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.
I would liken it to Biden’s attempts at student loan forgiveness. Terrible economic policy that is broadly popular with segments of their base so they try to illegally ram it through using executive authorities that don’t actually work that way.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
Same
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Is that a problem? Judge shopping to get rulings with national effect is normal. Republicans used a district in Texas with only 1 Judge to ensure their case is heard by someone who will almost always agree with them. If Republicans want to change that its fine but as soon as they are out of power they will cry that they cant do it anymore.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Judges can largely do whatever they want. You just gotta go to a higher court. Judges do need to be fined when they are overturned unless its also overturning precedent. Without taking the time to read the decision my guess is the payment amount is already set. It would only change via legislation. So there is no need to wait to see how much or if Congress appropriates funding because the amount is not in dispute.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Trump administration seeks custody of imprisoned Colorado elections clerk
The Trump administration is seeking a transfer from state prison to federal custody of a former Colorado county clerk who has become a hero to election conspiracy theorists.
apnews.com
Trump regime trying to get election fraudster Tina Peters moved to federal custody. Fat chance. They should put her in the hole for her remaining time since she undoubtedly has sought out to use people for intimidation and coercion as a means of escaping justice. If she had any communication with a Trump surrogate that makes her a part of retaliation then that could be extra charges to keep here there longer.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
She should be dropped off a plane in the middle of the ocean without a parachute. Bon appetit to the sharks.
Trump administration seeks custody of imprisoned Colorado elections clerk
The Trump administration is seeking a transfer from state prison to federal custody of a former Colorado county clerk who has become a hero to election conspiracy theorists.
Trump regime trying to get election fraudster Tina Peters moved to federal custody. Fat chance. They should put her in the hole for her remaining time since she undoubtedly has sought out to use people for intimidation and coercion as a means of escaping justice. If she had any communication with a Trump surrogate that makes her a part of retaliation then that could be extra charges to keep here there longer.
Honestly, the bigger problem I have isn’t what happens to her but rather what the government is doing here. Trump doesn’t have the authority to pardon her so they’re trying to steamroll the state in any way possible. I won’t be any less safe with Tina Peters back on the streets, but this is a further attempt at an erosion of our rights under the Trump Administration.Trump administration seeks custody of imprisoned Colorado elections clerk
The Trump administration is seeking a transfer from state prison to federal custody of a former Colorado county clerk who has become a hero to election conspiracy theorists.
Trump regime trying to get election fraudster Tina Peters moved to federal custody. Fat chance. They should put her in the hole for her remaining time since she undoubtedly has sought out to use people for intimidation and coercion as a means of escaping justice. If she had any communication with a Trump surrogate that makes her a part of retaliation then that could be extra charges to keep here there longer.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
But remember. No ones above the law.