Trump warns ‘we’re screwed’ if Supreme
Court rules against emergency tariffs

They're sure to do it, then.

if scotus rules against tariffs, scotus will be screwed. they are much despised, treacherous creeps and reptiles. they are loathsome and loathed. they didn't like it when their leftoid 'pals' rioted and threatened them-- in their homes. they won't like the rest of america any better.

There goes the economy...again! The Dems started ruining us, the Supremes will finish us off. Dumbasses!

Considering Congress had recently voted to stop the tariffs on Brazil, I would hope SCOTUS would realize that very same Congress could have stopped the President on any of the other negotiations he was pursuing. It is my view that he simply used the threat of a tariff as part of the negotiations, and it certainly looks like Congress allowed him to do so, except when they decided to intervene.

I give it a 50-50 chance .

Maybe it would be a time to say screw it to the court.

Hard to believe they would make such a stupid decision, but we have 3 that are unqualified to be judges in Traffic Court ,and Roberts.

FTA: "...if, for any reason, the Supreme Court were to rule against the United States of America on Tariffs..." The United States of America were established through the Declaration of Independence; however the framework for governance of the US was established by our Constitution, which in Article 1(Legislative Branch), Section 8 (Enumerated Powers of Congress) explicitly gave Congress the power and authority to lay and collect tariffs. Laws written by Congress have given presidents a role in tariffs, so perhaps some way forward that is Constitutional and not detrimental to the U.S. economy can be found. Elements of the non-delegation doctrine (e.g., Congress cannot make a law that contravenes a Constitutionally enumerated power) may come into play, as #4 suggests, provided Trump and the majorities in Congress are on the same page with regard to tariffs. Past SCOTUS rulings on the matter have required that any presidential actions on tariffs be based on an intelligible principle, which is another way of saying that the president must be on the same page as Congress for his/her tariff actions to be Constitutional. The 1928 non-delegation case, J. W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States, in which the Supreme Court upheld Congress’s delegation of authority to the President to set tariff rates that would equalize production costs in the United States and competing countries. The Court’s opinion, written by Chief Justice Taft, emphasized that Congress was restrained only according to “common sense and the inherent necessities” of governmental cooperation in seeking the assistance of another branch. The Court explained that Congress could delegate discretion to other entities to “secure the exact effect” of legislation if it provides an “intelligible principle” to which the President or other entity must conform. All will not be lost of the president picks up a phone and ensures that the House and Senate are on board with the scope and direction of Trump's tariff strategies and vice versa.

I'd feel a little more comfortable if Roberts hadn't twisted logic into a pretzel in order to preserve Obamacare.

#8 has been informed and informative throughout on this subject. Whether Congress can delegate its sole constitutional authority for tariffs to the President is a serious question that doesn't--and shouldn't--depend on how much we like this president. What the supreme court allows President Trump to do for us, the next Democrat president could very well do to us. What if a Newsom-level nincompoop gets elected president and decides to arbitrarily raise tarrifs on any country that isn't fighting global warming? Then there's this: President Trump imposed these tarrifs under the auspices of Congressional legislation whose intent was to allow the president to protect our country during a national security crisis or emergency. If anyone thinks imposing tariffs on Switzerland, who used to buy more from us than we bought from them before the Trump tariffs, addressed some kind of genuine threat to our country, they think less of our country than I do. Even many of us who agree with President Trump on most things found his rationale(s) for raising and lowering tariffs specious and self-contradictory. And the mechanisms he used for doing so were ludicrous--executive orders, pseudo-executive orders, personal letters, social media pronouncements etc. We are a republic governed by vlaws; not a banana republic governed by presidential fiat. If President Trump had submitted his overall trade policy and tarrif decisions to Congress in any form--even retroactively--the supreme court would no basis to overturn any of it. But he didn't, and they may very well overturn all of it I don't like the supreme court at the best of times, and I absolutely detest the commonly-believed fallacy that the supreme court has the power to decide that laws duly passed by Congress and signed by the President are not constitutional. But President Trump's tariffs aren't laws; they aren't even trade agreements in most cases. Depending on the details of the specific case before the court, the President is unlikely to win this one. He may not even deserve to.