President Trump posted the importance of the Supreme Court case to support presidential authority on Tariffs.
The heart of the argument really is the “trillions at stake” aspect we have discussed on these pages for the past ten years. If the institutions of our government factually want to dispatch President Trump and diminish the American middle-class, the Supreme Court will support the multinational corporations and Wall Street in decision to remove presidential tariff authority.
[Via Truth Social] – “Next week’s Case on Tariffs is one of the most important in the History of the Country. If a President is not allowed to use Tariffs, we will be at a major disadvantage against all other Countries throughout the World, especially the “Majors.” In a true sense, we would be defenseless! Tariffs have brought us Great Wealth and National Security in the nine months that I have had the Honor to serve as President. The Stock Market has hit All Time Highs many times during my short time in Office, with virtually No Inflation, and National Security that is second to none.
Our recent successful negotiation with China, and many others, put us in a strong position only because we had Tariffs with which to negotiate fair and sustainable Deals. If a President was not able to quickly and nimbly use the power of Tariffs, we would be defenseless, leading perhaps even to the ruination of our Nation. The only people fighting us are Foreign Countries who for years have taken advantage of us, those who hate our Country and, the Democrats, because our numbers are insurmountably good.
I will not be going to the Court on Wednesday in that I do not want to distract from the importance of this Decision. It will be, in my opinion, one of the most important and consequential Decisions ever made by the United States Supreme Court. If we win, we will be the Richest, Most Secure Country anywhere in the World, BY FAR. If we lose, our Country could be reduced to almost Third World status — Pray to God that that doesn’t happen!”
President Donald J Trump – Nov 02, 2025, 6:54 PM
It will be interesting to see which of the 6 Republican-appointed justices have greater allegiances to the globalists than the United States Constitution.
CJ Roberts.
He’s a given. We’ll see who else joins him.
amy corny barret.
And home threatened Kavanaugh.
Plus it will have to clever. As in, he is allowed in these strict circumstances, and not under these circumstances
While the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate foreign commerce and impose tariffs; Congress has delegated some of this authority to the President through statute.
Specifically, pay attention to the “Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 122, 201, 301) which permits the President to adjust tariffs in response to trade imbalances. That is what the President has done: adjust tariffs in response to trade imbalances in what the White House named “The Fair and Reciprocal Plan.”
See here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/02/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-announces-fair-and-reciprocal-plan-on-trade/
Now this U.S. Supreme Court case is different than the above. The U.S. Supreme Court is deciding the legality of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) which the legislature enacted in 1977. This case, known as Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, challenges whether the president has the authority to impose tariffs without explicit congressional approval under the IEEPA.
I’m not a political attorney but it seems to me that even if he loses the ability to uni-laterally impose tariffs without explicit congressional approval under the IEEPA; he should still be able to implement tariffs to correct trade imbalances, uni-laterally outside of a national emergency, through the power entrusted to the President from Congress under the Trade Act of 1974.
I imagine SCOTUS will limit the President’s ability to implement his administration’s “Fair and Reciprocal Plan” under the IEEPA; however, if Congress doesn’t alter the Trade Act of 1974 then I imagine the President will just keep going under that authority.
Am I wrong?
Are there any alternatives for President Trump if SCOTUS rules against it?
To quote Joe Biden “this is a big f’ing deal”.
Yes. Inspect every single screw, bolt, piece of thread, or grain of rice that comes into the country. Bring imports to a screeching halt until they’re begging for the tariffs to be put back into place.
Perhaps I am wrong, but I believe their argument is that it is Congress’ responsibility to levy tariffs.
We have had at least one instance where the usual RINO’s in the Senate have tried to show their importance on trade/tariffs, but it is doubtful that effort ever makes any headway.
If SCOTUS rules against it, then President Trump should simply tell Congress that he will be submitting every current successful trade deal to them to ratify or do whatever they need to do, and remind them the deals came about because of his tariffs.
And loudly remind everyone of the trillions in investments involved in these deals that is now in limbo because of an activist judiciary and those RINO’s.
Or simply demand they ratify every deal currently made as agreed on by both countries as a single package. Congress often has no problem passing various laws or spending as a monstrous package, so they should have no problem authorizing these trade deals as a package.
Congress gave tariff authority over to the President via several pieces of legislation:
Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act (1934): Authorized the President to negotiate bilateral trade deals and adjust tariffs by up to 50% without further congressional approval, marking the first major delegation of tariff authority to combat the Great Depression.
• Trade Expansion Act (1962): Empowered the President to impose tariffs or quotas if imports threaten national security (Section 232) and to reduce tariffs in trade negotiations, expanding executive flexibility in trade policy.
• Trade Act (1974): Granted the President authority to retaliate against unfair foreign trade practices with tariffs (Section 301) and to impose temporary tariffs for balance-of-payments crises, solidifying broad unilateral trade powers.
• International Emergency Economic Powers Act (1977): Allowed the President to regulate imports, including via tariffs, during declared national emergencies, providing a controversial tool for economic actions against perceived threats.
• Trade Preferences Extension Act (2015): Reauthorized Trade Promotion Authority, enabling the President to negotiate and implement trade agreements with tariff changes under expedited congressional review, reinforcing executive leadership in trade.
The Uniparty is only crying now- cuz their money pots have been disrupted.
so the real question is , Can Congress delegate its Constitutional authority? I say NO. Congress has done this over and over. I guess so they can “Investigate” get sound bites and run for re-election.
Looks like they did in those laws. And what’s passed by Congress is law.
Good grief folks. A lesson here…..
Assuming Congress has the power to delegate their authority is how we got the unconstitutional administrative state we so hate…all those executive branch offices that unlawfully make “rules” about our everyday life unlawfully!!!
Congress passed the laws above referenced in revere’s post.
Are these not legally valid?
The laws are valid until checked for “Constitutionality” by the courts.
Probably the feature of the process and not the flaw.
Congress passed laws authorizing the president to negotiate tariffs. You are correct in citing the Constitution, yet Congress exercised its authority in granting the power to the president.
Those have requirements. Some do. For example, a report establishing the differences ( I assume in tarrifs between countries and demonstrate it’s use to balance)
There is a good chance in a neutral country the presidential powers granted wouldnt apply, unless you know something that trumps it all.
Good news for us is the global groups have been maxing out tarrifs against us in a huge imbalance to collect money at transition points
It’s always about:
Money and power
and
Power and money
I believe that he has done all of it under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, don’t you think that that will be the argument?
Summary
232 and 301
Can anyone post the text in the Constitution regarding. Congress or the pres
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48435
Student loan presidence
Alito- yes, Thomas- yes, Gorsuch- yes (because he is a literalist), Kavanagh- yes (because the Dems will impeach him if they get back in power), Roberts- no (trojan horse compromised skunk), the 3 commies no. That leaves Coney-Barrett. From what i’ve heard, she’s McConnell’s dream pick. Always in favor of corporations and big business, who hate tariffs. Coney-Barrett is the swing vote, and I’m afraid I don’t hold out much hope. But God saved President Trump from that bullett, and He is in control.
Ugh.
So if this flipped, who would have the ability to raise or lower tariffs? Dirty Congress?
Congress can’t even construct and pass a budget, one of their most basic duties. Totally worthless. So if they are Plan B, well, there is no Plan B.
It’s because our congress represents the largest donor groups.
And for some reason PACs and orgs exist that can do the above the max individual level ( similar to ballot harvesting, just collecting many individuals and bulk grouping the donation)
It’s going to bea argued to hurt us. It will never be flipped.
This is the reverse matt gaetz nomination that started internal debates. Congress will scream they can, and supreme will rule they delegated it in those laws passed but in limited circumstances that require a report and reason ( he has already done that).
So supreme Court will play dumb, and say he needs to do another.
Roberts – yes.
Roberts is best buds with Boasberg, so I wouldn’t hold out too much hope for that yes.
Roberts is a conspirator that is fighting for his life in the shadow ( one toe out since obamacare made a tax, hence the the timing and gov shutdown and the healthcare insurance buying window coming up)
Roberts will be the Yes but.
He will stipulate that each specific requirement for each new law passed must be met often, again, and in submissive following in detail expressed by the combative Senate group
Barrett is a statist. As it does not involve a matter involving personal liberties, I suspect she will follow the conservative majority on this one as it being within the prerogative of the Executive.
She purchased black kids. That is a very different mind. I don’t even think they were black Americans, which is a even wilder type of mind.
To feel such sorrow for haiti while not going after Hillary for her team trying to steal groups of children and here is a huge disconnect ( these idiots are far more isolated via a susiew iles like idiot than PDJT is)
Plus choosing Haiti children shows she does not view the poor American blacks as valuable or havin a hard time.
It’s a touchy topic because people can platitude you into a pulp
Her judicial history and temperament is well researched at this point.
Whenever a personal liberty under the Bill of Rights intersects a plausible governmental interest, she has displayed a profound lean towards the state’s interests and against those rights. That is why I routinely giver her the label as a statist.
In intergovernmental disputes, she tends to chart a more neutral course. But tends to lean more liberally towards the more authoritarian side of the spectrum at times. This is consistent with her Catholic background and upbringing in my opinion. That tends to bode well for the Executive in many instances of Constitutional interpretation. It also explains some of her family choices a little better. Catholics aren’t conservative across the board, and tend to fall for authority figures.
Her stance on abortion was a particular feature attracting her nomination, but frankly there were better and more balanced conservative candidates that PDJT passed over for her. A mark of PDJT’s newness at the process then. And her early newness and inexperience purportedly had her more influenced early on by corrupt Roberts than was wise.
BTW, Justice Thomas is a black man. And that’s a mind about as conservative as it gets.
“Justice Thomas is a black man. And that’s a mind about as conservative as it gets.”
May The LORD CONTINUE TO BLESS
If John Roberts F’s around, he’s going to find out.
Was Antonin Scalia death possibly a contract hit?
Of course it was. Suicided with a pillow over his head.
yes, next question.
What was the timing. And what care was passed by tax in conspiracy with a judge writing law for the firstt time.
See Podesta Emails via Wikileaks. Surprised he hasn’t hung yet.
MAGA!!
I think there is that Epstein matter. His inner circle is on the ropes. Sheldon, Mary, Norm et al. I would not be surprised to see him retire to spend more time with his family or due to serious unnamed illness.
They’re feeling some heat. There’s no way that they let their ringer tap out just when they need him the most. He made a deal with the devil and the devil always gets his due.
By who? Some wimp RINO?
“Pray to God that that doesn’t happen!”
2 Chronicles 7:14
If My people, which are called by My name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways; then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
Based on what Trump has accomplished with tariffs thus far, the SCOTUS will be taking a pragmatic view such that the US Congress as a group could never achieve these results for America. How would the Congress even go about it? These are not Legislative decisions, they are Executive decisions. If the Congress disagrees with any of the tariffs they can put forth legislation, which the Senate has already done in the case of Brazil and Canada.
Like Dred Scott?
Presidents have authority over Tariffs.
Trade Acts of 1962 and 1974.
The Tariffs were all put into place in 2018.
From 2021——2025, “Joe” did not terminate one single Tariff.
From 2021——2025, NOT ONE single Judge tried to block a Tariff.
And not that it matters because it’s Presidential Authority, but just for support sake, the House and Senate from 2021—2023, were Democrat controlled…
So, Libtard, if President Trump is the problem, explain why “Joe” didn’t terminate a Tariff?
https://t.me/rattletrap1776/18178
Great point Liz.
The nexus of Congressional delegation to the President for the imposition of tariffs can also be found within 19 USC § 1351.
There is ample legislative precedent delegating this authority to the Executive throughout the 20th Century. It is not a hard case, and trade agreements negotiated by the President under that statute do not require further Congressional approval. There are only quantitative limits placed on the modification of existing schedules, most of which restrict the reduction of duties imposed.
More importantly, the present case before the Court has been effectively brought and financed by foreign entities, in an effort to interfere with the trade policies of this country, as an element of a campaign of economic aggression against the United States, for the primary benefit of their foreign home nations. Those considerations, and the delegation to the President to protect against such considerations, are hinted at within the scope of the above Section 1351.
And for that reason, this case and the issues it raises, should also be treated involving national security, falling under the purview of the Executive. Economic aggression, in the form of foreign taxes, was the basis for the very formation of the Republic, and its war of liberation from the British Empire.
Could be an avenue to cite foreign donations ( country or a company hq’d in a foreign country) to Congress making their power exempt
I had not read it before posting (I’m retired and have read far too much over the years), but the Solicitor General emphasized the national security factor heavily in the President’s brief. And also the fact that there has historically been a deference and a wider exception given to the doctrine of non-delegation where foreign trade matters are concerned, for that reason. Trade involves national security interests in the extreme.
While the inherent power to tariff as a form of raising revenue rests with Congress under Article I, the Executive is practically more agile and far better equipped to deal with emergent trade developments, and trade considerations and situations that rise to or encompass serious national security and foreign policy elements, which are within the President’s Article II wheelhouse. Such as massive structural trade imbalances and deficits (and the resultant loss of industrial capability) affecting national defense.
All of which is why that tariffs (whether called duties or charges or something else, and one lower court engaged in nomenclature games here do dodge it) authority has been historically substantially passed over to the President for well over a Century, under myriad statutes. And the courts have consistently upheld those assignments.
The fact that PDJT used an Emergency Declaration power under one of these trade statues (not the one I cited) only underscores the Executive’s unique qualification and designated authority to deal with more perilous and urgent trade situations that threaten the Nation’s core economic health.
This was not one of my primary areas of practice, so I am merely surfing the whitecaps on it. But I think it’s an easy case in PDJT’s favor based on what I’ve seen.
However, the Judiciary has become so politicized, polarized and unbalanced in recent years that I wouldn’t bet the house on it.
I don’t believe “Joe” was with us…..
Find the requirements for the president in each law you referenced.
That will be the judges rule, even though he has already met it. This will open money up to the parasites, make negotiation with China and Russia harder, and attempt to demonstrate to the world to not fear America or PDJT because “they” got him under their thumb via by the book ignorance interpretation
Deagal 2025 playing out real time.
I am as worried about the outcome of this case as I was about US v Trump.
Which is to say, not at all.
SCOTUS in these very big issues is just part of The Show now, and has been since before Dobbs.
A picture is with 1,000 words, and a picture of an ear can do wonders for the judicial disposition.
; )
The TS post is to draw attention to the case (he already knows the outcome), and emphasize to whom the credit for the new tariff based US operating budget will be owed.
The word, “tariff,” does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. But “Article 3,” which defines the Supreme Court, also does not define any legislative nor executive role for the Court. All of these prerogatives have simply been “assumed” by said Court, including the entire term “unconstitutional.” (Which also does not appear.)
These matters are assigned to Congress to decide, and for the Executive to then execute. The Executive can only act in the manner prescribed by Congressional law. And, Trump has done so.
So, the Court has no legitimate power over “tariffs,” one way or the other. In particular, the Court cannot simply “become the Executive.” Although they would obviously like to do so.
We do not have “420” Executives. Nor do we have “9.”
We have 100s of emperors in the lesser federal courts.
Time to Biden student loan them
There you go again, using logic and law Mike…both of which mean nothing to our nation’s enemies. Pray there aren’t too many of them on the court.
How would the Supreme Court like it if President Trump tried to usurp their authority?
They wouldn’t like it one bit yet it seems the corrupt federal judiciary will continue to usurp the Presidents authority until he actually ignores their unconstitutional and usurping rulings.
As much as they whined about bident doing it with student loans
Article 1 sec 8 is what AI keep referencing, saying congress has power on taxes
Section 8: Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
There are laws passed since this
+5
“Imposes” is a verb meaning to levy or enforce, such as a government imposing a tax, while “imports” is a noun referring to goods or services brought into a country from another. In trade, a country imposes tariffs on imports to make foreign goods more expensive.
For those interested, here is Solicitor General Sour’s opening Brief:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-1287/375365/20250919182906186_24-1287ts_Govt_IEEPATariffs_final.pdf
Our President has a plan and has assembled a solid team (with two or three exceptions, perhaps 😉 )
I agree with Alex.
The whole brief is 82 pages, but I encourage you to read the Summary of Argument beginning at page 32.
Basically, although not explicitly arguing for it, they asking the Court to rule this as a Political Grounds” matter. Meaning its up to the Legislature and Executive to work it out and outside the Courts jurisdiction.
Although, if you read from the beginning the facts presented regarding deals already made and the amount of upheaval ($15T) that would ensue from an adverse decision. It’s a compelling argument.
The China agreement, and him reducing as it benefits our country is another win
Which is why I was shocked on the timing.
Pessure China so hard that aid his supreme court case just prior by agreeing to a deal humbly
This is the SCOTUS President Trump has to work with:
We have a 4-2-2-1 Court…4 solid justices who can be depended on to interpret the U.S. Constitution as the Founding Fathers wrote it, 2 fair weather justices who give lip service to the Constitution but too often go squishy, 2 femi-lefties who feel entitled to interpret the Constitution the way they think a Hispanic, lesbian Founding Mother would have written it and 1 blithering idiot who thinks taxes are only needed to lay carpet and wants to take her act on Broadway!
While I like your explication of the split, I think this one splits out more 1-7-1 or 1-6-2.
In the first, Justice Thomas is sui generous. Pure constitutionalist. The seven, including Justice Kagen, (who while indisputibaly liberal in inclination supports what some call the “Imperial Presidency”) are institutionalists.
While Jackson is as you say, but moreover, one who believes that feelings should determine jurisprudence.
The wildcard is Justice Sotomayor. She may have enough respect for the institution to rule correctly. If I remember correctly she has in the past.
Who knows, it may very well be 9-0.
I still think Alex is correct. More so after reading the brief.
1 blithering idiot who thinks taxes are only needed to lay carpet
Almost drowned my keyboard on that one…
I didn’t catch that on first reading. My keyboard is safe.
LTB, kudos.
The Supreme Court is as much of a joke as the corrupt judicial system in this country.
Just look to the extremely corrupt DC circus which follows the constitution hardly ever.
Just to clarify – the arguments are being held next Wednesday? How soon is a decision expected to be announced?
Could be as long as six months.
However, this seems to be on an expedited schedule so it conceivably could arrive sooner.
No sooner than a month would be my guess.
As I think about it, it seems likely to happen sooner rather than later. “Political Question” is the SCCT’s punt and if they get Jackson on board it will be 9-0. “You guys work it out” would be the message to the Legislature and Executive.
Remember, some members of the IC/DS have already filed motions to curtail the imposed Tarriffs.
This is pure Foreign Policy, which Article III has no jurisdiction over. “Political Question”.
Might even be less than a month, but I would not bet.
As a complete side note:
I miss being able to see who gave me an upvote to indicate they agree with my point or argument.
I know the reason. I read the memo. It’s the reason I use a monitor to watch movies rather than a WiFI enabled television. (For those not aware of history, it’s because CertaIan NefariAs agents took screenshots of CTH discussions)
If you don’t think you were on the list of those persons targeted by Mr. Smith. I’m sorry friends.
I apologize for my violent rhetoric in the last few weeks or so.
But guys, it is a bit (frustrating, perhaps annoying., there must be a word in German) boo.
Smith can go fck himself, will testify against his dumbass if need be
I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that the last “Justice” standing on the right in the photo above will cast her decision to reduce the United States to “almost Third World status”…..
Think its time to use the autopen confirmation of KJB as leverage
I’m glad he decided not to attend.
I hope his legal team focuses on Article 2 authorities as provided for by legislation. If the law gives a President the authority to declare emergencies — and the statute says nothing about who and how any other Branch has veto power over the Executive’s judgement call —- then SCOTUS needs to simply declare that President has that authority until such a time new legislation is passed modifying it or terminating it.
Can that solution be used against us? Say if a dem President declares an emergency (gun violence) and removes more of our 2nd Amendment rights?
I will take Trump at his word and be praying that justice is upheld with this SCOTUS ruling. Trillions are at stake and this certainly could mean money could be flowing to the supremes to achieve specific nefarious goals. Let us pray that these justices have the moral character and courage to do the right thing in this critical case. Justice Roberts will be the key here I sense though I hope the vote is not that close.
The Government begins in a difficult position because the Constitution clearly considers tariffs as a tax and gives Congress the sole authority to levy taxes. Trump is putting forth an economic argument as to the necessity of tariffs to the U.S. economy and trade relations. But the court is not likely to be swayed by an economic argument. It has to be a legal argument. As such the Government should (1) dispute that tariffs are necessarily a tax. Many of these tariffs are not being passed along to the consumer in retail prices. In many cases the tariff is being absorbed by the exporter. (2) Tariffs in today’s world have become an important tool of foreign policy which the Constitution gives sole authority to the Executive branch. That is what the Government must argue. To reinforce this point they can point to several statutes that Congress has passed over the years relinquishing its authority over tariffs to the Executive branch. precisely because tariffs are a tool of foreign policy.
IMO Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch will be solid for the Government. The 3 libs will of course be against anything Trump favors (even though if this case was brought against Obama the libs would be all for the Government position. The decision will swing on if 2 of ACB, Kavanaugh, Roberts supports the Government position. Roberts is the least likely to support. He will almost certainly side with the globalists and use the words of the Constitution for cover. It’s really all up to Kavanaugh and ACB. And ACB has been hostile to Trump in many decisions. I’m not optimistic here that Trump prevails. Such a decision will greatly harm the USA now in the future. Can you imagine how they will celebrate in China and Brussels?
The question is, why would China and Brussels celebrate if tariffs WERE NOT tied to foreign policy? Their likely celebration suggests it is tied to it.
Who would the US appeal to if our tariffs are eliminated by judges? If other countries can levy tariffs at a moments notice, getting a slothful Congress to act puts us at a severe disadvantage. Whatever happened to the useless World Trade Organization?
Why are so many other countries using tariffs against us as a part of their foreign policy, but our tariffs are somehow different and not a part of our foreign policy?
Edited to add: What other action does a nation have to settle a foreign trade dispute other than ultimately weapons? Is that what SCOTUS would want?
How could the Constitution consider tariffs a tax when the word “tariff” is never mentioned in the Constitution? There is nothing in there that will give Roberts “cover”.
Roberts has already been raked over the coals for his past decision stating that the Obamacare mandate was a tax. I don’t think he wants to go down that road again.
The English began using the word “tariff” in the late 1500’s, so the word was known to those who wrote the Constitution and they chose not to use it.
Because PDJT said the words tax I think. This is memory, and that’s where propaganda jumps in to make us think it’s a real memory
The bad thing is, if SCOTUS rules against tariffs, all the monies collected have to be given back
Haha yea right.. one branch submissive to foreign countries
I respectfully disagree that “tariffs are taxes”.
It mentions imports also.
But that’s 1776.
There are updates to this passed by congress
Don’t start with AI for you answer, when it’s fed prior info by your enemy.
Early on, I cornered AI-generated ‘answers’ regarding the climate change nonsense until it finally admitted that AI is a powerful propaganda tool employed by the government.
I’m surprised PT doesn’t explain that the money from tarrifs helps the US to borrow less from the Fed. And the dollars we borrow from the Fed to pay bills comes with interest.
How is interest free money a bad thing?
If SCOTUS rules against the President on tariffs, then only the Congress will be able to impose tariffs. Congress would need to immediately pass into legislation every Trump tariff otherwise there will be an economic catastrophe.
But, Congress can’t/won’t do anything because Schumer has the whole Senate tied up. Thune cannot enact anything without at least 60 votes in the Senate because of the filibuster. That’s why the government is shut down.
So if Congress fails to act swiftly: Tariff revenues will evaporate. All the trade deals will collapse. All the economic development deals will stop. Countries and corporations will flood the courts with lawsuits to try to get the feds to pay back all the tariffs collected so far. Unemployment will surge. No more tariff revenue will come in. Tariffs collected to date might even potentially need to be paid back. That is a LOT of money, money we don’t have. It could very well destabilize the entire economy, could crash the dollar, would certainly balloon the already huge debt. It might even push the US into a full-blown credit crisis or even default. Economic apocalypse!
Dems will happily watch the country burn to the ground if they can blame it all on Bad Orange Man. If the Dems cave in, their Socialist base will go ballistic and the Dems will never win another election for a generation.
The GOP is not going to surrender to the Dems. If they do they will never win another election for a generation.
Thune’s only tool to avoid disaster will be to immediately “go nuclear” and abolish the filibuster.
SCOTUS needs to understand that. If they rule against the President, the Senate filibuster will be gone and Congress as we have known it for over 150 years will be inalterably changed.
They would not only be voting against the President they would be voting to change the Congress too.
As we have seen in the Senate this past week, abolishing the filibuster won’t guarantee the tariffs remain. The Senate passed 2 bills removing the tariffs on Brazil and Canada, even though this will never be taken up in the House and even if it passed there, President Trump would veto.
So be careful what you wish for.
So this a decision point. And as in Dredd Scott the “Supreme” Court will punt.
Leaving it to the elected branches of the Legislature and the Executive.
Only the People will decide.
And I suppose we will chose between immoral ignominy or a True and Just Nation.
with a 54% ignorance of (not just even constitutional but basic moral) Godly obligation.
The answer then is: Make your voice heard.
Talk.
I sometimes wonder (you all wonder) how much of a select group we are.
Well. We are a select few. Patriots.
God fearing Patriots.
Mustard seeds.
This matter should not even be under consideration by the judicial branch. That it is even being considered is yet another example of the moral decay and political anarchy afflicting the United States of America.
You are correct on both points.
As I cannot give you an upvote sir I will state my position clear.
You are correct in both points stated. Succinctly, I might add.
Election fraud aka treasonous coup conspirators = No Standing.
Constitutionally precedented reciprocal tariff imposed by President for national security = Standing.
FUBAR
This is the basis for what the president has done regarding tariffs. “The Reciprocal Tariff Act of 1934 was a U.S. law that allowed the President to negotiate trade agreements with other countries, reducing tariffs in exchange for similar concessions from those nations.”
too much of everything is being sent to these various courts. At some point, the President and his team are gonna have to tell one or more of these courts to piss-off.
You can’t run a nation funneling everything through the courts, especially crooked courts.
As a point of order,
be carefull of the work “Reactonary” (OT im sure. Puddy, dear, you will shut me down if i’m inappropriate)
Reactionary was a term invented by (communist/leninist/islamists/leftists) to oppose God. I suppose “traditionalist” would work as a synonym.
I’m just saying we need to be precise in the language and verbiage we use.
Beware of snares and don’t fall in to traps.
We have the high ground. It’s actually quite a simple equation.
But then we have to deal with they that have no reason.
I reject the suggestion my mind suspects.
I meant, antonym, not synonym.
I stand by all else. I await argument.
truly, given the thrust of my argument. that is awfully embarrassing.
I think the court is going to punt on this one. If they take a stand they are 100% responsible for the economic fallout that take place and they don’t want to touch that with a 10, 15, or 20 foot pole. The smart play would be to state the following: Congress gave power to the President, at any time congress can reclaim its authority.
A simple punt to avoid responsibility, the exact same reason congress gave the power to the President in the first place. No one want to be held accountable if shit hits the fan.
The Democrat/Communists are threatening a complete reversal of policies when they get back in control. They talk about arrests. We are TEN months in and Bondi and Patel have arrested ZERO. All of what is being done by President Trump will be reversed in a nano second without Consequences for the Traitors. It is all kabuki theater without consequences for the Seditionists.
Marco will be stronger and better than Vance to replace Trump. He is smart and charismatic and played important role in making Trump’s policies now. Vance is still a child that can be undermined. Marco’ 48!!!!
Until financial manipulators are removed there is no sovereign individual or nation including those in politics, Wall Street, Central banks, foreign investors/fee simple landowners. Trading manufacturing for foreign ownership of soverign lands is a zero sum game.
What is so disheartening is that its not what the constitution says but rather what the court decides to do. A system set up to rule by our nation’s structure is being controlled by their ruling and not what the words on that important paper says. How far we’ve fallen.
However SCOTUS decides will clearly identify who our enemies and friends are. If SCOTUS rules against Presidential authority, then we no longer have a rational system of laws to rely upon. What will ensue is anyone’s guess.
Republican’ts find a way.. Every. Single. Time.
Why do I get nervous every time I look at that gang in black smiling at the camera?
To do what is right the SC must bankrupt the country and then hand it back to the indigenous peoples in much the same way as Europeans found it. Sarc
As much as it pains me, I could see several constitutionalists judges going against the administration based solely on what the constitution says. The silver lining is the impact it will have on the rest of the bureaucratic state. DC can’t have it’s cake and eat it all too. Its effects could surpass Chevron regarding Congress shirking its responsibilities.
Don’t believe for a moment that President Trump would willfully go against the constitution even to save our country in that way. Bad players who he trusts might lie to him but, too many in his administration know the consitution. If President Trump believe he has the power then so do I.
I know an “ad hominem” argument is the weakest possible approach but… I’m not sure I’d buy a used car from the 9 in the pic above… let alone trust them to make such an I M P O R T A N T financial and economic decision for our country. Although a couple are Originalists AND have the courage to vote that way consistently; do they have any real education in finance and economics? I fear they rely on aids, interns and friend of the court briefs. My only consolation:
“The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD. As the rivers of water: God directeth it whither soever he will.” Proverbs 21:1
Let’s pray for God to direct the thoughts of 9 SCOTUS Justices.
Seems to me that the easiest argument for the government to make is as follows:
Congress didn’t cede their constitutional role, they recognized that the implementation of tariffs is in many cases intrinsically linked to foreign policy AND to the security of the country. Therefore their passing of previous legislation WAS their constitutionally exercised role. What they did was give the executive, the person assigned the role of determining and exercising foreign policy the tools to quickly and efficiently respond to economic security (which is national security), foreign policy exercises and national security.
If Congress chooses to, they can vote to rescind the previous tools they authorized for the president to use. At that point, the president would have no constitutional argument that he can unilaterally impose a tariff.
Essentially, the argument would be that the Congress has passed a tariff but given the role of implementing the tariff to the president, since he is the one conducting the foreign policy and national security policies. He can respond swiftly and efficiently, AS NEEDED, to what ever situation arises.
Somebody explain why we have the equivalent of Iran’s Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution deciding the most important things.
They are not elected, they can’t be fired, they can do anything, like Judge Boasberg with impunity, they are not the brightest nor without bias, like judge Ketanji Onyika Brown.
What is the point of electing a President if judges at all levels can impede and trip him all they want.
In theory, they can be checked, but nobody is doing it.
Any federal judge can be impeached and removed from office by Congress for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”. This applies to all federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, and historically includes judges who have committed corruption or crimes while on the bench, such as taking bribes or abusing their power.
Abuse of power or misconduct: While “high crimes and misdemeanors” is open to interpretation, it has been understood to include judges who abuse their power or engage in conduct that warrants removal.
Just one scalp,just one.Do they have to be taken out ?? There is no reason to indulge their overreach and abuse.
What is the following if not corruption ?
https://x.com/i/status/1906314752126759081
Don’t you just hate leaving a decision like this to this bunch of clowns!
On September 9, my son and I had a commentary about this case in American Thinker. We wrote:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/09/the_coming_supreme_court_decision_on_trump_s_tariffs.html
I can guarantee how the three leftard women will vote.
Wondering how SCOTUS can Constitutionally take up the case while a political solution is in process in Congress (Senate recently passed a bill to terminate President Trump’s tariffs against Brazil).
This was predictable, and the results are going to be catastrophic.
Trump has been singlemindedly using the threat of quickly imposing and adjusting tariffs as leverage on basically every single economic deal he has made, like the proverbial hammer that sees nothing but nails. Once that leverage is taken away–and based on the text of the laws in question (which Trump doesn’t even engage with, which should tell you the legal strength of his position…or rather the lack thereof) I think it is safe to say that it will be taken away–all those deals he made are going to unravel, pretty much on the spot.
Brace for an extended period of chaos, and a poorer country in the aftermath.