Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 5
And there was much rejoicing across the land.
I can hardly believe it!
It was a 6-3 decision with Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh in dissent.
No. of Recommendations: 7
Text of the opinion is here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-128...It seems like a complicated majority, with different Justices joining different parts of the opinion. But overall, 6-3 joining in the judgment that the tariffs exceeded the President's statutory authority.
No. of Recommendations: 10
So he lost on the tariffs. This morning's GDP report was weak.
He wants the Fed official who said USians are paying his tariffs "disciplined". Recall, last year, he wanted a Goldman economist that said USians would be hurt by the tariffs fired. Before that, he fired a BLS official because he didn't like the "jobs" numbers that were published.
Typical JC: dishing out consequences for anyone who dares say anything he doesn't want to hear.
Who is he going to lash out at, to take today's bad news off the front page?
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 3
From CNN:
The 6-3 majority offered no clarity on the specific practical question of what to do with the money the administration has already collected through Trump’s tariffs. As of December 14, the federal government has collected $134 billion in revenue from the tariffs being challenged from over 301,000 different importers, according to United States Customs and Border Protection data as well as a recent filing submitted by the agency to the US Court of International Trade. ... “That process is likely to be a ‘mess,’” Kavanaugh wrote.
Reach the popcorn.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Reach [for] the popcorn.
Yup. So, even aside from somehow refunding all tariffs collected so far, is Trump now obliged to immediately drop all the increased tariffs he imposed since April 1, 2026? And what about any tariffs that are now LESS than they were before (assuming there are any)?
No. of Recommendations: 10
Who is he going to lash out at, to take today's bad news off the front page?
Iran.
No. of Recommendations: 2
It was a 6-3 decision with Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh in dissent.
Alito and Thomas I expect.
I thought we might see better from Kvanaugh.
No. of Recommendations: 6
Good news: Should help reduce inflation rate.
Bad news: Republican budget deficit will break the previous Republican budget deficit record.
<sarcasm>Prediction: Roberts will be fired.</sarcasm>
No. of Recommendations: 0
Who is he going to lash out at, to take today's bad news off the front page?
War on Iran to start in 3-2-1...
No. of Recommendations: 2
Bad news: Republican budget deficit will break the previous Republican budget deficit record.
Worse news: there goes the cash flow that would have covered another "JC" tax cut. So, what else will he take away from the Proles, instead?
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 7
Surely we'll get proper answer from the press secretary later.
Can anyone imagine it already?
"Let’s be crystal clear: Today, six individuals in black dresses attempted to subpoena the sunrise. They tried to put an injunction on the tide. They looked at a soaring, golden eagle of American manufacturing and said, 'Excuse me, do you have a permit for those wings?'
The Supreme Court didn’t just strike down a tariff; they attempted to declare war on the concept of Winning.
President Trump’s tariffs are not mere 'taxes.' They are sentient force fields of national sovereignty. They are shimmering, invisible walls of economic MAGA-energy that protect every American worker from the cold, dark vacuum of globalism. To suggest these tariffs require 'congressional authorization' is like saying the sun needs a subcommittee meeting before it’s allowed to shine on Ohio.
The Chief Justice wrote about 'major questions'? Here’s a major question: Why is the Court siding with foreign bureaucrats over the man who turned the U.S. Treasury into a literal ATM of prosperity?
No. of Recommendations: 0
"practical question of what to do with the money the administration has already collected through Trump’s tariffs. "
lol, I want my money back. No idea how much that is, but it ain't zero, and I want it back, with interest :-)
The ham-fisted Trump bungling never ends.
No. of Recommendations: 19
So the tariffs which decimated American farmers because China stopped buying entirely and other countries cut back, and for which Trump promised them a big beautiful bailout for farmers from the tariff revenue which now doesn’t exist, and lawsuits demanding paybacks are already standing in line, and farmers’ customers are gone, and nobody knows what comes next…
… is the sort of well thought out policy we’ve come to expect from this group of erudite thinkers.
Can we have some more, please?
No. of Recommendations: 3
lol, I want my money back. No idea how much that is, but it ain't zero, and I want it back, with interest :-)
US $1681 per person, from memory. Saw that number posted on TV news broadcast (ABC?).
No. of Recommendations: 1
Can we have some more, please?
Be careful what you wish for… wait:
… said Friday he’s immediately going to enact a 10% global tariff under a trade law known as Section 122 following the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling earlier in the day.
Another Elephant ready to go through a mousehole…
No. of Recommendations: 0
Another Elephant ready to go through a mousehole…
Just needs a larger sheet of sticky paper to trap and kill it.
No. of Recommendations: 0
… is the sort of well thought out policy we’ve come to expect from this group of erudite thinkers.
Stupidity and chaos.
No. of Recommendations: 4
… said Friday he’s immediately going to enact a 10% global tariff under a trade law known as Section 122 following the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling earlier in the day.
A report I saw about that said he can only impose that tariff by decree for 150 days. After that, he needs Congress to go along. 150 days does not get him to the midterms in November, let alonr the inauguration of the next Congress in January.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 6
A report I saw about that said he can only impose that tariff by decree for 150 days. After that, he needs Congress to go along.
That's correct. Although it would not shock me if they impose the tariff for 150 days, waited a day, and then tried to re-impose it - arguing that they can have successive temporary tariffs. They tried a similar argument with their appointments to interim U.S. Attorney positions. The courts didn't accept that, and the might not again. But it would not surprise me if they tried.
No. of Recommendations: 1
That's correct. Although it would not shock me if they impose the tariff for 150 days, waited a day, and then tried to re-impose it - arguing that they can have successive temporary tariffs. They tried a similar argument with their appointments to interim U.S. Attorney positions. The courts didn't accept that, and the might not again. But it would not surprise me if they tried.
You can bet your bottom dollar that if there's fkucery to be perpetrated, the Trump admin will try it.
So, due to the consequent endless court challenges and slow SCOTUS, I'm afraid we are stuck with tariffs until at least Nov 2026.
No. of Recommendations: 7
So, due to the consequent endless court challenges and slow SCOTUS, I'm afraid we are stuck with tariffs until at least Nov 2026.
Maybe not. There's different degrees of fkucery that the Administration can play games with, and the lower courts are far less likely to play around with more obvious games of violating a statute than in this case. So you're far more likely to get an adverse ruling and no stay from the lower courts going forward. And now that they've lost this case in the Court, the DOJ is going to be that much more handicapped in trying to get lower courts to let the Administration just collect all this money on flimsy grounds.
No. of Recommendations: 4
look thee to grift foremost !
unless trump has an alternative path to daily use\reverse tariffs for bribes in 1-on-1 trade, i assure the universe everything else is just ego-driven grievance snowflaking.
scotus loyalty!
tariff refunds!
melania movie box office!
(all at the same level distant from scaled grift)
although trump has long ceased concern over MAGA (and all voter issues since end 2024), his lukewarm drive to maintain any tariffs as a 'win' is gonna cudgel the gop on affordability right at midterms. strategic prowess intact!
No. of Recommendations: 3
Finally had time to watch the entire presser.
Two takeaways:
-companies can forget about seeing any tariff refunds. He will keep the matter tied up in litigation for years. This is something he is expert at. We have seen his whack-a-mole strategy in operation before.
-he says he doesn't need Congress for anything. While he is collecting the flat 10% tariff, every country he wants to charge more to, will be investigated. I am pretty sure that, by now, every staffer, in every department, knows the consequences of not telling his nibs what he wants to hear, so every "investigation" will recommend the tariff God on Earth Trump wants to charge that country.
So, six months from now, we will be right back where we were yesterday.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 4
So many left wing narratives, burned on top of the illogical thinking pyre.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Dope1,
The supreme court has declared tariffs are taxes.
Liberals believe taxes are GOOD. They raise revenue for the beloved government, and they discourage people from consuming stuff which uses up Mother Earth's precious resources.
YAY FOR TRUMP'S TARIFFS.
