shiftyandquick said:

---

tysker said:

---

Tariffs are within the law even they are poor economic policy tactics. Trump using emergency powers to establish tariffs without Congressional approval and oversight is not Constitutional.

If you believe in the rule of law and the separation of powers then this ruling is proper.

---

I still don't get how three justices disagreed. When he obviously broke the law.

---

The dem talking point emails went out early yesterday

We both know there are already entire threads on every single one of his talking points thoroughly refuting them.

It would be an exercise in futility, not to mention a thread derail, to rehash them now. Its much easier and satisfying to just point and laugh.

I think I misunderstood you then. I think we agree. We both want justices to be without ideology, just follow the law. We have a few on the court that aren't like that.

Kavanaugh's dissent lays out the differences as to why he could not concur in the majority opinion. And it was the lack of guidance about refunds. The insistent silence by the majority on that point became a sticking point.

I actually think they might have been able to reach close to an unanimous decision with a different approach to the practical effect of ruling that IEEPA was the wrong statute but that the President does have plenty of tariff authority and always has. Kavanaugh lays out that roadmap.

PJYoung said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

gotta love that trump's approvals on tariffs and the economy is complete dog****, they're having the opposite effect from intended, and by almost any measure have been an abject failure, yet he remains undeterred to double and even triple down on them into an election where affordability and the economy is the #1 issue.

why stop at 15%? make them 25%, hell why not 100%! we'll bring in quadrillions of dollars!

---

Under what measure is the economy compleye dog *****

Gas prices have been at 5 year lows. Disposable income has gone up. Real wages have gone up. Unemployment is at 4.3%.

Go ahead. Show your work. Make a fact based case. I'll wait.

---

the Bureau of Economic Analysis announced the gross domestic product had grown at just a 1.4% annualized rate in the fourth quarter. That made 2025 the second-worst year for GDP growth since 2016.

---

GDP = C + I + G + (X - M)

The G in that expression is government spending. That G went down significantly in Q4 because of the shutdown.

Had we not had the shutdown, we'd have hit 3.2% GDP for the year, higher than 2024.

The economy is fine.

We know. It'll never be Trump's economy. Unless it improves.

It did improve.

ETFan said:

---

We know. It'll never be Trump's economy. Unless it improves.

---

Literally no one said that.

Ed Harley said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Garrelli 5000 said:

---

Funny. SC overturns Trump and the liberal dipsh**s shriek "Trump clearly was doing illegal stuff!"

SC overturns Biden and same liberal dipsh**s shriek "SC is a threat to muh democracy and should be impeached!"

Reagan conservatives and CMs are so predictable in their lies.

---

Do not mention Reagan conservatives in the same breath as CMs.

That is stupid.

The biggest difference between Reagan and Trump is communication style. You take that away, and Trump and Reagan are really very similar, starting with Make America Great Again.

---

No, they really are not similar at all. Trump is a liberal. Reagan was not.

---

How so?

Really good analysis of the legal/political implications of this. It's a long read so I'm not going to clip it here but it's a free Substack.

https://open.substack.com/pub/coffeeandcovid/p/tariff-turnabout-saturday-february?r=1vnmsc&utm_medium=ios

aggiehawg said:

---

Kavanaugh's dissent lays out the differences as to why he could not concur in the majority opinion. And it was the lack of guidance about refunds. The insistent silence by the majority on that point became a sticking point.

I actually think they might have been able to reach close to an unanimous decision with a different approach to the practical effect of ruling that IEEPA was the wrong statute but that the President does have plenty of tariff authority and always has. Kavanaugh lays out that roadmap.

---

Not a lawyer
Can he just switch the existing tarriffs to the other laws and leave them the same. Don't know what China paid but let's say it was $50bill off the top of my head. Just tell them their tariff rate will be the same but it will be under a different law. All they paid will just switch over to the new law. They don't get any money back and neither will the USA companies that sold their products.

Thanks for posting this

74Ag1 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Kavanaugh's dissent lays out the differences as to why he could not concur in the majority opinion. And it was the lack of guidance about refunds. The insistent silence by the majority on that point became a sticking point.

I actually think they might have been able to reach close to an unanimous decision with a different approach to the practical effect of ruling that IEEPA was the wrong statute but that the President does have plenty of tariff authority and always has. Kavanaugh lays out that roadmap.

---

Not a lawyer
Can he just switch the existing tarriffs to the other laws and leave them the same. Don't know what China paid but let's say it was $50bill off the top of my head. Just tell them their tariff rate will be the same but it will be under a different law. All they paid will just switch over to the new law. They don't get any money back and neither will the USA companies that sold their products.

---

I know what China paid. It was the same that Mexico paid for the wall, $0. The importing company pays the tax, not the exporting country, but we went through all this before the election. Y'all didn't believe it then, I don't expect you to believe it now.

Watermelon Man said:

---

74Ag1 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Kavanaugh's dissent lays out the differences as to why he could not concur in the majority opinion. And it was the lack of guidance about refunds. The insistent silence by the majority on that point became a sticking point.

I actually think they might have been able to reach close to an unanimous decision with a different approach to the practical effect of ruling that IEEPA was the wrong statute but that the President does have plenty of tariff authority and always has. Kavanaugh lays out that roadmap.

---

Not a lawyer
Can he just switch the existing tarriffs to the other laws and leave them the same. Don't know what China paid but let's say it was $50bill off the top of my head. Just tell them their tariff rate will be the same but it will be under a different law. All they paid will just switch over to the new law. They don't get any money back and neither will the USA companies that sold their products.

---

I know what China paid. It was the same that Mexico paid for the wall, $0. The importing company pays the tax, not the exporting country, but we went through all this before the election. Y'all didn't believe it then, I don't expect you to believe it now.

---

This is an easily verifiable fact so why should anybody believe it?

74Ag1 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Kavanaugh's dissent lays out the differences as to why he could not concur in the majority opinion. And it was the lack of guidance about refunds. The insistent silence by the majority on that point became a sticking point.

I actually think they might have been able to reach close to an unanimous decision with a different approach to the practical effect of ruling that IEEPA was the wrong statute but that the President does have plenty of tariff authority and always has. Kavanaugh lays out that roadmap.

---

Not a lawyer
Can he just switch the existing tarriffs to the other laws and leave them the same. Don't know what China paid but let's say it was $50bill off the top of my head. Just tell them their tariff rate will be the same but it will be under a different law. All they paid will just switch over to the new law. They don't get any money back and neither will the USA companies that sold their products.

---

exactly but you have some on here thinking companies are getting some big refund it's not going to happen, they are going to pay it all back in those tariffs.



LMAO>

India tells the US to piss off.

India delays Washington trade visit as U.S. tariff policy shifts, source tells CNBC
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/22/trump-tariffs-india-trade-deal.html

• Indian and U.S. trade negotiators had been due to hold talks in Washington, D.C., this week.
• The "meeting will be rescheduled at a mutually convenient date," a person familiar with the matter tells CNBC.
• India was facing a 25% reciprocal tariff, which was expected to be cut to 18%
• U.S. President Donald Trump increased some of the U.S.'s global import levies after the Supreme Court struck down his tariffs implemented under a separate act.

Quote:

---

India's trade negotiators will reschedule their planned visit to Washington, D.C., aimed at firming up an interim trade deal with the U.S., a person familiar with the development told CNBC.

The development comes after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs as illegal on Friday. Within hours, Trump invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to first impose a 10% global import tariff, before increasing that to 15%.

The "meeting will be rescheduled at a mutually convenient date," the source told CNBC Sunday. India and the U.S. are of the view that the visit "be scheduled after each side has had the time to evaluate the latest developments and their implications."
CNBC has reached out to India's Ministry of Commerce and Industry for a comment.

---

HoustonAggie11 said:

---

exactly but you have some on here thinking companies are getting some big refund it's not going to happen, they are going to pay it all back in those tariffs.



LMAO>

---

Some people are advising their clients to sell the potential refund claims and think it's a solid sure bet for the purchasers of those potential tariff refund claims. Bessent says no dice, and I would tend to believe him.

Quote:

---

I know what China paid. It was the same that Mexico paid for the wall, $0. The importing company pays the tax, not the exporting country, but we went through all this before the election. Y'all didn't believe it then, I don't expect you to believe it now.

---

Its very well established that both absord the costs.

Exporters want access to our market and are willing to cut costs to keep that access.

American companies do the same thing when exporting to markets with tarrifs.

PJYoung said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

74Ag1 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Kavanaugh's dissent lays out the differences as to why he could not concur in the majority opinion. And it was the lack of guidance about refunds. The insistent silence by the majority on that point became a sticking point.

I actually think they might have been able to reach close to an unanimous decision with a different approach to the practical effect of ruling that IEEPA was the wrong statute but that the President does have plenty of tariff authority and always has. Kavanaugh lays out that roadmap.

---

Not a lawyer
Can he just switch the existing tarriffs to the other laws and leave them the same. Don't know what China paid but let's say it was $50bill off the top of my head. Just tell them their tariff rate will be the same but it will be under a different law. All they paid will just switch over to the new law. They don't get any money back and neither will the USA companies that sold their products.

---

I know what China paid. It was the same that Mexico paid for the wall, $0. The importing company pays the tax, not the exporting country, but we went through all this before the election. Y'all didn't believe it then, I don't expect you to believe it now.

---

This is an easily verifiable fact so why should anybody believe it?

---

This sums up the GOP logic, completely.
Why should anyone believe an easily verifiable fact when they can choose to ignore it?

Don't believe easily verifiable facts. believe my illogical and poorly constructed lies.

Watermelon Man said:

---

PJYoung said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

74Ag1 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Kavanaugh's dissent lays out the differences as to why he could not concur in the majority opinion. And it was the lack of guidance about refunds. The insistent silence by the majority on that point became a sticking point.

I actually think they might have been able to reach close to an unanimous decision with a different approach to the practical effect of ruling that IEEPA was the wrong statute but that the President does have plenty of tariff authority and always has. Kavanaugh lays out that roadmap.

---

Not a lawyer
Can he just switch the existing tarriffs to the other laws and leave them the same. Don't know what China paid but let's say it was $50bill off the top of my head. Just tell them their tariff rate will be the same but it will be under a different law. All they paid will just switch over to the new law. They don't get any money back and neither will the USA companies that sold their products.

---

I know what China paid. It was the same that Mexico paid for the wall, $0. The importing company pays the tax, not the exporting country, but we went through all this before the election. Y'all didn't believe it then, I don't expect you to believe it now.

---

This is an easily verifiable fact so why should anybody believe it?

---

This sums up the GOP logic, completely.
Why should anyone believe an easily verifiable fact when they can choose to ignore it?

Don't believe easily verifiable facts. believe my illogical and poorly constructed lies.

---

If the tariffs do not cost China a thing, then why not just agree to it and laugh at Trump for taxing his own citizens to the poor house?

Seems like tariffs would be completely ineffective as a trade negotiation measure since it only hurts the country IMPOSING the tariffs. Instead these naive countries are complaining all over the world and coming to the table to work a deal with Trump.

Why is Trump dealing with wrong parties. The Trump trade negotiators need to spend time on f16 as our resident trade and tariff experts can inform them of the fallacy in their approach.

Tariffs

and all other forms of liberal fiscal policy


gayer than the gayest gayness

BigRobSA said:

---

Tariffs

and all other forms of liberal fiscal policy


gayer than the gayest gayness

---

Well, Scott Bessent seems to be pretty good at these things, so I think it's time you let tariffs out of the closet.

Tariff Pride!

Watermelon Man said:

---

PJYoung said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

74Ag1 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Kavanaugh's dissent lays out the differences as to why he could not concur in the majority opinion. And it was the lack of guidance about refunds. The insistent silence by the majority on that point became a sticking point.

I actually think they might have been able to reach close to an unanimous decision with a different approach to the practical effect of ruling that IEEPA was the wrong statute but that the President does have plenty of tariff authority and always has. Kavanaugh lays out that roadmap.

---

Not a lawyer
Can he just switch the existing tarriffs to the other laws and leave them the same. Don't know what China paid but let's say it was $50bill off the top of my head. Just tell them their tariff rate will be the same but it will be under a different law. All they paid will just switch over to the new law. They don't get any money back and neither will the USA companies that sold their products.

---

I know what China paid. It was the same that Mexico paid for the wall, $0. The importing company pays the tax, not the exporting country, but we went through all this before the election. Y'all didn't believe it then, I don't expect you to believe it now.

---

This is an easily verifiable fact so why should anybody believe it?

---

This sums up the GOP logic, completely.
Why should anyone believe an easily verifiable fact when they can choose to ignore it?

Don't believe easily verifiable facts. believe my illogical and poorly constructed lies.

---

Everyone knows the tax is accessed directly on the consumer.

You are expressing profound ignorance of economics if you think this doesn't cost the exporter in anyway.

Also, you probably don't know this, but Autopen left many of the tarrifs on China in place, because contrary of what they tell their easily manipulated brain dead voters, they acknowledged they were actually working as intended.

Quote:

---

Biden not only kept the majority of Trump's tariffs but, in May 2024, announced further increases on $18 billion of Chinese imports, specifically targeting EVs (rising to 100%), solar cells, and medical products.

---

Quote:

---

I actually think they might have been able to reach close to an unanimous decision with a different approach to the practical effect of ruling that IEEPA was the wrong statute but that the President does have plenty of tariff authority and always has. Kavanaugh

---

The administration chose IEEPA because they believed it to be the quickest way to enact tariffs. If other tariff avenues were faster, they would have used those. The administration misapplied IEEPA and now they'll have to do it the long and more correct way.