Trump's tariffs in court

[Airyaman]

There really isn't a thread about this, but there are actually several cases moving through the courts to try to block Trump's used on "emergency powers" or "national emergency" to levy tariffs.

Therefore, I am dedicating this thread, to be updated as news items come out, about how Trump's tariffs are faring in the court of law.

Here's the first one, and it's rather astounding in that the lawyers on Trump's side aren't even making logical legal arguments, they just sound like Trump.





No country has given a penny in investments yet, so there is nothing to pay back. These are all empty promises, made to get a better tariff rate. What a factually dubious claim.



Did Trump write this, or did some lawyer just dictate the words? Ludicrous.

 

[bongsaway]

The gop making claims that aren't true, say it isn't so.

 

[lwf]

There really isn't a thread about this, but there are actually several cases moving through the courts to try to block Trump's used on "emergency powers" or "national emergency" to levy tariffs.

Therefore, I am dedicating this thread, to be updated as news items come out, about how Trump's tariffs are faring in the court of law.

Here's the first one, and it's rather astounding in that the lawyers on Trump's side aren't even making logical legal arguments, they just sound like Trump.



View attachment 67584167

No country has given a penny in investments yet, so there is nothing to pay back. These are all empty promises, made to get a better tariff rate. What a factually dubious claim.

View attachment 67584168

Did Trump write this, or did some lawyer just dictate the words? Ludicrous.

Man, that is a pathetic argument. I hope for their sake that they have something better than this to present to the courts.

I suppose the other possibility is that Trump has changed his mind about imposing the tariffs, but would rather blame "liberal judges" instead of admitting he made a mistake and has no idea what he is doing. No better way to do that than construct a flawed legal argument that would be easily struck down by any court.

 

[Mr Person]

If we have to pay back trillions?



Nothing has been paid and there aren't any published deals. These courts have got to start holding attorneys in contempt and referring them to the relevant boards of bar overseers, even if the only thing that results is the Federalist Court of the United States further publicly discrediting themselves by ruling that federal district court judges can no longer find people in contempt.

 

[Airyaman]

These people don't have a clue.

Tariff revenue makes it hard for Supreme Court to rule against Trump, Bessent says

Increasing revenues flowing into U.S. government coffers from tariffs would make it difficult for the Supreme Court to rule against the Trump administration on the issue if a lower court case makes its way to country's top court, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on Tuesday.

www.reuters.com

WASHINGTON, Aug 12 (Reuters) - Increasing revenues flowing into U.S. government coffers from tariffs
would make it difficult for the Supreme Court to rule against the Trump administration on the issue if a
lower court case makes its way to country's top court, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on Tuesday.

"The more money coming in, it gets harder and harder for SCOTUS to rule against us," Bessent said in an
interview on Fox Business Network's "Kudlow."

Wut?

Bessent has ruined any credibility he's picked up in his career in just months of being a Trump lackey.

 

[Blue Dog]

Those are not constitutional arguments. That is political posturing…

 

[Airyaman]

Those are not constitutional arguments. That is political posturing…

I assume you mean the whole thread...

 

[craig]

Even though President Donald Trump often argues the US economy is booming under his watch, he warned Friday of a 1929-style crash if courts strike down his use of emergency powers to justify sweeping tariffs.

 

[Airyaman]

Not in court, but don't want to start a separate thread unless some of this gets legs.

It is an effort to push back against even a small part of Trump's tariffs.

All items we simply cannot "make" here should be exempt.

Bananas should not be tariffed.

Cocoa should not be tariffed.

Coffee should not be tariffed.

Tea should not be tariffed (hey, history is calling. We were originally pissed off in this country because of tariffs on our tea.)

I support this small effort at least to stop some of this madness.

 

[Rumblefish]

There really isn't a thread about this, but there are actually several cases moving through the courts to try to block Trump's used on "emergency powers" or "national emergency" to levy tariffs.

Therefore, I am dedicating this thread, to be updated as news items come out, about how Trump's tariffs are faring in the court of law.

Here's the first one, and it's rather astounding in that the lawyers on Trump's side aren't even making logical legal arguments, they just sound like Trump.



View attachment 67584167

No country has given a penny in investments yet, so there is nothing to pay back. These are all empty promises, made to get a better tariff rate. What a factually dubious claim.

View attachment 67584168

Did Trump write this, or did some lawyer just dictate the words? Ludicrous.

Hey, yo....judge.

That money I took illegally (ya know, I stole)?

I can't afford to give it back to the person I stole it from.

Ipso fatso, I get to keep it. Whoa!!

 

[Diving Mullah]

Even though President Donald Trump often argues the US economy is booming under his watch, he warned Friday of a 1929-style crash if courts strike down his use of emergency powers to justify sweeping tariffs.

Another great recession under Trump due to his hasty policy making!!!!

Wow!!! Who could have thought?!?!? (see 2018 to 2020)

Diving Mullah

 

[Rumblefish]

Another great recession under Trump due to his hasty policy making!!!!

Wow!!! Who could have thought?!?!? (see 2018 to 2020)

Diving Mullah

Move fast.
Break things.
Including a pretty darned good economy before he took office.