The Supreme Court discussion thread
7 States have passed bills this year which place new restrictions on abortion. Alabama's new law, in particular, is a ne
they were already till oct 14 if i remember correctly, the appeal court decision itself delayed it till then (by their choice); not sure if now that SCOTUS picked up the case the delay is prolonged until the case is settled, or if SCOTUS has to formally prolong it after the 14th october deadline, but i think they will?
Several people, including Luciom and me, predicted that the SCOTUS would hold that Trump lacked the authority under IEEPA to impose at least the reciprocal tariffs and perhaps the "fentanyl" tariffs as well. I haven't read anything about the argument that changes my mind.
Several people, including Luciom and me, predicted that the SCOTUS would hold that Trump lacked the authority under IEEPA to impose at least the reciprocal tariffs and perhaps the "fentanyl" tariffs as well. I haven't read anything about the argument that changes my mind.
I think I'm really jaded now and just don't trust the SC to do anything other than trump's bidding. I mean, Alito and Thomas are simply MAGA. I don't really trust the other three conservatives to take many stands against trump. Although, I'm hearing that gorsuch is pretty skeptical of granting this particular power.
Maybe I should try to be a little more open minded here.
I think I'm really jaded now and just don't trust the SC to do anything other than trump's bidding. I mean, Alito and Thomas are simply MAGA. I don't really trust the other three conservatives to take many stands against trump. Although, I'm hearing that gorsuch is pretty skeptical of granting this particular power.
Maybe I should try to be a little more open minded here.
I think the court definitely is going to rule that Trump doesn't have the authority under IEEPA to levy the reciprocal tariffs. But I did read the following:
One major issue hanging over oral arguments is the extent to which the Trump administration must refund tariff revenue in the event that the justices find its policies to be illegal.
Speaking on behalf of the challengers, Katyal acknowledged it is a “difficult” question. But he generally seemed to suggest the court had many options at its disposal and could reconcile that later — including, for example, by limiting its decision “to prospective relief.”
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/11/05/...
I understand that Katyal's main goal is to win the case for the petitioners. And I understand that he wants to tell the court that it has options if it is fearful of the economic consequences of ruling against the government in this case, but there is no principled basis for limiting this decision to prospective relief. If the court actually took him up on this offer, it would be the functional equivalent of saying "naughty, naughty" but not really doing anything. If the decision came out that way, and I controlled one of the companies that had paid millions in tariffs (which I don't), I would lose my mind.
Yesterday I heard a discussion about this on the radio. Someone mentioned that Trump could replace the current tariffs with several other slightly different ways to tax foreign goods or to prevent them from coming in at all. I can't remember any details well enough to describe them here, but maybe Rococo or others can tell us any other ways Trump could try to accomplish the same thing.
Yesterday I heard a discussion about this on the radio. Someone mentioned that Trump could replace the current tariffs with several other slightly different ways to tax foreign goods or to prevent them from coming in at all. I can't remember any details well enough to describe them here, but maybe Rococo or others can tell us any other ways Trump could try to accomplish the s
They already have a plan to do this.
all the other methods while "legal", come with sometimes very significant restrictions.
Pretty much this.
would be pretty amazing the SC siding with expanding presidential power for using socialist policies like tariffs that should be solely congress responsibility....
would be pretty amazing the SC siding with expanding presidential power for using socialist policies like tariffs that should be solely congress responsibility....
Tariffs are most certainly protective, but I don't see how tariffs are socialist.
Tariffs predate socialism by decades I believe.
Tariffs were well in place during the so-called 'Gilded Age.' (1870's - 1890's)
Tariffs are most certainly protective, but I don't see how tariffs are socialist.
Tariffs predate socialism by decades I believe.
Tariffs were well in place during the so-called 'Gilded Age.' (1870's - 1890's)
Yeah. Tariffs are protectionist, but I don't associate them primarily with socialism v. other economic systems.
What definition of socialism are you people working with that excludes tariffs from that definition. ?
any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
A tariff is a governmental measure to protect the collective interests of the American public. How is that not socialism ?
What definition of socialism are you people working with that excludes tariffs from that definition. ?
any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goodsA tariff is a governmental measureYou think that any measure that is designed to "protect the collective interests of the American public interest" is, by definition, also a government measure that involves "collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods."
That is far from obvious to me.
Also, if acting in the collective interest of the public were socialism by definition, then virtually every government on earth should be self-identifying as socialist because virtually every government claims to be acting in the collective interest of the public.
What definition of socialism are you people working with that excludes tariffs from that definition. ?
any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goodsA tariff is a governmental measureThe govt isn't taking over ownership of the companies. They are basically setting up a toll gate so people pay more for what they are selling under capitalism.
Also, tariffs can hurt consumers more than the businesses and all around be worse for the collective interests of the American people - which should go against your ideals.
But it isn't one way or the other in any regard anyways so it's silly to make comparisons like this.
I believe tariffs were the federal government's main source of funding prior to the implementation of the federal income tax.
and it got ditch for a reason...
mostly forgot by trump and his idiots navarro.
I believe tariffs were the federal government's main source of funding prior to the implementation of the federal income tax.
Yes, they do serve the interests of the government, something Republicans always claim to be against.
Yes, they do serve the interests of the government, something Republicans always claim to be against.
All forms of taxation serve the interests of the government.
Tariffs are a tax on the consumer indirectly only when the consumer buys imported goods.
Conversely, sales taxes are a tax on ALL consumers.
I wanted to bump this thread to highlight why it was bad for the Supreme Court to rule that district courts cannot issue nationwide injunctions. The core of the concern is the following. First, district court rulings are not binding on other courts. Second, the administration doesn't have to appeal a negative ruling from a district court. Third, district courts no longer can issue nationwide injunctions, so any relief provided by the district court necessarily is limited to the named plaintffs. This gives the administration a real incentive not to appeal district court losses, especially in cases where the administration has done something obviously unlawful. In other words, the administration could just continue to enforce the unlawful policy, lose every time it goes to district court, and then limit the relief to the individual plaintiffs. Absent some sort of class action relief, it's a clean way to impose unlawful policy on people who are too broke, too scared, too ignorant of their rights, or too numerous to enforce their rights individually.
Trump is going to lose the birthright citizenship case. I don't think the vote will be particularly close. But the main reason this case ever made it back to the court was because the first SCOTUS ruling on birthright citizenship focused on whether district courts had the authority to issue a nationwide injunction related to Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship. During the oral argument of that case, Gorsuch pressed the Solicitor General to commit to bringing the constitutionality of Trump's executive order back through the appellate process if the administration lost on remand. The specific scenario that Gorsuch was trying to forclose was the possibility that the administration would lose at the district court level, and then choose not to appeal, thereby leaving the immediate plaintiffs with relief from the order, but not generating a negative appellate ruling that would be binding on lower courts at the Circuit level (or the national level if the issue went all the way to the SCOTUS).
Here is an opinion piece on the issue:
In May, during the first oral argument, addressing three consolidated cases, Justice Elena Kagan highlighted an alarming possibility that such a ruling would create: that the government would lose a bunch of cases brought by individual plaintiffs but never appeal its losses, so that it could continue to enforce a patently unlawful policy against anyone who didn’t bring her or his own lawsuit to challenge it.
An injunction issued by a Federal District Court in Los Angeles, for instance, wouldn’t directly benefit anyone other than the specific individuals who had brought that particular lawsuit. Without an appeal, the district court’s ruling wouldn’t indirectly benefit anyone, either; unlike decisions by the Supreme Court and federal appeals courts, district court rulings don’t have precedential force in other cases.
Justice Neil Gorsuch pressed John Sauer, the U.S. solicitor general, to do something extraordinary: publicly commit to bringing the merits of the birthright citizenship issue back to the Supreme Court if and when the government lost on remand. Mr. Sauer, understanding the costs of saying he couldn’t or wouldn’t, agreed to do so — a concession Justice Amy Coney Barrett memorialized in her majority opinion.
