I am listening to the S.Ct. arguments over tariffs, not looking good for Trump.

Hume said:
Space aliens, most likely.
Click to expand...
Some combination of Trump wanting to make a deal with the people who run America and that they were demoralized because they had no plan B because they never imagined that the hit would fail and they were out of time is the most likely.
 
They waited till the last minute to make the hit on Trump thinking that would work out in their favor as the opposition to the oligarchs would have no time to regroup....but when the hit failed they were fucked because of the same lack of time.
 
Diogenes said:
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.
Click to expand...
redefine executive limits for decades, echoing historical curbs like the 1935 non-delegation strikes but applied to modern globalization.


And they should

As far as the negative effects, tRump shouldn't have broken the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top