Oops Court slapped down on tariffs. Will Veruca get the sads?

[Earl]

it is you're not your

Pobre is functionally illiterate.

Poor Pobre.

 

[Jarod]

I don't think that "everyone knew that it would be stayed" which is what you claimed.

Anyone with the slightest knowledge of how the federal system works did.

 

[Into the Night]

Ah, just did, and Trump didn’t appeal on its authority but rather his belief that he has the authority to lay unbounded tariffs based upon prior law

He does.

 

[Into the Night]

Anyone with the slightest knowledge of how the federal system works did.

Your denial of the Constitution of the United States is not how the federal systems works, Pretender.

 

[gfm7175]

I guess you really must be Into the Night's sock since you know what he is thinking. And yet you always deny it.

He already said what he thinks, Richard. I don't have to "know what he is thinking"; I only need the capability to read and comprehend what he has already posted.

You do know that this is a PUBLIC forum, right? That means that the PUBLIC (including me) can read the posts that he makes, and even the posts that YOU make.

 

[archives]

He does.

wrong

 

[gfm7175]

wrong

Indeed, you are wrong, per usual... poor anchovies.........

 

[archives]

Indeed, you are wrong, per usual... poor anchovies.........

Wrong, wrong, and lame

 

[Nordberg]

Trump is assuming powers he does not have. His getting shut down by the Trade Court was expected. Believers in the law wanted it to end there, but it did not. But Trump still does not have a case.

 

[archives]

Trump is assuming powers he does not have. His getting shut down by the Trade Court was expected. Believers in the law wanted it to end there, but it did not. But Trump still does not have a case.

Doesn’t need a case to get it fast tracked to his SCOTUS, only an appeal’s court decision, like most of Trump’s actions, it is all orchestrated to get to the same end

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

He already said what he thinks, Richard. I don't have to "know what he is thinking"; I only need the capability to read and comprehend what he has already posted.

You do know that this is a PUBLIC forum, right? That means that the PUBLIC (including me) can read the posts that he makes, and even the posts that YOU make.

This is a simple exercise in logic.
A prevents B from happening. If A doesn't occur then B must happen.
If Into the Night thinks A is wrong to happen then by logic B must happen.

You argued that Into the Night is saying that the stay is wrong which would require that the lower court ruling be in effect.

 

[Into the Night]

He already said what he thinks, Richard. I don't have to "know what he is thinking"; I only need the capability to read and comprehend what he has already posted.

You do know that this is a PUBLIC forum, right? That means that the PUBLIC (including me) can read the posts that he makes, and even the posts that YOU make.

Frankly, I don't think he gets that.

 

[Into the Night]

Trump is assuming powers he does not have.

Trump has full authority over the executive branch of government, Sybil. You are ignoring the Constitution again.

His getting shut down by the Trade Court was expected.

That court has no authority on this matter, Sybil. You are ignoring the Constitution again.

Believers in the law wanted it to end there, but it did not.

You don't give a flying fuck about the law or the Constitution, Sybil.

But Trump still does not have a case.

He doesn't need one. The COURT has no case.

 

[Into the Night]

This is a simple exercise in logic.
A prevents B from happening. If A doesn't occur then B must happen.
If Into the Night thinks A is wrong to happen then by logic B must happen.

You argued that Into the Night is saying that the stay is wrong which would require that the lower court ruling be in effect.

Circular argument fallacy. You deny logic.

No court has any authority over Trump's authority over the executive branch.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Circular argument fallacy. You deny logic.

No court has any authority over Trump's authority over the executive branch.

Yeah. Your logic is circular when it exists. (Inversion fallacy.)

 

[gfm7175]

This is a simple exercise in logic.
A prevents B from happening. If A doesn't occur then B must happen.
If Into the Night thinks A is wrong to happen then by logic B must happen.

"wrong to happen" is not "prevents", and you continue to mess up what he said to you.

You argued that Into the Night is saying that the stay is wrong which would require that the lower court ruling be in effect.

He is saying that the judicial branch doesn't have executive power over the executive branch. They are overstepping their bounds.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

"wrong to happen" is not "prevents", and you continue to mess up what he said to you.

LOL.. so if something isn't wrong then it must be right.
It's so nice that you and Into the Night post for each other so often. It's almost like you are the same person.

He is saying that the judicial branch doesn't have executive power over the executive branch. They are overstepping their bounds.

It seems you are as ignorant of the Constitution as Into the Night is.
The courts aren't exerting executive power over the executive branch. They are adjudicating cases where there are 2 parties and one of the parties is the US government. The Constitution says the courts are to decide all cases where someone sues the executive branch. The Constitution does not say the executive branch automatically wins all such cases.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;-

 

[gfm7175]

LOL.. so if something isn't wrong then it must be right.

The courts aren't exerting executive power over the executive branch.

Yes, they are.

They are adjudicating cases where there are 2 parties and one of the parties is the US government. The Constitution says the courts are to decide all cases where someone sues the executive branch. The Constitution does not say the executive branch automatically wins all such cases.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;-

The judicial branch does not have any executive authority; that power resides with the executive branch. Judicial power is not executive power.

 

[Diesel]

Funny you don't say that when some Obama judge jumps in and rules against Trump.

Hypocrite much fucker?

Oops, you stupid fuck.

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2025-04-02/trump-claims-the-judges-ruling-against-him-are-radical-liberals-is-that-true

 

[Into the Night]

Yeah. Your logic is circular when it exists. (Inversion fallacy.)

Fallacy fallacy. LIF.