Originally published at: Liberal Justices Cheeky Arguments on Tariffs
Wednesday’s Supreme Court oral arguments on President Donald Trump’s use of an emergency declaration to apply steep, worldwide tariffs saw liberal justices — and a former Obama-era acting solicitor general, arguing for the plaintiffs — somewhat trollishly embrace two legal theories most often deployed by the court’s right-leaning justices: the so-called major questions and nondelegation…
I am betting 5-4 against the tariffs. The majority: Jackson, Sotomayer, Hagen, Barrett, Gorsuch. The corrupt dissent: Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh.
Neal Katyal is a treasure and a genius.
7 Likes
Going back to prior precedents and legal theories would be fine, if it wasn’t for the fact that the corrupt six just rule however they want anyway and then come up with some legal word salad to justify it.
Though in this case, as TSF is messing with the money, they may eventually knock him back at the end of this term, when he’s been able to have them in place for months longer
6 Likes
It’s already clear that we have two Constitutions: one giving Republicans very expansive powers, another much more restrictive one for Democrats. Examples: clinics offering reproductive care, including abortions, are can be required to post notices advising pregnant women of alternatives to terminating a pregnancy. But those alternatives cannot be required to post notices advising pregnant women of alternatives to giving birth.
Conversion therapy is “just talk” protected by the First Amendment, and can’t be forbidden by state regulatory bodies. Compare that non-regulation with what constrains the legal profession, which is also just talk. You can’t advise your client to rob a bank!
If the Court constrained Republicans to the extent that it has constrained Democrats, we would be in a much different place.
15 Likes
Is it considered an emergency when a Canadian province posts something that hurts POTUS’ feelings? If not, then why did he say he was changing the rate?
9 Likes
The Calvinball 6 making up the rules as they go along? Say it ain’t so.
…in the court’s version of Calvinball, “this Administration always wins.”
13 Likes
Hey, all the Great Fatsby needs to do is assert there’s an emergency, and voila! – it’s a fact! It helps if he gets his toadies to mock up some video with clips from various irrelevant places and different times, or even ChatBot out something as ironclad “proof.”
This power is, of course, restricted to Republicans.
7 Likes
Do I understand correctly that the question of ‘when is an emergency clearly, unquestionably, in no way, shape or form NOT an emergency’ was not addressed yesterday? It was touched on, but it affects more of Trump’s executive actions beyond just tariffs.
Even outside of discussions about the two legal theories in question, the justices, including at least some of the conservatives, seemed skeptical about the government’s arguments, probing the validity of the way in which Trump’s national emergency declarations could apply to such a diverse range of foreign entities.
“Across the board, is it your contention that every country needed to be tariffed because of the threats to the industrial base?” asked Justice Amy Coney Barrett. “Spain? France?”
She might have added the penguins of the Heard and Marshall Islands. Judicial restraint?
3 Likes
The non-legal question hovering over yesterday’s arguments. No way of knowing how they’re going to jump, and what ‘rationale’ they (the Calvinball 6) will invent to get there. Still. They’re questioning the tariffs. What in the corrupt minds of the Calvinball 6 could have changed, that they will even consider publicly opposing the whims of the dear leader? Why now, why this issue. Why this hill to stand on?
2 Likes
Of all the tariff madness, that is the one that stands out for me — Your tone is an “emergency” that requires a tweak to my former emergency setting.
The other is the comically stupid tariff list that accompanied the initial shit-show announcement, complete with an astronomical tariff on an island of sheep 
2 Likes
sigh I guess I have to tap the sign again.
“DO NOT GIVE YOUR OPPONENT’S KEY ARGUMENTS SUPPORT EVEN WHEN IT WORKS IN YOUR FAVOR.”
The fact that Sotomayor and Kagan made these arguments will make it into somebody’s opinion before this is over, and that opinion will be cited every damn time the conservatives want to kill some bit of Presidential action.
2 Likes
Word games are fine and so is a sense of humor. But reality bites. SCOTUS has already lost all credibility. The Roberts Court will go down as one if not the the most politically corrupt SCOTUS in our history. Citizens United versus FEC (2010) is worse than Dred Scott versus Sanford (1857), Plessy versus Ferguson (1896), or Bush versus Gore (2000). The court has had a reasonable run since 1789, but it is now time to revamp its structure and to prevent Republicans from freezing out a choice without a vote. The Roberts Court has ethically and morally died, and it is time to flush out the garbage. The majority has flown their collective flag, and nothing they will now do will change it. The challenge is to undue their damage.
4 Likes
The Roberts court has previous history preserving the Republican party against issues they are losing on - they ruled on Gay marriage because it was obvious that it was an electoral loser but the Republicans didn’t want to lose face by saying it was OK. Now they know that tariffs are a problem for the president and the party so they will rule against him to give him an out without Trump admitting he was wrong.
3 Likes
The fact that Roberts failed to address blatant corruption of members of the court by immediately establishing a vigorous a code of ethics, only issuing a mushy standard after the dirty details came to light, should be a prominent part of his legacy, not a footnote.
3 Likes