Trumps tariffs may be toast soon - Judges to rule on the legality of tariffs imposed unilaterally by POTUS.

[Ceiling Cat]

Trump’s imposition of tariffs are driven primarily by political calculation rather than sound economic policy. These tariffs in reality is a hidden tax on the American consumer, raising the cost of imported goods under the guise of protecting domestic industries. Trump is perpetrating a hoax on the American public and wants them to believe that he is the president who revived the American economy and put “America First,” regardless of the long-term economic consequences on his own country as well as other countries around the world.

His grift is to redirecting the financial burden onto ordinary Americans in order to fund headline-grabbing trade wars and nationalist economic schemes. Meanwhile, the legality of a president unilaterally imposing tariffs without congressional approval is under increasing scrutiny. A judicial panel is expected to soon issue a ruling that could set a precedent on the limits of executive authority in matters of international trade and taxation.

 

[seanzo]

The opinions of lower court judges are irrelevant. What matters are the opinions of the supreme court. I may be incorrect in my recollection but I'm fairly certain that they've already ruled the president has the ability to impose tariffs as he sees fit

 

[squeezer]

The opinions of lower court judges are irrelevant. What matters are the opinions of the supreme court. I may be incorrect in my recollection but I'm fairly certain that they've already ruled the president has the ability to impose tariffs as he sees fit

You are wrong!

Trump’s use of tariffs violates the U.S. Constitution, federal court hears

The legal challenge is an attempt to overturn import taxes including fentanyl and migration-related tariffs on Canada

www.theglobeandmail.com

 

[mandrill]

Reports are that the Court of Appeal hearing on Thursday went very badly for Trump and the decision is predicted to be a slap in the face for the old fuck.

 

[Ceiling Cat]

The opinions of lower court judges are irrelevant. What matters are the opinions of the supreme court. I may be incorrect in my recollection but I'm fairly certain that they've already ruled the president has the ability to impose tariffs as he sees fit

While the president has some authority to impose tariffs under specific laws delegated by Congress, this power is not absolute. The responsibility of trade and tariffs is the responsibility of Congress, and any presidential action must demonstrate that there is a threat to national security. The Supreme Court has never ruled that the president can impose tariffs entirely at his discretion.

 

[seanzo]

While the president has some authority to impose tariffs under specific laws delegated by Congress, this power is not absolute. The responsibility of trade and tariffs is the responsibility of Congress, and any presidential action must demonstrate that there is a threat to national security. The Supreme Court has never ruled that the president can impose tariffs entirely at his discretion.

Well regardless both chambers of congress are Republican controlled and the supreme court has a conservative majority, if he needs laws passed to do it he'll get it done

 

[Valcazar]

Well regardless both chambers of congress are Republican controlled and the supreme court has a conservative majority, if he needs laws passed to do it he'll get it done

Which has been a pretty obvious tell.
He controls the legislature (they've shown no interest in not doing what he wants).
The Supreme Court has shown they will ignore precedent and logic and even facts in a case to allow him as much leeway as they think they can get away with.
And yet still he insists on doing things illegally and short circuiting any of those options to exercise his power directly.

It's kind of impressive how much he could give himself cover, but instead wants people to know he craves authoritarian control.
It's clear getting people to submit is of great importance to him.

it's a variant of the 1984 bit. " Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? "

 

[mandrill]