Gorsuch has a fairly strong background in opposing executive overreach. He wroted a concurring decision in Loper Bright Enterprises which overturned Chevron on judicial deference to administrative agencies. Roberts wrote the majority decision, rejecting deference to executive agency interpretations of ambiguity in statutes.
Whether they will apply that to presidential interpretation of statutory ambiguities?
Wake me up in the middle of the night and I could make the decision - “He’s the President, not God. No he can’t impose these tariffs. Dumb question, now leave me alone.”
And I’d go back to sleep.
Oddly SCOTUS does not care about the law. Not. At. All.
Like!
And Roberts has dropped a few hints that he’ll rule according to fact, not pressure. His questioning during the trial seemed to lean that way, too.
It’s is maddening to think that Thomas would support Trump’s claimed authority to impose tariffs.
If ever there was a time for an originalist to stick to his principles, this is it. Clearly the founders didn’t contemplate a president who raised and lowered tariffs on a whim.
First off, that was an opposition to executive reach, not overreach. Second, that was specifically an opposition to Democratic executive reach. Anyone have any confidence that he’d react the same way to Trump’s overreach?
Yep, there’s been a lot of discussion online about the twisted pretzel logic Thomas would have to come up with to justify a complete 180 on his past “principles”. I guess it all comes down to what his benefactor Harlan Crow wants him to do.
Maybe, like the fist part of the second amendment, it’s all just precatory language.
I’m assuming that the justices who tossed out the Constitution to give Trump “presumptive immunity” will stay true to form. Why wouldn’t they?
And a SCOTUS that says “Whatever” This is not the way it’s supposed to work, and clearly it’s not working.
I recently read (and I can’t provide a cite) that a new study showed that 97% off all tariffs are being paid by American’s/consumers. Has anyone questioned Leavitt or Trump about this? The last I knew, he was still saying foreign countries were paying all the tariffs. And, of course, his base believes him.
Trump would just lie and say it’s fake news, and likely call the reporter a pig, and that would be the end of it.
Not exactly 97 percent, but maybe it is this:
The figure of 96 percent, in some press reports, could be coming from this:
So then why hasn’t U.S. inflation skyrocketed? I think it’s because the very high tariff rates Trump promised were mostly walked back.
EDIT: Why would it be 96 percent or 97 percent? Shouldn’t it be 100 percent? If I understand this correctly, in the long term, it is 100 percent, but in the short term, affected producers and importers absorb a bit of the tariff to keep sales from going down too much.
I imagine that might happen on rare occasion.
This is exactly what’s been happening, including with the plaintiff who brought the lawsuit.
Our company’s tax attorney says that she’s heard from two different clients that they’re eating so much of the costs they’re afraid they may go under.
Ideally they construe the statute against the President and don’t address the delegation question. Oral argument was mostly on how to interpret the word “regulate”.
~Max
Here’s an article today asking why the S.C. decision is taking so long. Basically, it’s typical to take so long.
“Like many, I had hoped that the Supreme would rush the decision out,” said Marc Busch, an expert on international trade policy and law at Georgetown University. “But it’s not a surprise in the sense that they have until June and lots of issues to work through.”
I’m going to disagree - this SCOTUS has been very quick on turnarounds in favor of this administration’s actions in general (not 100% to be clear), but very willing to drag it’s feet on any immediate relief when it’s contrary to the administration’s goals.
IMHO - they’re perfectly willing to let all the damage be done to serve short term goals, and then, maybe give a narrow ruling that lets them claim they’ve acted on the side of law. And they allow endless delays.
In more normal times, I agree - the SCOTUS would have operated with what felt like glacial speed to me the common person, but their recent actions have put a very strong stench of political manipulation on any claims that they are hesitant to “rush” things.
Just offering my opinion that this is a very accurate characterization.
I would have thought that destroying relationships with allies and major trading partners, combined with damaging the economy would have let to a more expedited decision from the Justices.
This is far from a “typical” case. It is severely impacting the country. And yet they seem to be treating it as nothing special.
Thus in my opinion, they don’t have a lot of issues to work through - it’s a pretty open and shut case.