Pushback

47 Art Of The Deal 140 Comments

A Manhattan court has ruled against Trump’s Liberation Day tariffs as a result of a lawsuit brought against the US government by importers affected by the tariffs.

A three-judge panel at the US Court of International Trade, a relatively low-profile court in Manhattan, stopped Trump’s global tariffs that he imposed citing emergency economic powers, including the “Liberation Day” tariffs he announced on April 2.

The order halts Trump’s 30% tariffs on China, his 25% tariffs on some goods imported from Mexico and Canada, and the 10% universal tariffs on most goods coming into the United States. It does not, however, affect the 25% tariffs on autos, auto parts, steel or aluminum, which were subject to Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act – a different law than the one Trump cited for his broader trade actions.

Update by Kate: The order didn’t last long.

140 Replies to “Pushback”

  1. At some point the leader of the Supreme court will have to step in and stop this law-fare.

    But when…..

    1. Meanwhile, the media gets to play a game of GOTCHA! See how they all trumpet the same headline and story. Aren’t they cute, getting a temporary moment of smug satisfaction.
      Thing is, the Trump admin has a good track record of seeing these roadblocks reversed at higher court jurisdictions, still able to carry out their agenda.
      Forgive me while I shrug at these silly headlines, written by 20somethings.

      1. “Meanwhile, the media gets to play a game of GOTCHA! See how they all trumpet the same headline and story. Aren’t they cute, getting a temporary moment of smug satisfaction.”

        “Temporary” being the operative word here. You’d think they would have learned from all the past instances of this type of lawfare being overturned, worked around or simply ignored.

    2. Why would he step in to reverse it? He faces no punishment, political, physical, or social. It’s a de facto judicial dictatorship.

    4. “Lawfare” is a descriptive word that describes weaponizing the legal system to achieve a set aim. For example, repeatedly bringing up new charges that you know won’t stick, but doing so regardless because by doing so you can delay an action, force defense costs onto your opponent, waste the other party’s time and resources, etc.

      Much as a filibuster’s purpose is to waste time and cause delay.

  2. Failed lawyers seizing power in yet another putsch against the people. My method for stopping this would not involve the SCotUS (which itself performed a putsch in deciding it had authority over the Constitution). It involves the Lincoln Method. A company of soldiers building a gallows outside the good judge’s office building.

    Wouldn’t you know it, the good judge saw the light.

    1. The vast majority of posters here have opposed the dictatorship of both Trudeau and now Carney.

      You appear to be projecting.

  4. This is a very dangerous game the courts are playing. The only legitimacy they have is the public trust, once they lose that then its complete chaos.

    If Trump chooses to obey the Constitution and ignore these unlawful court orders, all the courts including the Supreme court risk it all.

    1. “If Trump chooses to obey the Constitution and ignore these unlawful court orders, all the courts including the Supreme court risk it all.”

      They should choose their battles more carefully, for sure.

    2. Trump has never obeyed the constitution, which does not grant him authority to do what he’s doing. Neither does the IEEPA.

  5. Drip, drip, drip. I think the admin is nearing the point where they’re just waiting for a very bad ruling so it can be ignored. Stephen Miller is a very good constitutionalist. Some orders are clearly constitutional while others are meant to flesh out grey areas that are open to legal interpretations. The courts’ failure to abide by the Constitution is going to gut the judiciary when Trump finally does decide to drop the hammer. The public is rapidly growing tired of this lawfare and once they turn their backs on the courts it’s going to be hard for the judiciary to win them back.

    1. Let me add that the CASE brought to this 3-Judge tribunal that led to their summary cancellation of Trump’s tariffs came from an NYC foreign liquor importer who cited his business was damaged by Trump’s tariffs because he (most likely temporarily) had to pay tariffs on his imported liquor products.

      Yet this Tribunal remained silent about CA wine exporters who face huge EU (and other) tariffs and strict quotas on exporting to Europe. Where’s their relief? Trump simply demands (as do WE the PEOPLE) … FAIR Trade. Equitable Trade.

      1. Something else people are missing with all these legal challenges, those seeking these injunctions have so far avoided having to put up bonds that they would forfeit when their injunctions are struck down.

        Take for instance the gov’t releasing their temporary employees (10K) and assume that in total they were paid $5M/day. After 10 days ($50M) when that injunction was struck down those seeking to block the gov’t should been responsible for paying those wages, not the gov’t.

      2. [I’m more than fed up with the monotonous flamewars. Start your own blog and stop pissing in mine. Deleted. – ED]

        1. I did no such thing. Europe’s tariffs are injustice to Europeans, not America’s problem.

        2. *sigh* it sure the HELL IS an injustice to CA winemakers who face multiple tariffs and trade barriers throughout the world. Protectionism by everyone other than the US is somehow OK?

          That’s what you call … free trade? Please.

    2. This ruling has little to do with constitutionality. It’s mostly about whether Trump’s tariffs are consistent with statutes that empower him to impose tariffs in limited circumstances.

      The constitution does come into when the court recognizes that the president does not have the default power to unilaterally impose tariffs, but I don’t think that’s where the controversy lies.

  6. The founding fathers wisely set checks and balance on the power of the President. We are witnessing those checks and balances play out in real time. Maybe a Constitutional crisis is in the offing?

    1. YES! Past Presidents should not carry on their social engineering through their appointed activists.

      1. The simple fact that the gov’t engages in social engineering in the first place should be a massive red flag.

    2. No, the courts in Western nations have been using this as their excuse to stage putsch after putsch after putsch. Funny how critical state-altering things like same sex marriage and abortion are now not decided upon by the people but decided by the courts.

      It renders the courts illegitimate. The US Constitution never provided for the courts being the decider of what is and is not Constitutional. That is a thing the SCotUS helped itself to, illegitimately, in the Warren Court:

      https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/07/27/supreme-court-power-liberals-democrats-00048155

      “… the blame for this lies largely with the liberal Warren Court’s misreading of an ambiguous sentence in the 1803 decision in Marbury v. Madison that “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” …”

      1. “Funny how critical state-altering things like same sex marriage and abortion are now not decided upon by the people but decided by the courts.”

        It’s not ‘funny’ at all. We have rights that are too important to vote on, and the judiciary is here to defend them from goobers like you.

        ” The US Constitution never provided for the courts being the decider of what is and is not Constitutional. ”

        That is literally the only way the US Constitution works.

    3. Just curious ab … what does that “constitutional crisis” consist of? Will it retroactively cancel everything Obama did via his pen and his phone? Cancel everything ever signed by Biden’s Autopen? Or will it return the Judicial check and balance of POWER … to the SCOTUS, hence eliminating any and all temporary injunctions until the HIGH COURT checks the POWER of the executive.

      “Constitutional crisis” rings as hollow as “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” … or “Separation of Church and State” … All Nonsensical terms.

      1. And ab … The Court of International Trade was created in 1980. The Us Constitution was ratified in 1788. You do the math … yeah … the Court of International Trade is challenging the US Constitution.

        There isn’t a “Constitutional Crisis” … there’s a rogue lower court crisis.

        1. “There isn’t a “Constitutional Crisis” … there’s a rogue lower court crisis.”

          Well said, Kenji. Lately your elected President is having to run all his legislation by 600+ lower court judges, and that’s just outrageous. Time for some pushback on these over-reaching judges, I think…or else it will just continue happening.

        2. “You do the math … yeah … the Court of International Trade is challenging the US Constitution.”

          Doesn’t the Constitution assign Congress primary authority to impose trade tariffs?

          1. I don’t know if it does or not, but congress is the author of it’s own devolution of power to the executive. They constantly avoid taking controversial votes, instead relying on the executive to do all the heavy lifting.
            Here is Canada there are no such concerns, with the executive and legislature being the same body, and with the courts being nothing more than corrupt rubber stamps for what the ‘party” says.

          2. “Emergency” suspends all the codicils of the US Constitution. Didn’t we all learn that from COVID? When did Joe Biden’s Autopen FINALLY END the COVID Emergency? April 2023? Long after we learned of the utter fraud used to suspend our Constitutional Rights. Our Civil Rights.

            IMHO … the hollowing out of our middle class as all international corporations export our industries to a slave-State, with zero regulations beyond payoffs to Party Officials … qualifies as a demonstrable “Emergency” compared to COVID wherein the sole construct for the “Emergency” was a fatally flawed computer model predicting hundreds of millions of deaths.

          3. Learn to maintain the AI servers … as your coding work has been delegated to the machines. Start mopping … coder.

    5. “We are witnessing those checks and balances play out in real time.”

      Or are we witnessing yet another deliberate abuse of those checks and balances?

    6. The challenges to Presidential authority should never go away. The USA is the greatest nation yet invented. It can sort this out.

      DJT is stretching the limits of the Oval office. He is bypassing the authority of Congress. He controls the GOP with an iron fist. Few Senators or Congressman stand up to him. There will be consequences. Having said that as time go on and the mid terms approach things will probably change.

      A Constitutional challenge will occur if the White House ignores a Supreme Court ruling. I hope it never happens.

        1. Sheesh, I never even thought of it as “Executive Anarchy” but ok we’ll go with that.

          Congress has been disappeared during the first 4 months of this presidency. Trump’s detractors are laying in wait. Challenges to authority are healthy in a democracy. I guess we will see how it plays out.

          1. Yes … I used that terminology deliberately, as the EO’s have gone utterly out of control. Yes, because our Congress can only do ONE THING … deficit spend America into oblivion. Our Congress is nearly as useless as your Parliament.

            Please check the data … Communist POTUS Woodrow Wilson launched the “new era” of EO’s … with well over 1,000 of them … Teddy Roosevelt, Coolidge, and Hoover followed suit … then FDR EXPLODED the EO debacle.

    1. It’s not possible to impeach a federal judge simply for ruling in a way some people don’t like. The judge must commit “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

      1. “It’s not possible to impeach a federal judge simply for ruling in a way some people don’t like. The judge must commit “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

        Like demonstrating overt and egregious political biases in their judgments?

          1. Rubbish. The purpose of the impeachment process is to remove high government officials who have abused the power of their office in order to prevent them continuing to abuse the power of their position. (That’s why impeaching Trump as he was leaving office was absurd and talking about impeaching him again after he was out of office was downright surreal.)
            Their is no need to prove or even allege criminal behavior. The narrative that judges are untouchable no matter how outrageous their rulings was created to allow the political class to use the judiciary to impose tyrannical policies with no recourse for the public. The Judiciary is supposed to be the weakest branch. Allowing judges to exercise de facto veto power over the Executive Branch’s foreign policy flies in the face of the very nature of the US governmental system.

          2. Amazing how we let our wishful thinking drive our arguments.

            The US constitution explicitly states that US judges can only be removed for “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

            In 250 years, seven US federal judges have been impeached and convicted. A few others resigned before they were tried. None were accused of political bias, which would not qualify as “high crimes and misdemeanors” at any rate. Some had already been found guilty in a court of law, one of sexual assault. The rest were accused of taking bribes, tax evasion, and so on.

          4. “Hey KM … you’ve never heard of Judicial Misconduct? Many Judges have violated their oath of conduct and been removed from the Bench.”

            None of which has any bearing to the CIT reading the IEEPA in plain English and refusing to let Trump pretend it says something it doesn’t.

        2. A judge who is openly breaking the law is in breach of his oath office and ought to expect to be removed. The public ought to insist on it, and presumably will.

      2. Article 3, Section 1 of the US Constitution states: “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour…”
        If you have found a Section that says a judge must commit high crimes and misdemeanors to be removed I’d appreciate it if you’d cite the Article and Section please. In fact if you’ve found a section that says judges must be impeached to be removed from office or that they have lifetime appointments, I’d appreciate knowing in which Section that is too.
        While it may be traditional that judges must be impeached to be removed and that their appointments are for life, this is not actually in the US Constitution, and like many other traditions can be changed….
        Perhaps following the text of Article 3 section 1, a majority of the House and the Senate, with the agreement of the President should begin removing judges who fail to exercise good behavior. If 2 out of 3 branches agree…. And watching Chief Justice Roberts melt down would be an added bonus!

    1. And who appointed this particular Judicial Tribunal? We all know what “Judge-shopping” and “venue-shopping” means … it means leftist corruption.

      BTW … what’s happened to ALL those felony charges brought against candidate Trump? Didn’t he scatter TOP SECRET documents to the wind? Didn’t he hide TOP SECRET documents in Melania’s pantie drawer? The FBLIE searched it! What of those 16 “believable” womyn assembled by Gloria Allred? Who all claimed incidents of sexual assault by Donald Trump?

      We live in an era of totally fabricated nonsense cloaked as “legal proceedings”. I’m starting to believe we need to adopt the English version of LOSER pays all fees and damages … so we can put an end to this Lawfare garbage.

    2. That’s pretty easy to look up: one’s a Reagan appty, one is from Obama, and the third is Trump apty.

      “We live in an era of totally fabricated nonsense cloaked as “legal proceedings”. ”

      Just because unlettered peasants can’t understand what their betters are saying and doing doesn’t mean they should mouth off. Push the mop.

      1. As if “Republican” judicial appointees are conservative. Half of em turn leftist. Just look at Chief Justice Roberts. A complete tool of the left. A man who says there is NO political bias expressed by any member of the SCOTUS.

        Speaking of people who should be cleaning the French fryer after closing.

  10. On the so-called ‘Liberation Day’ when Trump’s tariffs officially went into effect … the US Stock Market took a 3,500 point mega-drop!! Worst drops since the 1929 DEPRESSION!!! Today … after a 3-Judge Panel OFFICIALLY canceled Trump’s tariffs yesterday … the US Stock Market is up 19 points (at the moment).

    You do the math.

    Yeah … the US Stock Market had already recovered nearly ALL those 3,500 point losses … before any rogue Judges made any decisions.

    1. Main Street is more important than Wall Street.
      Older people protecting investments is of less value than breadwinners feeding their families.

      1. I doubt many old people SOLD into the dip. Nope, they’re too smart for that. The entire dip was prefabricated and coordinated by globalist institutions who wanted to prove Orangemanbad. How DARE he balance Trade and create equity in the international marketplace. How DARE Trump bring back a vibrant, well-paid, middle class.

        So they sold off at a PROFIT … and bought back in the dip. Making bank, while making Trump look like an economy-killer. Hahaha ha … nice try. Ma and Pa selling of 100 shares of anything doesn’t move the market like that. But massive institutional traders do.

      2. This is as stupid as saying that inhaling is better than exhaling. There isn’t much bread to win without Wall Street and more saliently, free trade.

        1. You might actually have an argument if you actually knew what truly Free Trade looked like. You don’t.

  11. Congress needs to repeal the law(s) that give the president the unilateral power to impose tariffs. Constitutionally the ability to impose taxes is supposed to rest with the House of Representatives. They need to reclaim that.

    1. Look! A pretend Canadian Con, saying what a foreign gov’t should or should not to, from a position of abject weakness, to boot.

      1. Thanks for that ignorant comment. Very on-brand for you.

        But when the US pisses in my backyard, I reserve the right to comment on how they should do things.

        1. By which you mean. when you get taken up in one of your little fits of ant-American hatred, you’ll say anything.

    2. Good luck with that. Since it needs to be signed into law you’d need veto proof majorities in both Houses of Congress, which isn’t going to happen in this environment.

      1. The votes for repealing the National Emergencies Act might be there, as there are some Republican politicians who do not approve of Trump’s shenanigans.

        Overriding a veto is far tougher. It would probably require a major recession caused by (or at least blamed on) the tariffs.

        But even making Trump veto such a bill would send a strong message to the president that his powers were meant to be limited.

        1. A number of incumbent Senate Rinos are already feeling the heat when it comes to 2026 and they might not be around next term to disapprove of Trump’s shenanigans.

          Pretty sure the Executive has the power to levy tariffs. If a pact was not approved by the Senate then it’s only a policy and can be constitutionally altered at the whim of the Executive.

          1. No, the executive does not have the default power to levy tariffs. The constitution says…

            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;

            This has been interpreted as meaning that the executive branch can’t levy a tax without the approval of congress, and of course a tariff is a tax. But congress gave the president the power in limited situations via the National Emergencies Act of 1976. The big question is, did Trump meet those limited situations? Today, the courts answered no.

          2. When speaking in terms of the Legislative Branch tariffs are internal, not originating from an external source, and apply to States within the Union not countries across the globe. The Executive is solely vested with dealing with the outside world.

            No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

          3. Tariffs are paid by the party importing the goods. Therefore tariffs are an internal matter.

            This is not even controversial. The courts have long held that the power to levy tariffs rests with congress, not the president. This is why Trump was so anxious to drum up the excuse of a fentanyl crisis at the border. He needed an emergency in order to be in line with the National Emergencies Act.

          4. Oh man, please pardon the brain cramp of epic proportions.

            When speaking of the Legislative Branch they hold the sole power to impose tariffs for the raising of revenue and that is not what this is about.

          5. *sigh* … KM … despite what the anti-Trump media keep parroting… a tariff is NOT a TAX levied on the American people. Just ask Chief Justice Roberts who acknowledged Obamakkare IS a tax on the American people. Evidently, he’s an expert on what constitutes a tax.

            Which would have been repealed by Congress … if not for the thankfully DEAD John McCain.

          7. Interesting KM … let me point out:

            To support this argument, Taft referred to the Supreme Court’s opinion in Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark (1890), a case concerning a law that directed the president to impose import duties on certain goods if he determined that the exporting country was unfairly taxing American exports. Taft distinguished between legislative power, the authority to determine the content of the law, and executive power, the authority to execute laws made by a legislature

            It seems as though that is EXACTLY what Trump is doing. Making Trade FAIR and reciprocal.

          8. These are not reciprocal tariffs. That was clear from the moment they were announced. Rather most are based on trade deficits.

            For Canada, it’s particularly unjustifiable. The protections on dairy products — tariffs that are, in practice, almost never collected — were more than offset by US tariffs on Canadian lumber and steel.

    3. “Congress needs to repeal the law(s) that give the president the unilateral power to impose tariffs.”

      So you admit that Donald Trump in fact *does* have that power, then? Good.

      1. Playing “Gotcha!” journalism, are you?

        The President has the power to levy tariffs under limited circumstances through the National Emergencies Act of 1976, Without that act, he does not have the power.

        The courts today have ruled that Trump did not meet those limited circumstances when he imposed tariffs on pretty much the entire world. I argue that congress should repeal the act altogether, given how Trump has abused the power.

        1. That court is a Trade Court … they have no jurisdiction over what does and does not constitute an Emergency.

          1. They have complete jurisdiction over international trade — thus their name — and tariffs are a trade issue.

      2. The President does have that power, because Congress delegated that authority to the President by law.

        This creates three possible outcomes:

        1. The Judiciary decides that the Legislature cannot delegate its powers to the Executive by anything short of Constitutional Amendment, and any lesser law to delegate powers is unconstitutional and invalid.

        2. The Judiciary decides that the Legislature can delegate its constitutional powers to the Executive but restoring those powers require a law to repeal such delegation.

        3. The Judiciary decides that the Legislature can delegate its powers to the Executive, by law, but only when the Judiciary says so.

        The first option could blows holes in federal regulations, as these are a delegation of power from Congress to the Executive.

        The second option may be valid, but serves as a warning to Congress. Delegating powers may create all sorts of issues.

        The third option greenlights Judicial Coup.

        1. Congress did not delegate unfettered powers to the president to impose tariffs. They delegated him authority to do so only in limited situations, as outlined in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977.

    4. Yes, the House does need to get on the ball. This situation might provide the leverage necessary to put pressure on them to do just that.

      And my President just won on appeal.

      1. Trump didn’t really win an appeal. The courts don’t move that fast. The US Court of Appeals issued a temporary stay while they consider the case.

        If they decide that the original decision was wrong, THEN Trump has won on appeal.

        1. The stay will be in place, the Court of Appeals will likely take some time with that consideration as there is no strict deadline.

          So the tariffs will likely be in effect for at least a few more months, maybe longer. This is known as an eternity in politics.

          In the meantime, what trade deals are set to be renegotiated, and, more importantly, when?
          Have fun.

        1. You’re going to prison! Don’t worry, it’ll be an administrative stay, nothing more.

    5. SCOTUS should strike the IEEPA down and any other delegation crap. It is amusing to watch various standard issue leftists suddenly start caring about non-delegation right out of the blue.

  12. The President should do what the corrupt courts are not doing and simply follow the Constitution and ignore judicial corruption.
    Problem solved.
    Courts and the appointed “Judges” that sit have no authority over the executive branch.

    This is yet another example of the deep rot in American institutions.
    The “Deep State” is called deep for a reason… they have corrupted every institution they had control over.
    Again… ignore corrupt courts… the American people and the President they elected have already decided the course and the direction of the country.
    It is not up to unelected “courts” to overthrow the will of the people and the executive branch.
    Ignore them.

    1. It is the Supreme court who decides if something is Constitutional.
      The world became a brighter place when RBG died.

    2. No authority over the executive branch? Since when did the executive branch become a dictatorship?

    3. The US constitution says that the House of Representatives, not the President, has the power to impose taxes (e.g., tariffs).

      1. You are nothing but one of the suck freaks that wants to teach the kids how to be gay.

        1. See also: Trade Expansion Act of 1969 and the Trade Act 1974. So there is legislative ruling that supplies precedent for the executive branch’s jurisdiction over tariffs.

    4. When the time and the issue is right the admin is going to ignore one of these court orders and then dare the court to enforce it. Since enforcement falls on the Executive nothing is going to happen and the courts will embarrass themselves into irrelevancy. Remember the judge who threatened to hold the admin in contempt for not returning his pet thugs from El Salvador ?

      The challenge is to the Supreme Court. They either rein in these inferior courts and bring an end to this or they’re going to be sidelined for the duration of the process. The Executive will simply ignore bad supreme rulings, sort of like what Biden did with student loans, and keep going. It will be the public, & the 2nd amendment, who decide come 2026.

      1. The challenge is to the Supreme Court. They either make it clear to Trump that he must obey the law, or they allow the presidency to become a de facto dictatorship and the US to become an authoritarian state.

        Pretty sure I know which way they’ll lean.

        1. He is exercising powers vested to Executive as per the Constitution. If you want to try and change that then both the House & the Senate are going to have to step up to make it stop.

          For decades both Houses of Congress have been slowly ceding their Constitutional authority to the Executive, through enacted legislation, so it’s up to them to take that authority back. It’s not up to the courts.

          2. There is difference between law and policy. Unless something has been enacted into law by all 3 branches of gov’t it’s merely policy.

        2. The challenge is to the courts because they are losing all credibility.

          For example, this court stopped the tariffs based on the Constitution saying Congress has all power over tariffs, completely ignoring that Congress has passed several laws since the Constitution was written giving the President the authority to do exactly what Trump is doing (and most of them have used that power).

          No shock that yesterday’s decision already has a stay. It was an embarrassingly bad ruling.

          1. No, that’s not what this ruling says.

            It says that the president has the power to levy tariffs under the National Emergencies Act, but only under very specific situations. The court ruled that Trump did not meet those situations.

          2. This is a Trade Court. They have no jurisdiction over what the POTUS deems an Emergency.

  13. Incidentally, the three judge panel was SELECTED purposefully. Normally, this is supposed to be done as a random luck of the draw. Instead, all three of the panel were specifically assigned. This is a process used down in the Beltway as well. The rules are vague and unenforceable. You may wonder why specific judges always seem to get the “important” and hinge cases. It’s because it’s orchestrated. Judge Boasberg was assigned the Illegal Immigrant deport case while on vacation. He had to travel back to DC.

    This 3 judge panel was likely questioned about their thoughts on the tariff procedure before assignment.

    1. Judge Merchan got three NYC lawfare cases even though there was a pool of 24 judges available, which is a 1 in 13,824 chance.

      Except that he wasn’t supposed to be part of the selection pool for all of the cases, so it should have been impossible.

      1. So far as I know, there is a chief judge and nine other judges, not 24.

  14. This ruling is being appealed. I pray it holds up. Trump’s tariffs are the most bone-headed piece of executive overreach since Roosevelt tried to seize control of the entire US economy during the Great Depression.

    1. LOL.
      You say countries shouldn’t be able to decide trade agreements.
      You are a prog, of the most pathetic and progressive sort.

      1. I rarely insult in this forum, but holy crap you’re a moron.

        This has nothing to do with trade agreements. This has everything to do with whether Trump’s actions are consistent with the National Emergencies Act of 1976, which he has relied upoin to impose tariffs.

        It was always a reach. There was never a national emergency that warranted immediate tariffs on the rest of the world. Trump imposed these tariffs to repatriate industries. He admitted it numerous times.

        1. “I rarely insult in this forum, but holy crap you’re a moron.”

          Oh, the IRONY of you calling anyone else here a moron after all the ridiculous assertions you have made in this thread alone. Wow.

          2. No, he’s right. You’re ridiculous. You have a faint grasp of one or two points and no idea whatsoever what they mean. Do yourself a favour and pipe down. You’re spouting utter crap.

    3. If the tariffs are kept around they will kick off an economic calamity that will put a hard leftists in power (just like last time!) and the ruling itself will empower said leftist. President AOC is completely in play.

      1. They are not overturning the decision. Courts don’t work that fast. Rather it’s a temporary stay until the appeals process is complete.

    1. Well, that didn’t take long. I hope Marx Carnage had his alarm clock set for an early wakeup.

      Up and at ’em, ‘Skid’ Marx. Wakey, wakey!

    2. Nasty alpine groundhog that’ll rip yer throat out as soon as look at ya.

      1. I knew what a marmot is mate. I very much doubt it would or could rip my throat out. Even if I was lying down. It is perhaps a good name for you- a buck toothed creature, that lives underground, chews things a lot and disappears into its burrow when threatened.

        1. I have been coming to this blog for a very long time. The comment section used to be quite convivial I enjoyed the back and forth with posters that shared my beliefs. Lately it seems to have attracted angry burrowing rodents and strangely named posters that seem to refute the maxim ergo cogito sum (yes that’s you unme).
          Do not get me wrong. I think discussion is good. That is what a comment section is for. You know, like when you go to a pub with your friends and have a bit of back and forth. Key word for me is friends, I do not go to the pub with people that would never be my friends.
          So why homicidal borrowing creature and strangely initialed person who is not sure if he/she(I could go on) is comfortable with their pronoun.
          Please return to the your own sites and let us old and contented readers of Kate’s witty and acerbic headlines, the conviviality and caring what matters to us.
          I do not care about you copy and pasted and google searched opinions. They grate on me like the screeching of the wearing wheels of the Ottawa O-train.
          Please return to your own haunts and leave us alone. Let us have our place without your rancour. Return to your borrows and homes for displaced pronouns and leave us alone.

          0)

          1. I’ve commented on this site for, well, must be a decade now. Perhaps you should get comfortable hearing opinions you don’t agree with.

            And no, my comments aren’t angry, and I rarely insult. Well occasionally, but only when returning fire.

  18. Just read the order of the Fed Appeals court. It doesn’t jive with what CNBC is reporting.

    CNBC says: “The ruling also barred the administration from making any future modifications to the tariffs in question.”

    _________

    That’s simply not true. There is nothing in the Order stating that.

  19. The majority of Americans voted for Trump because the idiot liberals of America were running a criminal and reprobate agenda. It’s been rejected. It will continue to be rejected. Suck it.

  20. Reminds me of the old joke, what do you call the guy who finished at the bottom of the class in law school? Answer, your honour.

  21. The US Court of International Trade decision actually found that because the IEEPA (50 U.S.C. § 1702a1B) did not say specifically that the President may “levy tariffs”, that he may not do so. In finding thus, the court ignored that the statue gave the President the power to “…investigate, block, regulate, direct, compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit… importation… of any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest.”
    They specifically found that the power to “regulate … importation” wasn’t broad enough to include setting tariffs, in defiance of prior case law on the predecessor statue that allowed several Presidents to set tariffs this way.
    As might be expected, their decision did not stand long, and is unlikely to survive a trip to the Supreme Court.
    The ongoing lawfare and support of the deep administrative state by members of the judiciary is getting just a bit tiresome. “Orange Man Bad” is not a constitutional principle…
    Please continue to pardon us while we clean up our country – no autopen needed!

    1. And a district court has very questionable standing with regards to a case about tariffs.

      So, no matter what, as I said above, these tariffs will be in place for at least a few more months, possibly longer. And, again, what trade deals are due to be renegotiated and when?
      Uncertainty can be useful.

      Have a nice day and thanks for playing.

  24. Aaaand back off again.

    I thought we were following a court case, not a tennis match.

  25. “I rarely insult in this forum, but holy crap you’re a moron.”

    Oh, the IRONY of you calling anyone else here a moron after all the ridiculous assertions you have made in this thread alone. Wow.

  26. Well, I don’t blame people, because we haven’t seen anything like this in the US in a while, but we actually have here a legitimate court with legitimate jurisdiction, addressing the essential issue of the President’s authority, and doing so properly in accordance with the law. If only they’d do this more often. So the likely outcome is that the authority will be determined and defined with care, and on that basis it can then be changed by Congress if needed. If that’s how it works out, there are no losers. Trump benefits as much as the rest of us. So I’ll wait for an actual problem before I get worked up.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation