“Half-hearted” indeed. SCOTUS is faced with substance - the constitutionality of the tariffs - as opposed to easily disposed-of procedural rules … and something it can’t decide without explanation— no wonder it’s hesitant.
1. You could spin Robert's major questions frontal on its head by inserting the criminal immunity issue.
2. Katyal was brilliant, in referencing, Justice Jackson's concurrence, in the 1952 case, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, as the case that Roberts cites 10 times, in order to get to his inconceivable ruling, in the criminal immunity case.
3. Spot on with Gorsuch.
Um, it would have been a nice self-warning, for him to think this way, prior to concurring, in the most egregious ruling in history.
The only problem I see is that the money will need to be given back and where might the POTUS take that from?
I also never leave the questions, as it has yet t be answered, I believe, that if DOGE and its drug addled jester's decisions aren't legal, how will those be handled?
This is an obvious, Mr. Obvious, problem with the continued shadow docket and the irrevocable harm done by the time they actually get the cases.
They, however, did hear last night's election results, loud and clear.
The IRS has over a century of experience giving money back. Not a problem at all. They may need to hire back some of the experts they wrongly fired, but that’s a good thing in general.
This administration has zero problem with deficit spending and magical math, so finding the money is nothing but a smoke screen.
While I’d like to agree the IRS is not my thought. The treasury is a piggy bank from which two outcomes occur and this administration has zero interest in controlling the effects of self enrichment over the economic costs associated with one outcome that’s already in the works.
When basic math is applied the OBBB funds itself by the least efficient method. Turnips and blood.
Add in the blender the absence of actual sustainable revenue and only cutting costs it’s a recipe for a flat if not a soufflé turned to dust.
The big ugly bill didn’t fund itself, even using the magical math the GQP relied on. It blows up the deficit substantially, but they’ve never given even a fraction of shit about that unless there is a Dem in the WhiteHouse.
You’re saying what I am if you read. It funds itself by the LEAST efficient way…not enough revenue. These two DJT terms have exploded the debt. It spends nearly 40 cents more than each buck it receives as its deficit. When that gets to a buck what happens? The treasury prints or defaults. In the meantime the 40 cents will come from turnips and blood.
Taxation in the form of tariffs is not legal which is an add on lie. That’s just the gravy boat that seems opaque and not viable. Drunk on power and wealth ain’t new. Drain on “the lie” of GOP narratives ignoring the data is typical. Numbers don’t lie.
This court does not seem one bit moved by public response to issues. They continue making decisions exactly how THEY wish regardless of public outcry. They’ve even written articles on that subject admitting it’s true.
How delicious that the plaintiffs evoked assertively the “MQD” in arguing for Congessional intent in the IEEPA that excluded imposing tariffs as such…do I hear “hoist with his own petard”?
It looks like one thing that will NOT be discussed in this case is whether., when a statute mentions "emergencies." the president has the sole power to decide when something is an emergency. Good old War Torn Portland will have to wait.
I appreciate the way you present this - easy for a lay person to understand, and satisfying the questions and nuances for someone with a legal background. Chris, your work is so important and I'm grateful for your diligence and objectivity (as much as possible). I will remain a paid subscriber and darn glad of it!!!
I don't believe the republicans on the court care a whit about consistency, precedents, the constitution or originalism. As such they will find a way to allow Trump to do whatever he wishes. I'll be surprised if I'm wrong.
Very good news to add to the good election news from yesterday. Maybe the former influenced the latter and the Justices are seeing the approaching end of the Republican regnancy? It's long been established in academic studies that the Court closely follows and is influenced by what it perceives as the popular sentiment..
Important analysis on the fight over certainly one of the most consequential aspects of this administration for most Americans. Thank you for your coverage!
I've also heard that Harlan Crowe (and other backdoor financial supporters of SCOTUS) do not like tariffs. Let's hope they somehow find a way to convey those sentiments to their judicial friends.
It sounded like the Roberts Maga Six are as always on the side of the unconstitutional lawless president! I thought that Alito was disrespectful to Katyal!
What does Trump have on Kavanaugh?
Or just one “alleged” sexual predator backing same?
That is uncalled for David!
And yet …
I still do not believe. Thanks Davis for responding with care.
He is a fellow rapist!
Pedos need to stick together . . .
Trump appointed Kavanaugh. That’s really it in a nutshell. He feels beholden for that reason.
Hes probably on the epstein list, or an epstein island visitor.
“Half-hearted” indeed. SCOTUS is faced with substance - the constitutionality of the tariffs - as opposed to easily disposed-of procedural rules … and something it can’t decide without explanation— no wonder it’s hesitant.
I find three things extremely interesting here.
1. You could spin Robert's major questions frontal on its head by inserting the criminal immunity issue.
2. Katyal was brilliant, in referencing, Justice Jackson's concurrence, in the 1952 case, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, as the case that Roberts cites 10 times, in order to get to his inconceivable ruling, in the criminal immunity case.
3. Spot on with Gorsuch.
Um, it would have been a nice self-warning, for him to think this way, prior to concurring, in the most egregious ruling in history.
The only problem I see is that the money will need to be given back and where might the POTUS take that from?
I also never leave the questions, as it has yet t be answered, I believe, that if DOGE and its drug addled jester's decisions aren't legal, how will those be handled?
This is an obvious, Mr. Obvious, problem with the continued shadow docket and the irrevocable harm done by the time they actually get the cases.
They, however, did hear last night's election results, loud and clear.
The IRS has over a century of experience giving money back. Not a problem at all. They may need to hire back some of the experts they wrongly fired, but that’s a good thing in general.
This administration has zero problem with deficit spending and magical math, so finding the money is nothing but a smoke screen.
While I’d like to agree the IRS is not my thought. The treasury is a piggy bank from which two outcomes occur and this administration has zero interest in controlling the effects of self enrichment over the economic costs associated with one outcome that’s already in the works.
When basic math is applied the OBBB funds itself by the least efficient method. Turnips and blood.
Add in the blender the absence of actual sustainable revenue and only cutting costs it’s a recipe for a flat if not a soufflé turned to dust.
The big ugly bill didn’t fund itself, even using the magical math the GQP relied on. It blows up the deficit substantially, but they’ve never given even a fraction of shit about that unless there is a Dem in the WhiteHouse.
You’re saying what I am if you read. It funds itself by the LEAST efficient way…not enough revenue. These two DJT terms have exploded the debt. It spends nearly 40 cents more than each buck it receives as its deficit. When that gets to a buck what happens? The treasury prints or defaults. In the meantime the 40 cents will come from turnips and blood.
TikTok.
True, but irrelevant. Unconstitutional taxation doesn’t become legal just because the party in power is drunk on welfare for the rich.
Taxation in the form of tariffs is not legal which is an add on lie. That’s just the gravy boat that seems opaque and not viable. Drunk on power and wealth ain’t new. Drain on “the lie” of GOP narratives ignoring the data is typical. Numbers don’t lie.
This court does not seem one bit moved by public response to issues. They continue making decisions exactly how THEY wish regardless of public outcry. They’ve even written articles on that subject admitting it’s true.
Perhaps they could use some of that Ballroom money or return a couple of airplanes?
Oh, NOW we’re worried about excessive executive power. Got it.
I hope the less than supreme court finally tells Trump NO.
It must be squirm-worthy to have to possibly treat Trump with a disdain it had treated Biden before.
How delicious that the plaintiffs evoked assertively the “MQD” in arguing for Congessional intent in the IEEPA that excluded imposing tariffs as such…do I hear “hoist with his own petard”?
It looks like one thing that will NOT be discussed in this case is whether., when a statute mentions "emergencies." the president has the sole power to decide when something is an emergency. Good old War Torn Portland will have to wait.
Too bad the unconstitutional Roberts MAGA Six can’t be impeached!
...yet.
They can but it sure wouldn't be easy. They set there own rules and always stack the deck in there favor.
I appreciate the way you present this - easy for a lay person to understand, and satisfying the questions and nuances for someone with a legal background. Chris, your work is so important and I'm grateful for your diligence and objectivity (as much as possible). I will remain a paid subscriber and darn glad of it!!!
I don't believe the republicans on the court care a whit about consistency, precedents, the constitution or originalism. As such they will find a way to allow Trump to do whatever he wishes. I'll be surprised if I'm wrong.
Very good news to add to the good election news from yesterday. Maybe the former influenced the latter and the Justices are seeing the approaching end of the Republican regnancy? It's long been established in academic studies that the Court closely follows and is influenced by what it perceives as the popular sentiment..
Important analysis on the fight over certainly one of the most consequential aspects of this administration for most Americans. Thank you for your coverage!
The Founders were so emphatic about taxation belonging to The People that they included the Origination Clause.
I've also heard that Harlan Crowe (and other backdoor financial supporters of SCOTUS) do not like tariffs. Let's hope they somehow find a way to convey those sentiments to their judicial friends.
It sounded like the Roberts Maga Six are as always on the side of the unconstitutional lawless president! I thought that Alito was disrespectful to Katyal!