• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

  • The rule regarding AI content has been updated. The rule now rules as follows:

    Be sure to credit AI when copying and pasting AI sources. Link to the site of the AI search, just like linking to an article.

Supreme Court rules that Trump’s sweeping emergency tariffs are illegal

Aryeh Jay

Stuck on a ship.
Site Supporter
Jul 19, 2012
18,841
17,514
MI - Michigan
✟768,849.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
President Trump should sue the Supreme Court for a Trillion dollars. That will show these rogue activist judges with their destructive agenda their place and let them know who is in charge.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: wing2000
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,620
10,965
New Jersey
✟1,401,868.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
After the loss yesterday Trump announced a blanket 10% tariff, all countries.
Today he announced a 15% tariff, all countries.
Tomorrow don't be surprised if it's a 25% tariff all countries.

Btw, doesn't he already have trade deals in place since liberation day?
If there were actually any fully completed.
The maximum he can do under section 122 is 15%. The law clearly allows it. The only way the SC could stop it would be to say that tariffs are a tax, and Congress can’t delegate taxing authority. I could actually imagine such a decision.
 
Upvote 0

wing2000

E pluribus unum
Site Supporter
Aug 18, 2012
26,451
22,245
✟1,853,436.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The SCOTUS did not rule Trump could not do tariffs!! They (disgustingly ruled) his pathway could not be used!!

The ends justify the illegal means?

He already has a different method for tariffs!!!

Under section 122 - for a period of 150 days only ....applied to all countries.

It is my honest opinion the court should retract such. Every president has used tariffs in the past.
Past Presidents have used targetted tariffs under different authorities. No president has ever used IEEPA to assess tarrifs....which is one of the reasons the court decided the way it did. Once more, executive actions under IEEPA are ntended for national emergencies. Trump argued the trade imbalance was a naitonal emergency. If that's the case, we've had a national emergency since the 1970's. Ironically, our trade deficit went up last year - not down.

Could it be that decision was made simply because it was Trump!!!!!!

No, the decision was based on the Consitution. In the end, the power to tax lies with the Congress.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,620
10,965
New Jersey
✟1,401,868.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
The SCOTUS did not rule Trump could not do tariffs!! They (disgustingly ruled) his pathway could not be used!! He already has a different method for tariffs!!! It is my honest opinion the court should retract such. Every president has used tariffs in the past. Could it be that decision was made simply because it was Trump!!!!!!
No, the ruling was based on the text of the law. It simply didn’t authorize tariffs. Trump argued that the law was ambiguous, so he should be able to interpret it as allowing tariffs. The Courts said that that the power he was claiming was sufficiently weighty that if Congress had wanted to give it to him, they would have done so clearly. This type of reasoning is consistent with how this SC has been operating.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,620
10,965
New Jersey
✟1,401,868.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
There are laws that allow the president to impose tariffs based either on national defense considerations, or on trade practices of other countries. This would seem to provide sufficient authority for Trump to do whatever he wants. However some investigation is needed, so he can’t just do it on a whim. Still, the investigations are under his control, so there doesn’t seem much of a limit except in timimg.
 
Upvote 0

Say it aint so

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2020
4,342
3,634
28
Seattle
✟205,366.00
Country
United States
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
The maximum he can do under section 122 is 15%. The law clearly allows it. The only way the SC could stop it would be to say that tariffs are a tax, and Congress can’t delegate taxing authority. I could actually imagine such a decision.
One hand, I understand what you're saying. On the other hand when has not adhering to courts been an issue with Trump? The funny thing about section 122 (that can only last 5 months) it's meant to redress “large and serious United States balance-of-payment deficits” something that has been exacerbated since the implementation of his tariffs.
 
Upvote 0

7thKeeper

Venture life, Burn your Dread
Jul 8, 2006
2,863
2,639
Finland
✟202,663.00
Country
Finland
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
In Relationship
President Trump should sue the Supreme Court for a Trillion dollars. That will show these rogue activist judges with their destructive agenda their place and let them know who is in charge.
Well Trump did say that he needs to do something about these judges.
 
Upvote 0

RileyG

Veteran
Christian Forums Staff
Red Team - Moderator
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Feb 10, 2013
40,653
22,414
30
Nebraska
✟959,469.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0

wing2000

E pluribus unum
Site Supporter
Aug 18, 2012
26,451
22,245
✟1,853,436.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
FEDEX filed suit against the government, joining several other companies:

The suit does not say how much FedEx has paid in IEEPA tariffs since Trump imposed them on most U.S. trading partners last year.

But in September, FedEx had said that it expected it would take a $1 billion hit to its earnings for the fiscal year because of U.S. trade policies, not all of which involved IEEPA duties. That dollar amount represents 16% of total earnings for the prior fiscal year.

 
Upvote 0

wing2000

E pluribus unum
Site Supporter
Aug 18, 2012
26,451
22,245
✟1,853,436.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
...from yesterday:

“The supreme court (will be using lower case letters for a while based on a complete lack of respect!) of the United States accidentally and unwittingly gave me, as President of the United States, far more powers and strength than I had prior to their ridiculous, dumb, and very internationally divisive ruling.” He claimed that he could “do absolutely ‘terrible’ things to foreign countries” and that the court has approved other tariffs that “can all be used in a much more powerful and obnoxious way, with legal certainty, than the Tariffs as initially used.”

At 9:34 this morning, Trump threatened: “Any Country that wants to ‘play games’ with the ridiculous supreme court decision, especially those that have ‘Ripped Off’ the U.S.A. for years, and even decades, will be met with a much higher Tariff, and worse, than that which they just recently agreed to. BUYER BEWARE!!! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DONALD J. TRUMP”

Fifteen minutes later, he posted: “As President, I do not have to go back to Congress to get approval of Tariffs. It has already been gotten, in many forms, a long time ago! They were also just reaffirmed by the ridiculous and poorly crafted supreme court decision! President DJT”

 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Fact-Based Lifeform
Oct 17, 2011
46,337
48,997
Los Angeles Area
✟1,093,184.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
After 150 days, Congress would have to renew them.
Rep. James Comer (R-KY), the chair of the House Oversight Committee, promised "to do whatever the president wants" after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Donald Trump illegally imposed tariffs around the world.

[FOrtunately, it's not all up to him alone.]

"Honestly, Maria, it's going to be difficult," Comer replied. "We had six Republicans that voted with the Democrats against Trump's tariffs last week. We just got some Republicans who just aren't going to go along with that."
 
Upvote 0

wing2000

E pluribus unum
Site Supporter
Aug 18, 2012
26,451
22,245
✟1,853,436.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The 15% tariff, that went into effect today, may be facing a legal challenge, with a former federal prosecuter stating they are illegal:

"..the president said the nation’s “balance of payments,” a comprehensive account of Americans’ financial transactions with foreigners, was suffering “a large and serious deficit.” And he listed a number of metrics reflecting a deteriorating U.S. financial posture.

The law does not define “balance-of-payments deficit,” and economists disagree about what should be included in the term. But several critics, including the International Monetary Fund’s former chief economist and a prominent conservative legal commentator, disputed the president’s claim. Trump wrongly conflated an alleged payments deficit with the merchandise trade deficit that he targeted last year with his first set of comprehensive tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), they said.

“The US does not have a ‘payments’ problem. It can finance its trade deficits,” Gita Gopinath, the former IMF official, now teaching at Harvard University, wrote on X.

Added Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, writing in the conservative National Review: “These new tariffs are even more clearly illegal than Trump’s IEEPA tariffs.”



 
Upvote 0

jmldn2

Newbie
Site Supporter
Nov 20, 2013
595
251
North Carolina
✟163,657.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
No, the ruling was based on the text of the law. It simply didn’t authorize tariffs. Trump argued that the law was ambiguous, so he should be able to interpret it as allowing tariffs. The Courts said that that the power he was claiming was sufficiently weighty that if Congress had wanted to give it to him, they would have done so clearly. This type of reasoning is consistent with how this SC has been operating.
The main conservative Justice Thomas gave a scathing dissent to what those 6 justices decided!!! That decision about tariffs was totally political. It was unnecessary and disastrous for the economy of this nation. Congress has a 20% approval rating. They can't even decide to pass a law for protecting the ethics of voting protection. AS well, the president does have (as presidents in the past) power to protect and rev up the economy, revenue for the USA. The SCOTUS has become tainted.
 
Upvote 0

jmldn2

Newbie
Site Supporter
Nov 20, 2013
595
251
North Carolina
✟163,657.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The ends justify the illegal means?



Under section 122 - for a period of 150 days only ....applied to all countries.


Past Presidents have used targetted tariffs under different authorities. No president has ever used IEEPA to assess tarrifs....which is one of the reasons the court decided the way it did. Once more, executive actions under IEEPA are ntended for national emergencies. Trump argued the trade imbalance was a naitonal emergency. If that's the case, we've had a national emergency since the 1970's. Ironically, our trade deficit went up last year - not down.



No, the decision was based on the Consitution. In the end, the power to tax lies with the Congress.
The SCOTUS has become tainted with the usual politics. The President is targeted on that platform as he is in every other path he takes trying to protect the interests of the USA.
 
Upvote 0

jmldn2

Newbie
Site Supporter
Nov 20, 2013
595
251
North Carolina
✟163,657.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Congress has a party which has lost their way and no longer represent what that party was formed for. I am speaking of the Democrat party. Anyone who cannot see that IMHO needs help. The other party is weak, placating to the demands of that dem party. Congress is no longer representing the people.
 
Upvote 0