I am listening to the S.Ct. arguments over tariffs, not looking good for Trump.
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Justin Wolfers
@JustinWolfers
I'm no lawyer, but the Supremes seem unimpressed by the President's lawyer in the tariffs case.Prediction markets have revised the probability of the White House winning (and the tariffs being found constitutional) from 45% to 30% in just half an hour.The question at the moment is whether IEEPA grants the President tax/tariff powers. We haven't gotten to the question of whether there's actually an emergency.
@JustinWolfers
I'm no lawyer, but the Supremes seem unimpressed by the President's lawyer in the tariffs case.Prediction markets have revised the probability of the White House winning (and the tariffs being found constitutional) from 45% to 30% in just half an hour.The question at the moment is whether IEEPA grants the President tax/tariff powers. We haven't gotten to the question of whether there's actually an emergency.
Excellent. No one person should have that sort of power over the economy and the markets.
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
well if you say so
Says Brad, the noted Constitutional scholar with extensive experience as an observer of the Supreme Court . . . oh, wait. ...
A negative ruling by the Supreme Court striking down President Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose his sweeping "Liberation Day" tariffs would trigger immediate and cascading effects across the economy, federal government operations, trade policy, and constitutional law.
Financially, the U.S. Treasury would face a massive hit from refunds and lost revenue.
Importers, ranging from small businesses to multinational corporations, would be entitled to claw back the $88 billion-plus collected so far on IEEPA-based duties, creating a sudden liquidity crunch for the government amid already ballooning deficits driven by healthcare, Social Security, interest payments, and military spending.
This would exacerbate pressures on the federal debt market, spiking borrowing costs as investors demand higher yields to offset the uncertainty. Annual revenue shortfalls could reach hundreds of billions, equivalent to a $1,000 to $1,300 annual tax hike per U.S. household.
Without IEEPA's speed and flexibility, future presidents would scramble to reimpose duties via narrower statutes like Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act (for national security threats, already used on steel and autos) or Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (capping broad tariffs at 15% for 150 days). These alternatives, while viable for targeted measures, lack the scale and adaptability of IEEPA, potentially delaying implementation by months and inviting fresh legal challenges.
This would have the substantive effect of crippling America's ability to swiftly react to trade wars in the future. A negative ruling would avert deeper economic scarring from unchecked tariffs, it risks short-term fiscal chaos and a diluted trade arsenal.
The decision, expected by mid-2026, could redefine executive limits for decades, echoing historical curbs like the 1935 non-delegation strikes but applied to modern globalization.
Financially, the U.S. Treasury would face a massive hit from refunds and lost revenue.
Importers, ranging from small businesses to multinational corporations, would be entitled to claw back the $88 billion-plus collected so far on IEEPA-based duties, creating a sudden liquidity crunch for the government amid already ballooning deficits driven by healthcare, Social Security, interest payments, and military spending.
This would exacerbate pressures on the federal debt market, spiking borrowing costs as investors demand higher yields to offset the uncertainty. Annual revenue shortfalls could reach hundreds of billions, equivalent to a $1,000 to $1,300 annual tax hike per U.S. household.
Without IEEPA's speed and flexibility, future presidents would scramble to reimpose duties via narrower statutes like Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act (for national security threats, already used on steel and autos) or Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (capping broad tariffs at 15% for 150 days). These alternatives, while viable for targeted measures, lack the scale and adaptability of IEEPA, potentially delaying implementation by months and inviting fresh legal challenges.
This would have the substantive effect of crippling America's ability to swiftly react to trade wars in the future. A negative ruling would avert deeper economic scarring from unchecked tariffs, it risks short-term fiscal chaos and a diluted trade arsenal.
The decision, expected by mid-2026, could redefine executive limits for decades, echoing historical curbs like the 1935 non-delegation strikes but applied to modern globalization.
Nobody has argued that presidents aren't limited by the Constitution, Brad.
Your lack of legal nous is perhaps made most apparent by the fact that you don't appear to have any client business to occupy your time.
The problem the Supreme Court is having, because they are so political, is that naturally the Conservative judges would rule against the President, because he has taken the more liberal side, but they love Trump so, who knows.
Most of these Justices will still be on the Court when TACO is dead.
It's going to be a real constitutional test if SCOTUS rules against trump. I think he might just roll out the "fuck, it, I'm doing what I want anyway" machine.
No one can stop trump but trump. And he doesn't seem to be slowing down on the march towards an authoritarian state.
Yeah, unfortunately, The spineless Republicans in congress won't do anything to stop him. If trump ignores an unfavorable SCOTUS decision - aint' nuthin' gonna happen to him!
SCOTUS has so destroyed their reputation that there might be some interest in not approving clearly unconstitutional acts.
I’m pretty sure Robert’s and ACB are going with the liberal wing on this!
That might be a big enough deal to cause the oligarchs to switch horses....to unload Trump....remember that I said at the jump that waiting for the midterms was the latest they will go.
The fact that Trump is speeding up the collapse of the Empire is a major deal.
You also said they wouldnt let him get elected this last time.
Yes, the Court seems skeptical. Will Trump send his mob in to beat up the Justices?
Yes.....something happened after they failed to kill him at Butler.....I still dont know what.