Originally published at: SCOTUS Blocks Trump’s IEEPA Tariffs in 6-3 Decision
The Supreme Court blocked President Donald Trump’s signature economic and foreign policy in a fractured 6-3 split decision issued Friday morning. Trump cannot use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to override Congress’s power of the purse by using an emergency declaration to levy widespread global tariffs, the majority held. The decision will…
2 Likes
Can I sue Donald Trump too, like Costco?
22 Likes
Coming next, the consequences.
18 Likes
Kavanaugh with the correct opinion (A) that the majority not requiring the federal government to refund the collected revenue is a major oversight and incorrect opinion (B) that since refunding tariff revenue will be a headache, it’s better to just rule the illegal tariffs legal instead.
A sterling legal mind, that one.
23 Likes
Hmmm… if the unitary executive connot use the IEEPA to override congress’ power of the purse, is it possible he need not, being as how he gets to do whatever he wants anyhow?
5 Likes
Countdown to the screed denouncing “Unelected, radical, leftist, wacko judges” trying to destroy America!
13 Likes
While the Supreme Court (by a 6-3 vote) just threw out Trump’s tariffs, the decision is muddy and 170 pages. The following I copied from the decision is almost comical in its complexity:
“ROBERTS, C. J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the
opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–A–1, and II–B, in which
SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, GORSUCH, BARRETT, and JACKSON, JJ., joined, and
an opinion with respect to Parts II–A–2 and III, in which GORSUCH and
BARRETT, JJ., joined. GORSUCH, J., and BARRETT, J., filed concurring
opinions. KAGAN, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring
in the judgment, in which SOTOMAYOR and JACKSON, JJ., joined.
JACKSON, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the
judgment. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. KAVANAUGH, J., filed
a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS and ALITO, JJ., joined.”
3 Likes
Next up, can the president fire Supreme Court justices for insurrection.
17 Likes
This means any lawsuit by Democrats in Congress seeking to block Trump stealing $10 billion — either from a sham lawsuit or giving it to his corrupt Board of Bribery™️ — would likely prevail since such theft is unconstitutional.
8 Likes
In other economic news, Catsup Futures are trading at all time record highs.
19 Likes
John Roberts and Rand Paul were in the closet making babies and I saw one of the babies and the baby looked at me!
5 Likes
“tariff revenue … deposited into the U. S. treasury.” Trump’s reached his kickback limit?
1 Like
I’m celebrating the win. I swear to god I am. But the cynical side of my brain says, “yeah, they gave us this one so they feel better about nuking the VRA.”
24 Likes
Good news, but I await the report on the “logic” of those miscreant dissenters, i.e. Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Alito.
4 Likes
When a king has the power of the purse he has the funds to conduct wars at his whim. That’s part of the reason the Framers gave the power of taxation to the Congress in the first place.
20 Likes
Even better than Kavanaugh’s “Whoops! It may be unconstitutional, but too hard to remedy!” opinion is the one from Clarence Thomas:
“Thomas, in his dissent, wrote that “neither statutory text nor the Constitution provide a basis for ruling against the President."“
Completely ignores Article 1, Section 8: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States”
27 Likes
Likewise, it would be a “headache” to hold DJT accountable for his alleged sex crimes. Release ALL of the f_cking Epstein files!!! P.S. A headache to preserve democracy is a headache worth having.
12 Likes