There is no question that today is a loss for the Trump administration at SCOTUS.

But, how bad of a loss was this, really?

Was this just low-hanging fruit that the administration put out there to be able to give SCOTUS an easy win without impacting policy all that much?

At the end of the day, the only real hiccup here is whether or not people are due a refund, and how much. Those questions are very much open issues.

All of these tariffs that relied on the IEEPA are going to be back in place in a month or two at most.

But, the MSM gets to have their "Trump Lost" headline, SCOTUS gets to rule against Trump, support the idea of originalism, and limit the power of the executive branch going forward without overturning the apple cart all that much.

For example, when you file patents, you always include a number of claims that are just really far reaches just to see what happens. If you fill the file with a whole lot of bad claims, you may piss off the examiner and just get nothing through no matter what you do. But, if you include a few claims that are purposefully stretches that you won't lose any sleep over losing, you can short-cut the process. The examiner throws out half of the claims, and you either argue back on only a few claims that you really want, or you just take the half that the examiner hasn't protested about and move on. It is a rare case indeed where a patent comes back with all claims granted during the first application. Sometimes you gotta let the other side win moral victories to achieve what you really want.

It would seem like giving the MSM an opportunity to claim Bad Orange Man Embarrassingly Defeated in order to win an issue when it comes to the parts that really count might be a great strategy.

Quote:

---

All of these tariffs that relied on the IEEPA are going to be back in place in a month or two at most.

---

Based on what?

He's addressing this now. No change in tariffs.

Effectively immediately, Section 232/301 will remain in place and will be increased across the board by 10%. Additional tariffs will continue and additional 301 tariffs will be implemented.

And he is going to get after the non-monetary powers under IEEPA affirmed by SCOTUS today.

shiftyandquick said:

---

BTKAG97 said:

---

No one should be given a refund because in fairness, the people who actually paid the tax - THE END USER - will never see a dime of that refund.

---

The rich get richer, ordinary people get screwed.

---

The last time I checked the fed government is not rich, in fact it is in debt up to and above Uncle Sam's eyeballs.

This was not a loss.
There will be no refund.
BB starts at 6:00.

javajaws said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

BTKAG97 said:

---

No one should be given a refund because in fairness, the people who actually paid the tax - THE END USER - will never see a dime of that refund.

---

The rich get richer, ordinary people get screwed.

---

The last time I checked the fed government is not rich, in fact it is in debt up to and above Uncle Sam's eyeballs.

---

You are looking at the wrong entity.

DC, where the Fed government lives, is rich, and it shouldn't be.

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

All of these tariffs that relied on the IEEPA are going to be back in place in a month or two at most.

---

Based on what?

---

Trump's presser today, for one.

BusterAg said:

---

javajaws said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

BTKAG97 said:

---

No one should be given a refund because in fairness, the people who actually paid the tax - THE END USER - will never see a dime of that refund.

---

The rich get richer, ordinary people get screwed.

---

The last time I checked the fed government is not rich, in fact it is in debt up to and above Uncle Sam's eyeballs.

---

You are looking at the wrong entity.

DC, where the Fed government lives, is rich, and it shouldn't be.

---

So tariffs made DC residents richer? Is that the story now?

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

All of these tariffs that relied on the IEEPA are going to be back in place in a month or two at most.

---

Based on what?

---

The Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the Trade Act of 1974, and the Tariff Act of 1930.

BusterAg said:

---

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

All of these tariffs that relied on the IEEPA are going to be back in place in a month or two at most.

---

Based on what?

---

Trump's presser today, for one.

---

Well, he can't impose tariffs under emergency powers. So, how will it be accomplished within the authority given to the POTUS by way of the Constitution?

The problem is tariffs are unpopular as is. So new avenues of tariffs will either result in more Supreme Court cases or Congress action to rein them in. His ability to have limitless control is eroding rapidly. Thankfully he's undisciplined narcissist.

chap said:

---

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

All of these tariffs that relied on the IEEPA are going to be back in place in a month or two at most.

---

Based on what?

---

The Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the Trade Act of 1974, and the Tariff Act of 1930.

---

When your fall back is the Smoot-Hawley Act you should reconsider your economic principals.

We will see what they try to do, but the White House did not spend a year relying on IEEPA for *most* of their tariffs and set up this political mess for themselves if there were quick, easy, and straightforward alternatives for all of their tariffs that would more clearly stand up in court.

(Unless they are simply incompetent )

Gordo14 said:

---

The problem is tariffs are unpopular as is. So new avenues of tariffs will either result in more Supreme Court cases or Congress action to rein them in. His ability to have limitless control is eroding rapidly. Thankfully he's undisciplined narcissist.

---

You should add "Trump is a narcissist" to your signature line.

It will save you a lot of typing.

tysker said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

All of these tariffs that relied on the IEEPA are going to be back in place in a month or two at most.

---

Based on what?

---

Trump's presser today, for one.

---

Well, he can't impose tariffs under emergency powers. So, how will it be accomplished within the authority given to the POTUS by way of the Constitution?

---

The other tariff laws they already gave the executive in the past.


Its the reason no tarrifs on things like steel or cars are changing at all.

samurai_science said:

---

tysker said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

All of these tariffs that relied on the IEEPA are going to be back in place in a month or two at most.

---

Based on what?

---

Trump's presser today, for one.

---

Well, he can't impose tariffs under emergency powers. So, how will it be accomplished within the authority given to the POTUS by way of the Constitution?

---

The other tariff laws they already gave the executive in the past.


Its the reason no tarrifs on things like steel or cars are changing at all.

---

Both industries are heavily indebted to labor unions and government bailouts
Protectionism at its finest.

shiftyandquick said:

---

BTKAG97 said:

---

No one should be given a refund because in fairness, the people who actually paid the tax - THE END USER - will never see a dime of that refund.

---

The rich get richer, ordinary people get screwed.

---

You must be a lot of fun at parties (if you ever go…).

tysker said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

All of these tariffs that relied on the IEEPA are going to be back in place in a month or two at most.

---

Based on what?

---

Trump's presser today, for one.

---

Well, he can't impose tariffs under emergency powers. So, how will it be accomplished within the authority given to the POTUS by way of the Constitution?

---

Kavanaugh points out the way to do it in his dissent. Check the thread.

Gordo14 said:

---

The problem is tariffs are unpopular as is. So new avenues of tariffs will either result in more Supreme Court cases or Congress action to rein them in. His ability to have limitless control is eroding rapidly. Thankfully he's undisciplined narcissist.

---

The popularity of tariffs have little to no impact on their legality.

If 90% of the US populace was against tariffs, it might be a factor for the court. But, in a split issue like this, it is the law that matters.

Which is pretty much how the court ruled. The strongest argument is that IEEPA lists like 15 things that the POTUS can do in an emergency, and tariffs were not one of the things listed. If Congress wanted tariffs to be included, they would have included it in such an exhaustive list. That is a very sound legal argument that has a strong basis in original intent type analysis.

tysker said:

---

chap said:

---

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

All of these tariffs that relied on the IEEPA are going to be back in place in a month or two at most.

---

Based on what?

---

The Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the Trade Act of 1974, and the Tariff Act of 1930.

---

When your fall back is the Smoot-Hawley Act you should reconsider your economic principals.

---

You don't typically make economic arguments in court when you talk about legality of an issue, only when you talk about damages or mitigations.

BusterAg said:

---

Gordo14 said:

---

The problem is tariffs are unpopular as is. So new avenues of tariffs will either result in more Supreme Court cases or Congress action to rein them in. His ability to have limitless control is eroding rapidly. Thankfully he's undisciplined narcissist.

---

The popularity of tariffs have little to no impact on their legality.

If 90% of the US populace was against tariffs, it might be a factor for the court. But, in a split issue like this, it is the law that matters.

Which is pretty much how the court ruled. The strongest argument is that IEEPA lists like 15 things that the POTUS can do in an emergency, and tariffs were not one of the things listed. If Congress wanted tariffs to be included, they would have included it in such an exhaustive list. That is a very sound legal argument that has a strong basis in original intent type analysis.

---

The unpopularity of tariffs is exactly why Congress won't be voting to extend his new tariffs in 150 days so that they're dead before midterm voting starts

TXAggie2011 said:

---

the White House did not spend a year relying on IEEPA for *most* of their tariffs

---

So, the tariffs that are going to be impacted are only the ones that relied on IEEPA for more tariffs that are higher than 10%.

This is not "most" of Trump's tariffs.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Gordo14 said:

---

The problem is tariffs are unpopular as is. So new avenues of tariffs will either result in more Supreme Court cases or Congress action to rein them in. His ability to have limitless control is eroding rapidly. Thankfully he's undisciplined narcissist.

---

The popularity of tariffs have little to no impact on their legality.

If 90% of the US populace was against tariffs, it might be a factor for the court. But, in a split issue like this, it is the law that matters.

Which is pretty much how the court ruled. The strongest argument is that IEEPA lists like 15 things that the POTUS can do in an emergency, and tariffs were not one of the things listed. If Congress wanted tariffs to be included, they would have included it in such an exhaustive list. That is a very sound legal argument that has a strong basis in original intent type analysis.

---

The unpopularity of tariffs is exactly why Congress won't be voting to extend his new tariffs in 150 days so that they're dead before midterm voting starts

---

Do you think that 122 is the only way that Trump is going to try to hold on to Tariffs?

Are there any other avenues for longer-lasting tariffs?

Gordo14 said:

---

The problem is tariffs are unpopular as is. So new avenues of tariffs will either result in more Supreme Court cases or Congress action to rein them in. His ability to have limitless control is eroding rapidly. Thankfully he's undisciplined narcissist.

---

Unpopular with idiots who think men are women.

BTKAG97 said:

---

No one should be given a refund because in fairness, the people who actually paid the tax - THE END USER - will never see a dime of that refund.

---

Uhhh I paid a tariff (receipt to prove it) and I am the end user. Yeah I want my money back on an unlawful taxation of my imported goods

File your claim. But you ain't getting your money back.

flown-the-coop said:

---

File your claim. But you ain't getting your money back.

---

We're helping clients with refund claims now. We're pretty confident in the ability to get money back. May not be immediately paid, but clients will be getting paid interest on it anyway. Not paying them back is just going to more debt for the government.

Pinochet said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

File your claim. But you ain't getting your money back.

---

We're helping clients with refund claims now. We're pretty confident in the ability to get money back. May not be immediately paid, but clients will be getting paid interest on it anyway. Not paying them back is just going to more debt for the government.

---

Funny.

I hope you are not making any assurances to your clients about that.

Kudos to your confidence, if overly done and misplaced.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Pinochet said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

File your claim. But you ain't getting your money back.

---

We're helping clients with refund claims now. We're pretty confident in the ability to get money back. May not be immediately paid, but clients will be getting paid interest on it anyway. Not paying them back is just going to more debt for the government.

---

Funny.

I hope you are not making any assurances to your clients about that.

Kudos to your confidence, if overly done and misplaced.

---

Right. The biggest companies in the world are just believing us without doing their own homework. I bet you also think the charitable donation at the register gives the business a tax deduction too, huh?

BusterAg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Gordo14 said:

---

The problem is tariffs are unpopular as is. So new avenues of tariffs will either result in more Supreme Court cases or Congress action to rein them in. His ability to have limitless control is eroding rapidly. Thankfully he's undisciplined narcissist.

---

The popularity of tariffs have little to no impact on their legality.

If 90% of the US populace was against tariffs, it might be a factor for the court. But, in a split issue like this, it is the law that matters.

Which is pretty much how the court ruled. The strongest argument is that IEEPA lists like 15 things that the POTUS can do in an emergency, and tariffs were not one of the things listed. If Congress wanted tariffs to be included, they would have included it in such an exhaustive list. That is a very sound legal argument that has a strong basis in original intent type analysis.

---

The unpopularity of tariffs is exactly why Congress won't be voting to extend his new tariffs in 150 days so that they're dead before midterm voting starts

---

Do you think that 122 is the only way that Trump is going to try to hold on to Tariffs?

Are there any other avenues for longer-lasting tariffs?

---

No, of course I don't think that. But to quote the majority opinion, "The cited statutes contain various combinations of procedural prerequisites, required agency determinations, and limits on the duration, amount, and scope of the tariffs they authorize."

They will require lots of work, time, and none alone fill what he was doing with IEEPA. Again, there is a reason they spent a year on IEEPA (and are seething today about this ruling.)

SCOTUS ruling is not retroactive. Trump is restricted from continuing some tariffs moving forward then he will move to more tariffs using correct avenues provided by Kavanaugh.

A company pays a tariff to a EU located company. I'm pretty sure this EU located company isn't going to say "ok....here's your tariff refund, guys"

Pinochet said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Pinochet said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

File your claim. But you ain't getting your money back.

---

We're helping clients with refund claims now. We're pretty confident in the ability to get money back. May not be immediately paid, but clients will be getting paid interest on it anyway. Not paying them back is just going to more debt for the government.

---

Funny.

I hope you are not making any assurances to your clients about that.

Kudos to your confidence, if overly done and misplaced.

---

Right. The biggest companies in the world are just believing us without doing their own homework. I bet you also think the charitable donation at the register gives the business a tax deduction too, huh?

---

LOL good luck with that you are going to fail in epic fashion.


Even if you do it will be years of ligation and money spent on lawyers