341–350 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The justices and all of their clerks don't live in a bubble. They regularly hang out and discuss god knows what with other political operatives. Thomas is particularly noteworthy for essentially taking bribes from a conservative billionaire. The idea that zero information on potential rulings would leak out to certain people is highly implausible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not a lawyer. But I think cases need to work their way up to SC. Before today's ruling a Federal Trade Court ruled the tariffs illegal [1]. And later, a Federal Appeals Court did the same [2] The process takes time. 1. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/29/court-strikes-down-trump-rec... 2. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/29/trump-trade-tariffs-appeals-...
I know how that works but the speed and process should reflect the severity of the issue. Illegally taxing billions from we the people? Should be addressed immediately. And they have done that before….
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're misunderstanding at least a little bit here. The Constitution created separation of powers, but what it did not do is explicitly block a particular branch from either abdicating their duty or simply delegating their power back to the executive. It's certainly an interesting situation that wasn't explicitly spelled out in the law. But as far as everything that's working, it's realistically all within th…
> There are procedures to remove an unfit President, sure; but there's no requirement baked into the Constitution that requires those parties to act upon those procedures. This would be enforced how?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If whoever runs in 2028 does not have a concrete plan for investigating & prosecuting every single person who worked under this admin from top to bottom, they are wasting everyone's time. We need to see hundreds of life-in-prison sentences by the end of 2029.
[flagged]
I'm not following the reasoning in your comment. So because fishing expeditions are possible we shouldn't ever go after political opponents for actual crimes?
Am I understanding this right? 1) US customer pays huge import tax on imported goods in the form of higher prices. 2) Seller sends the collected tax to the US government 3) US government will refund all/most of that tax back to the seller after this ruling 4) Seller gets to keep the returned tax money as pure profit (no refund to customer)
Seller wasn’t involved in the tariffs. Rather the importer paid them, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know how that works but the speed and process should reflect the severity of the issue. Illegally taxing billions from we the people? Should be addressed immediately. And they have done that before….
There are faster paths to the Supreme court, but it takes Congress, the President or multiple states to do so, generally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Holy crap, you couldn't make a story that is a more direct echo of the plot point in Wonderful Life if you tried.
If whoever runs in 2028 does not have a concrete plan for investigating & prosecuting every single person who worked under this admin from top to bottom, they are wasting everyone's time. We need to see hundreds of life-in-prison sentences by the end of 2029.
At this point I think I'm most scared of the next fascist president. Trump has opened up a lot of avenues for blatant corruption and tyranny. His greed and stupidity have so far saved us from the worst outcomes but someone with his psychopathy but more savviness will mean the true end of our freedoms.
It's odd to me that something as fundamental as 'can the President unilaterally impose tariffs on any country he wants anytime he wants' is apparently so ill defined in law that 9 justices can't agree on it.
And that it took this long to get an answer to that question.
from the start of the "injury":
- 8 days to get to the supreme court
- 2 days arguing in court
- 5 days for the court to reach a decision
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_The_Prime_Ministe...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except that isn’t relevant at all. This Supreme Court is completely cooked. If the case was “can Trump dissolve New York as a state” you would still have 3 justices siding in his favor with some dog shit reasoning.
Read the opinions. Both are pretty reasonable. I think the dissent has a good point that a plain language interpretation of the term "regulate imports" would seem to include tariffs. The bigger issue I think is that that statute exists in the first place. "Emergency powers" that a president can grant himself just by "declaring an emergency" on any pretense with no checks or balances is a stupid idea.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ...but we disagreed with him. This one time. They've actually done so numerous times already and have several cases on the docket that look to be leaning against him as well. There's a reason why most serious pundits saw this ruling coming a mile away, because SCOTUS has proven to not be a puppet of the administration.
Except for all the other blatantly unconstitutional rulings in his favor. Presidential immunity one will go down in history as a black stain on America and the courts. and still this current ruling was a 6-3 vote.