Supreme Court justices appear skeptical
that Trump tariffs are legal

Bassinet says there are other ways to achieve this goal for Trump.

CNBC.

I'm skeptical of the source as well, but President Trump does himself no favors by posting: "Tomorrow’s United States Supreme Court case is, literally, LIFE OR DEATH for our Country.... Without it, we are virtually defenseless against other Countries who have, for years, taken advantage of us...and our Country has never been more respected than it is right now." So we are "literally" going to die as a country because the supreme court reverses punitive tariffs imposed under the auspices of various implausible emergencies used by President Trump to justify his arbitrary misuse of tarrif authority delegated by Congress? And that will leave us "virtually defenseless"? I had no idea we were so utterly weak and vulnerable. Fortunately, we've "never been more respected than now," so we don't need to worry. As I said on another thread, I like President Trump, I would like to see his policies given a chance to success, and I don't like at all the supreme court telling the President and Congress what they can and can't do. But, man alive, he sometimes makes things harder than they need to be.

I don't understand where the Supreme Court has any say in this matter. This is a policy issue, not a legal issue.

Our trade "partners" have been eating our lunch in trade for many decades. We have low, if any tariffs, yet they have high tariffs or other trade restrictions to either keep our products out of their countries or make them too expensive for most. If only Congress can impose tariffs, then we are sunk. As the DemoRoids have more than 40 seats in the Senate, they can filibuster any proposed tariff, and thus hamstring PDJT 2.0 in his efforts to bring about free and fair trade. As one Supreme Court Justice once said: "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." I'm sure as soon as the DemoRoids win control of the Senate, they will nuke the requirement of 60 votes to invoke cloture, so the Republicans may as well do it now, and get something done.

When future archeologists study the ruins of NYC and the United States, they will express wonder that so many people fought so hard to obstruct and destroy the man trying desperately to save them.

No worries. This comes from cnbc.

Hope someone explains to the SC that Presidents from John Q Adams to the late 1800’s used tariffs to run the government. There were NO taxes on the citizens. Democommies dont like Americans not paying taxes and “contributing” to their special causes. Like cookie baking classses in Hattie for male prostitutes

Several major U.S. laws enacted by Congress have delegated significant tariff decision-making authority to the executive branch, especially the President. The most important statutes include: 1. Trade Expansion Act of 1962, Section 232 Allows the President to impose tariffs or other trade measures if the Secretary of Commerce determines that imports threaten to impair national security. Widely used in recent years for tariffs on steel, aluminum, and other goods.​ 2. Trade Act of 1974 Section 201: Lets the President impose temporary tariffs if the U.S. International Trade Commission finds that a surge of imports seriously injures domestic production. Section 301: Empowers the President, through the U.S. Trade Representative, to take retaliatory actions (including tariffs) against unfair foreign trade practices or violations of trade agreements.​ Section 122: Allows the President to impose temporary tariffs to address major balance-of-payments deficits or large trade deficits.​ 3. International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977 Gives the President sweeping authority to regulate international commerce, including imposing tariffs, after declaring a national emergency in response to “unusual and extraordinary threats” originating from abroad. Has been used for tariff actions tied to specific emergencies or foreign policy objectives. The U.S. Senate can modify the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977 by passing an amendment or new legislation, and this can be done by a simple majority (at least 51 votes if all Senators are present), just like with any ordinary statute.

pdt is doing the right thing in the right way. for 100 yrs these judges could not tell a tariff from 3rd base. they rekt the economy. often.

Re: #4 - The Supreme Court has such power because the Constitution gives only Congress the power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States. Tariffs are direct taxes the government imposes on goods imported from another country. Duties are indirect taxes imposed on the consumer for imported goods, local goods, and intrastate transactions. The 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, passed by democrat supermajorities in Congress and signed by Pres. Carter, in no way supersedes the Constitution, so the argument rightly goes to the Supreme Court for adjudication. Judge Boasberg has to sit this one out, as it is not a matter for an inferior court. Without having to wink and nod, the USSC has been supportive of many of Trump's challenged assertions but there is no way to know beforehand which way they'll rule.

So there's nothing to worry about. Congress can vote to allow all of these tariffs. Surely the Dems will approve any bill that is part of the Trump agenda. Surely! Ha! I imagine things will be much worse if the Dems win the House in 2026. We will stagnate for at least another two years.

Comments self-censored due to my wish to stay active on Lucianne.

Do they really, or are they doing their due diligence and asking questions? Geesh!

If you thought a "compromised" Roberts was guided by a handler's leash on the "Affordable Care Act", just wait for his pronouncements on Trump's tariffs. Same leash, same handlers, same man who heads out highest court - compromised by...?

i listened to arguments and the conservative justices WERE skeptical.

Appears skeptical? Two layers of speculative opinion. Come back when you have something you can actually report.