Gorsuch asks whether a different president could declare a national emergency on climate change.
— Dominic Pino (@DominicJPino) November 5, 2025
Sauer says he thinks they probably could.
So a GOP administration is arguing to the Supreme Court that a climate change emergency is probably allowed, for the sake of tariffs.
MemphisAg1 said:infinity ag said:
That said, I don't know why we have to run to the Supreme Court for every little thing in governance. Who is running the country, the President or the Supreme Court??
Trump's tariffs are not a "little thing."
I was glad when the SC reined in Biden's attempts at massive student loan forgiveness.
Will be equally happy if Trump learns he can't decree his own laws either.
I support the vast majority of his agenda, but he over-reached on these "reciprocal" tariffs. They're not even reciprocal, lol, but instead driven by trade imbalances.
He knows he over-reached. Two lower courts know he over-reached. And the SC knows he over-reached.
infinity ag said:
If Russia can tariff us, why can't we tariff them back? How does that become illegal?
Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:Gorsuch asks whether a different president could declare a national emergency on climate change.
— Dominic Pino (@DominicJPino) November 5, 2025
Sauer says he thinks they probably could.
So a GOP administration is arguing to the Supreme Court that a climate change emergency is probably allowed, for the sake of tariffs.
TRM said:
Gorsuch actually asked that question in arguments.
Quote:
Could the President impose a 50-percent tariff on gas-powered cars and auto parts to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat from abroad of climate change?
GENERAL SAUER: It's very likely that that could be done, very likely.
JUSTICE GORSUCH: I think that has to be the logic of your view.
GENERAL SAUER: Yeah. In other words, I mean, obviously, this Administration would say that's a hoax, it's not a real crisis, but -- but, obviously --
JUSTICE GORSUCH: I'm sure you would.
GENERAL SAUER: Yes, but that would be a question for Congress under our interpretation, not for the courts.
1939 said:
Are we really back to this?
All of the tariffs are awful folks have been proven to be completely wrong on this issue.
Quote:
It is in accordance with these principles that our Government seeks by appropriate legislation to promote the financial welfare of all the different groups that form our great economic structure. The Republican Party supports the policy of protection as a broad principle, good alike for producer and consumer, because it knows that no other means to prevent the lowering of the standards of pay and living for the American wage earner toward the misery scale that prevails abroad has ever been devised.
Were such protection removed the result would be felt at every fireside in the land. Our industry would languish, factories would close, commerce and transportation would be stagnant, agriculture would become paralyzed, financial distress and economic depression would reach over the whole country. Before we are carried away with any visionary expectation of promoting the public welfare by a general avalanche of cheap goods from foreign sources, imported under a system which, whatever it may be called, is in reality free trade, it will be well first to count the cost and realize just what such a proposal really means.
I am for protection because it maintains American standards of living and of business, for agriculture, industry and labor. I am in favor of the elastic provisions of our tariff law. I propose to administer them, not politically, but judicially. As the business of the world becomes stabilized, without throwing all our economic system into confusion, we can raise or lower specific schedules to meet the requirements of a scientific adjustment.
BigRobSA said:
Tariffs
Lib fiscal policy
Need to massively deregulate and cut corp taxes, the two big drivers of pushing mfg offshore. Also, to help the economy even more....gut spending.
BigRobSA said:
Tariffs
Lib fiscal policy
Need to massively deregulate and cut corp taxes, the two big drivers of pushing mfg offshore. Also, to help the economy even more....gut spending.
shiftyandquick said:BigRobSA said:
Tariffs
Lib fiscal policy
Need to massively deregulate and cut corp taxes, the two big drivers of pushing mfg offshore. Also, to help the economy even more....gut spending.
True conservative here ^
Quote:
The W.T.O. agreement will move China in the right direction. It will advance the goals America has worked for in China for the past three decades.
And of course, it will advance our own economic interests. Economically, this agreement is the equivalent of a one-way street. It requires China to open its markets with a fifth of the world's population, potentially the biggest markets in the world to both our products and services in unprecedented new ways. All we do is to agree to maintain the present access which China enjoys.
Chinese tariffs, from telecommunications products to automobiles to agriculture, will fall by half or more over just five years.
For the first time, our companies will be able to sell and distribute products in China made by workers here in America without being forced to relocate manufacturing to China, sell through the Chinese government, or transfer valuable technology for the first time. We'll be able to export products without exporting jobs.
Meanwhile, we'll get valuable new safeguards against any surges of imports from China. We're already preparing for the largest enforcement effort ever given for a trade agreement.
Henriques said:BigRobSA said:
Tariffs
Lib fiscal policy
Need to massively deregulate and cut corp taxes, the two big drivers of pushing mfg offshore. Also, to help the economy even more....gut spending.
Calvin Coolidge was no liberal.
Liberal trade policy is allowing your nation to be a free market while the trade partner continues impeding or blocking the goods of your farmers and manufacturers in their market.
Correcting those imbalances through negotiation and the use of tariff policy has an established place in the conservative movement.
infinity ag said:MemphisAg1 said:infinity ag said:
That said, I don't know why we have to run to the Supreme Court for every little thing in governance. Who is running the country, the President or the Supreme Court??
Trump's tariffs are not a "little thing."
I was glad when the SC reined in Biden's attempts at massive student loan forgiveness.
Will be equally happy if Trump learns he can't decree his own laws either.
I support the vast majority of his agenda, but he over-reached on these "reciprocal" tariffs. They're not even reciprocal, lol, but instead driven by trade imbalances.
He knows he over-reached. Two lower courts know he over-reached. And the SC knows he over-reached.
It is Trump's policy. Like taxes. Student loan forgiveness is just Biden bribing people with public money. Tariffs is an economic strategy. Two different things.
If Russia can tariff us, why can't we tariff them back? How does that become illegal? What if he wants to cut regulations that so called conservatives get orgasms over, and the Supreme Court deems that illegal? Everything would then be illegal.
FCBlitz said:
The funny thing about people talking about Tariffs being bad avoid the part of the context were Tariffs are good.
The adjustments to Tariffs between compliant nations lower everybody Tariffs.
Here is the lovely part of tariffs. From a security standpoint , the US have been punishing nations by use of tariffs ….say by the use electronics components….if they receive or supply components that are not to be sold……the guess what. You can leverage tariffs and gain extra income to pay down the debt. That is a very nice strategy.
So the doom and gloom predictions really just turn out to be ignorant sheep repeating a leftist message.
Tariffs are good.
AggieZUUL said:shiftyandquick said:
is if SCOTUS deems his tariffs illegal (which they are in my opinion). There is no national emergency requiring the largest increase in tariffs in history on almost every country in the world. He has to go to congress for that.
If SCOTUS rolls back the tariffs, we may actually see the economy rebound. And as the economy goes, so does the president's prospects and political fortune.
If the tariffs stay, we are going to see stagflation, which will significantly worsen very soon, and lead to massive unpopularity of the MAGA agenda.
The problem is, other countries can quickly change their tariff policies and if we can't respond in a timely manner, we become the fool getting bent over by more agile players in the game.
AggieZUUL said:shiftyandquick said:
is if SCOTUS deems his tariffs illegal (which they are in my opinion). There is no national emergency requiring the largest increase in tariffs in history on almost every country in the world. He has to go to congress for that.
If SCOTUS rolls back the tariffs, we may actually see the economy rebound. And as the economy goes, so does the president's prospects and political fortune.
If the tariffs stay, we are going to see stagflation, which will significantly worsen very soon, and lead to massive unpopularity of the MAGA agenda.
The problem is, other countries can quickly change their tariff policies and if we can't respond in a timely manner, we become the fool getting bent over by more agile players in the game.
Henriques said:1939 said:
Are we really back to this?
All of the tariffs are awful folks have been proven to be completely wrong on this issue.
Does that include Coolidge?
https://coolidgefoundation.org/uncategorized/address-upon-accepting-the-republican-partys-nomination-for-the-presidency/Quote:
It is in accordance with these principles that our Government seeks by appropriate legislation to promote the financial welfare of all the different groups that form our great economic structure. The Republican Party supports the policy of protection as a broad principle, good alike for producer and consumer, because it knows that no other means to prevent the lowering of the standards of pay and living for the American wage earner toward the misery scale that prevails abroad has ever been devised.
Were such protection removed the result would be felt at every fireside in the land. Our industry would languish, factories would close, commerce and transportation would be stagnant, agriculture would become paralyzed, financial distress and economic depression would reach over the whole country. Before we are carried away with any visionary expectation of promoting the public welfare by a general avalanche of cheap goods from foreign sources, imported under a system which, whatever it may be called, is in reality free trade, it will be well first to count the cost and realize just what such a proposal really means.
I am for protection because it maintains American standards of living and of business, for agriculture, industry and labor. I am in favor of the elastic provisions of our tariff law. I propose to administer them, not politically, but judicially. As the business of the world becomes stabilized, without throwing all our economic system into confusion, we can raise or lower specific schedules to meet the requirements of a scientific adjustment.
That from the greatest conservative President.
Take a look at what the so-called free trade agreements brought about in this country over the last generation or two. Coolidge was not wrong at all in his prediction of what such an agreement would bring about.
The removal of tariffs in the 1930s did not end the Great Depression; the removal of competition brought about by World War II ended the Great Depression.
Some of you extol the virtues of free trade, yet none of you seem to comprehend the price paid when the United States granted a foreign nation a free market while that same nation, through tariffs, state-associated financial backing and tax breaks, gave our producers and manufacturers a raw deal.
Under this President, we are finally attempting to actually negotiate rather than capitulate with foreign nations in matters of trade. Regardless of how the SCOTUS rules, hopefully that trend continues rather the old way of doing things where Uncle Sam routinely gets kicked in the balls and says thank you for the privilege of "free trade" with nations who have never engaged in free trade with us.
cecil77 said:
Congress has largely defaulted its constitutional responsibilities.
That's precisely why EOs have increasingly governed us for the past 40 years.
shiftyandquick said:
is if SCOTUS deems his tariffs illegal (which they are in my opinion). There is no national emergency requiring the largest increase in tariffs in history on almost every country in the world. He has to go to congress for that.
If SCOTUS rolls back the tariffs, we may actually see the economy rebound. And as the economy goes, so does the president's prospects and political fortune.
If the tariffs stay, we are going to see stagflation, which will significantly worsen very soon, and lead to massive unpopularity of the MAGA agenda.
