pressed Sauer on the inevitable implications of Trump's claim that Congress had actually delegated such unbridled tariff authority to the executive. "Don't we have a serious retrieval problem here," Gorsuch asked, "because, once Congress delegates by a bare majority and the President signs it—and, of course, every president will sign a law that gives him more authority—Congress can't take that back without a super majority. And even—you know, even then, it's going to be veto-proof. What president's ever going to give that power back? A pretty rare president."
In short, Gorsuch stated, "Congress, as a practical matter, can't get this power back once it's handed it over to the President. It's a one-way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch and away from the people's elected representatives."
——————
Even among those who support tariffs, I’d like to think this line of reasoning from Gorsuch is compelling.
Shortly before yesterday's oral arguments kicked off, I wrote that if Gorsuch "lean in on non-delegation and separation of powers concerns," it would mean that "Gorsuch may vote against Trump."
Well, Gorsuch certainly leaned in. Under "your theory of the Constitution," Gorsuch demanded of Sauer, referring to the Trump official's repeated invocation of Trump's inherent power over foreign affairs, "what would prohibit Congress from just abdicating all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce, or for that matter, declare war to the President?"
A few minutes later, Gorsuch pressed Sauer on the inevitable implications of Trump's claim that Congress had actually delegated such unbridled tariff authority to the executive. "Don't we have a serious retrieval problem here," Gorsuch asked, "because, once Congress delegates by a bare majority and the President signs it—and, of course, every president will sign a law that gives him more authority—Congress can't take that back without a super majority. And even—you know, even then, it's going to be veto-proof. What president's ever going to give that power back? A pretty rare president."
In short, Gorsuch stated, "Congress, as a practical matter, can't get this power back once it's handed it over to the President. It's a one-way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch and away from the people's elected representatives."
——————
Even among those who support tariffs, I’d like to think this line of reasoning from Gorsuch is compelling.
I support the tariffs but what Trump is doing probably isn't legal.
acesfull86
Well-known member
It didn’t help the Trump team’s case that their client undermined their arguments multiple times since these tariffs were enacted.
Trump is like the guy in the middle of a personal injury case who gets caught dunking on the hoop in his driveway.
Trump is like the guy in the middle of a personal injury case who gets caught dunking on the hoop in his driveway.