‘Not for unelected judges to decide’

[SNOWFLAKE]

Righties will no doubt agree wholeheartedly.

Trump admin says tariffs are ‘immune from judicial scrutiny’ as it appeals order blocking levies​

Trump's tariffs back on after federal appeals court halts lower court's blockbuster ruling

A federal appeals court on Thursday afternoon halted a lower court ruling which held that the Trump administration's various tariffs were unlawful and could not be enforced

lawandcrime.com

The administration asserted that “the Court erred” by interfering with Trump’s ability to conduct foreign affairs, arguing that halting the tariffs, even temporarily, could pose a grave risk to the state of international relations and U.S. national security.

I was thinking about what line of defense Righties will use to back Trump's assertions. One of them will no doubt be about activist judges. Except.......

The three-judge panel, which consisted of appointees from Presidents Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama, and Trump

Oh no, Trump picked an activist judge who has gone woke and suffers TDS.

 

[aociswundumho]

I was thinking about what line of defense Righties will use to back Trump's assertions.

I'm right wing.

Trump is an idiot, his tariffs would be extremely bad for America, and I'm very happy the court stopped him.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

I'm right wing.

Trump is an idiot, his tariffs would be extremely bad for America, and I'm very happy the court stopped him.

BUT you are only one voice among Righties. Just give it a bit, soon we will have the usual apologists showing up to declare there was something seriously wrong with this court decision.

 

[Napoleon]

This isn’t a right or left issue. Presidents have been imposing and modifying tariffs since 1789. If that is suddenly unconstitutional then what is the tariff landscape?

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

This isn’t a right or left issue. Presidents have been imposing and modifying tariffs since 1789. If that is suddenly unconstitutional then what is the tariff landscape?

You tell us. I suspect you are a constitutional expert, so please, give us your opinion and how it would be wiser than a panel of three judges, one appointed by Trump.

 

[Napoleon]

You tell us.

I have no idea. What were they before Biden, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, Ford, etc etc?

I suspect you are a constitutional expert, so please, give us your opinion and how it would be wiser than a panel of three judges, one appointed by Trump.

I don’t see a satisfactory reason cited by the panel for why they think this is suddenly unconstitutional. Courts have no constitutional authority in tariff decisions.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

I have no idea. What were they before Biden, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, Ford, etc etc?

I don’t see a satisfactory reason cited by the panel for why they think this is suddenly unconstitutional. Courts have no constitutional authority in tariff decisions.

Then you have nothing to be concerned about. Trump's SCOTUS will set those rogue judges straight. In the meantime, Trump is obligated to abide by the current court's decision.

 

[Napoleon]

Then you have nothing to be concerned about. Trump's SCOTUS will set those rogue judges straight. In the meantime, Trump is obligated to abide by the current court's decision.

He is not obligated to abide by an unconstitutional usurpation of his authority by the court.

 

[Callen]

This isn’t a right or left issue. Presidents have been imposing and modifying tariffs since 1789. If that is suddenly unconstitutional then what is the tariff landscape?

Your right. it's a legal and Constitutional issue. The Trump administration used a very specific law as justification for his across the board tariffs. The court acknowledged that there are areas under the law, like national security, where a President has the right to impose tariffs. An across the board tariff of 10% based on trade deficit concerns isn't one of them.


"The Constitution assigns Congress the exclusive powers to ‘lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,’ and to ‘regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,’" the court opined. "The question in the two cases before the court is whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 ("IEEPA") delegates these powers to the President in the form of authority to impose unlimited tariffs on goods from nearly every country in the world. The court does not read IEEPA to confer such unbounded authority and sets aside the challenged tariffs imposed thereunder," the court continued.

""The court holds for the foregoing reasons that IEEPA does not authorize any of the Worldwide, Retaliatory, or Trafficking Tariff Orders. The Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariff Orders exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs," the panel wrote. "The Trafficking Tariffs fail because they do not deal with the threats set forth in those orders."

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

I don’t see a satisfactory reason cited by the panel for why they think this is suddenly unconstitutional. Courts have no constitutional authority in tariff decisions.

I knew you wouldn't disappoint me. I also knew the judges would have less knowledge about the constitution than YOU would.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

He is not obligated to abide by an unconstitutional usurpation of his authority by the court.

Yes, he is. Until SCOTUS rules in his favor, the lower court's order is the law. NOBODY gets to ignore federal court orders. Nobody.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

NOBODY gets to ignore federal court orders. Nobody.

Trump does because he is the President, and the bestest President ever, and is only trying to MAGA, and activist judges should not stand in his way.

 

[Napoleon]

Your right. it's a legal and Constitutional issue. The Trump administration used a very specific law as justification for his across the board tariffs. The court acknowledged that there are areas under the law, like national security, where a President has the right to impose tariffs. An across the board tariff of 10% based on trade deficit concerns isn't one of them.


"The Constitution assigns Congress the exclusive powers to ‘lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,’ and to ‘regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,’" the court opined. "The question in the two cases before the court is whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 ("IEEPA") delegates these powers to the President in the form of authority to impose unlimited tariffs on goods from nearly every country in the world. The court does not read IEEPA to confer such unbounded authority and sets aside the challenged tariffs imposed thereunder," the court continued.

""The court holds for the foregoing reasons that IEEPA does not authorize any of the Worldwide, Retaliatory, or Trafficking Tariff Orders. The Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariff Orders exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs," the panel wrote. "The Trafficking Tariffs fail because they do not deal with the threats set forth in those orders."

As previously noted, there hasn’t been a President who didn’t impose or otherwise modify tariffs. They haven’t answered why that is suddenly unconstitutional.

 

[Callen]

He is not obligated to abide by an unconstitutional usurpation of his authority by the court.

It is not up to him to decide what is Constitutional or not. There is nothing about this ruling that usurps his authority under the law.

 

[Napoleon]

Yes, he is. Until SCOTUS rules in his favor, the lower court's order is the law. NOBODY gets to ignore federal court orders. Nobody.

The President’s obligation to uphold the constitution trumps the desire of a court to crown itself king. The President can absolutely ignore an unconstitutional court order and there’s nothing you can do about it.

 

[Callen]

As previously noted, there hasn’t been a President who didn’t impose or otherwise modify tariffs. They haven’t answered why that is suddenly unconstitutional.

I did. The order was very clear. Trump has no authority under IEEPA, which is the authority he cited in his EO, to impose across the board tariffs based on trade imbalances. Other tariffs he declared, citing National Security concerns, were left in place. This order does not remove all tariffs just the arbitrary 10% ones imposed on all countries.

 

[Napoleon]

I did. The order was very clear. Trump has no authority under IEEPA, which is the authority he cited in his EO, to impose across the board tariffs based on trade imbalances.

As I’ve clearly pointed out, Presidents have been imposing and modifying tariffs without any legislative directive for most of this country’s history. So, neither you nor the court have explained why it’s suddenly unconstitutional or answered what I asked - what is the tariff landscape if what Presidents have been doing for the last few centuries is unconstitutional?

 

[Stealers Wheel]

The President’s obligation to uphold the constitution trumps the desire of a court to crown itself king. The President can absolutely ignore an unconstitutional court order and there’s nothing you can do about it.

Again, when or if SCOTUS weighs in, we'll know if what you say is true. And if SCOTUS, rules against Trump, you'll be here telling us that Trump's own appointees are trying to destroy his presidency. You want, you NEED Trump to have absolute power. If he gets it, the republic is done.

 

[Napoleon]

Again, when or if SCOTUS weighs in, we'll know if what you say is true. And if SCOTUS, rules against Trump, you'll be here telling us that Trump's own appointees are trying to destroy his presidency. You want, you NEED Trump to have absolute power. If he gets it, the republic is done.

No, the Republic would have been done if the Democrats had managed to gaslight the public into electing that mentally incapacitated husk so it could install a shadow government in the White House. Pushing back on the courts is not a phenomenon new or unique to Donald Trump. That fact doesn't change just because the left has recently decided to clutch its pearls over it.

 

[BirdinHand]

This isn’t a right or left issue. Presidents have been imposing and modifying tariffs since 1789. If that is suddenly unconstitutional then what is the tariff landscape?

Can you please show us which president, in the history of the US, has ever issued blanket global tariffs?

 

[Napoleon]

Can you please show us which president, in the history of the US, has ever issued blanket global tariffs?

The issue isn’t blanket global tariffs. That is not a qualifier that appears anywhere in this decision. What the Court said is that it is suddenly unconstitutional for Presidents to unilaterally impose or modify tariffs - a practice Presidents have engaged in for centuries.

Now it’s your turn to answer questions. What is the tariff landscape if what Presidents have been doing for the last few centuries is unconstitutional and we therefore have to roll it all back?

 

[Callen]

Presidents have been imposing and modifying tariffs without any legislative directive for most of this country’s history.

Not true. That's where your argument, weak as it is, falls apart. No President has imposed tariffs without citing the proper legislative authority to do so.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

The issue isn’t blanket global tariffs. That is not a qualifier that appears anywhere in this decision. What the Court said is that it is suddenly unconstitutional for Presidents to unilaterally impose or modify tariffs - a practice Presidents have engaged in for centuries.

Now it’s your turn to answer questions. What is the tariff landscape if what Presidents have been doing for the last few centuries is unconstitutional and we therefore have to roll it all back?

How ironic that YOU make those accusations and expect the rest of us to dispute your claims when you gave us ZERO legal analysis, only repeating the lame old line "Others have imposed tariffs, so why they going after Trump?"

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/02/06/how-the-us-has-used-tariffs-through-history-and-why-trump-is-different.html

Why has a US court blocked Donald Trump’s tariffs – and can he get round it?

Challenge to president’s policies raises questions about his trade and economic plans

www.theguardian.com

If, however, and as I suspect, you will not delve deeper into the nuances and just keep crying "why Trump", I don't think ANY of us owe you an explanation if you are too lazy to look up the difference.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

Not true. That's where your argument, weak as it is, falls apart. No President has imposed tariffs without citing the proper legislative authority to do so.

However, it is clear from our exchanges with Napoleon, that he has a clearler legal understanding and far greater constitutional knowledge than the three judges. Hence, the judges (one appointed by Trump) MUST HAVE IT WRONG.

 

[Ishm]

As previously noted, there hasn’t been a President who didn’t impose or otherwise modify tariffs. They haven’t answered why that is suddenly unconstitutional.

As I’ve clearly pointed out, Presidents have been imposing and modifying tariffs without any legislative directive for most of this country’s history. So, neither you nor the court have explained why it’s suddenly unconstitutional or answered what I asked - what is the tariff landscape if what Presidents have been doing for the last few centuries is unconstitutional?

To help understand your point, give us some examples of the tariffs that previous presidents have applied without congress please. so we can look at the circumstances of those cases.