Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
What’s at stake for markets as the Supreme Court gets ready to hear Trump tariff arguments
“traffics are taxes…….Chief Justice John Roberts https://msnbc.com/the-last-word Lawrence O’Donnell’s The Last Word exposes the lies in this administration. American citizens are actually paying the tariffs, not the importing countries. No wonder food, housing, and everything else are getting much more expensive than that of the previous administration.
Just my opinion but if the supremes give regime a pass on his tax scheme they might as well call it GAME OVER for democracy, the rule of law and the constitution. Nothing left to do except to schedule the coronation and hand him his crown. But hey, doesn’t king sound somehow nicer than dictator?
i dont see scotus ruling much more than a loyalty test.
trump has several paths to implement tariffs, or effective equivalent. but all those options are binding and more serious, and trump will lose his ability to make daily tariff threats & changes based on bribes and ego.
in the case scotus rules against trump AND mandates tariffs refunded, trump will delay and grudgingly implement another option to retain the trump tariff tax. but can even this disrupt this market momentum? stupider economic policy has been unable to.
I predict that SCOTUS will adjust the circumstance such that they delay their ruling pending a change in logic and laws that the President's lawyers use as a reason for the tariffs. I'll go further. I expect a SCOTUS write up that clearly outlines what the conservatives want to see as an argument in order to let the tariffs stay put. In fact, they might practically write the argument for him.
i dont see scotus ruling much more than a loyalty test.
trump has several paths to implement tariffs, or effective equivalent. but all those options are binding and more serious, and trump will lose his ability to make daily tariff threats & changes based on bribes and ego.
in the case scotus rules against trump AND mandates tariffs refunded, trump will delay and grudgingly implement another option to retain the trump tariff tax. but can even this disrupt this market momentum? stupider economic policy has been unable to.
Does that eventuality then alienate a POTUS friendly SCOTUS, who doesn't take so kindly to becoming an irrelevancy? It only has to PO a couple justices to play havoc with this conservative majority.
Listened to Bloomberg Balance of Power show when they had on Cornell Law Professor. He said Alito and Thomas vote will vote in favor of tariffs - no discussion needed. Kavanaugh asked questions and made comments that he was 100% in favor of tariffs. While Barrett, Robert and Gorsuch were a little skeptical at first, in the last 15 minutes the Professor noted the change in tone and said it can go either way. That means 6-3 for President. Kavanaugh said that Foreign policy is dictated by President and using tariffs to stop oil trading with Russia worked. National Security, China - do you want USA to fail - 6-3 done deal.
While Solicitor General admitted that IEEPA powers would allow a future president to declare a climate emergency and heavily tax gas-powered cars, the Court will spend months crafting a limited opinion that says their opinion only applies in very specific limited cases.
I’m predicting a win for tariffs, even though it is prima facia losing case.
Jonathan Adler States that when a statute is ambiguous in the realm of foreign policy and national security, the Supreme Court typically applies a "strong deference" to the President.
Jack Goldsmith (Harvard Law School) has pointed to the 1976 Supreme Court case Federal Energy Administration v. Algonquin SNG, which upheld a president's authority to impose "license fees" (effectively tariffs) on oil imports under a national security statute (Section 232)
They believe that The word "regulate" in the IEEPA statute is broad enough to cover tariffs. They also believe that the Court is very hesitant to strip a President of economic weapons (sanctions/tariffs) used during a declared "national emergency," fearing it would weaken the US presidency on the global stage.
I would bet on prediction markets, but the bet is worded that any mixed verdict, such as kicking part of case back to lower court is a NO, instead of a jump ball.
... They also believe that the Court is very hesitant to strip a President of economic weapons (sanctions/tariffs) used during a declared "national emergency," fearing it would weaken the US presidency on the global stage. ...
Too late for that. The world's powers are already moving on from this poopshow. Maybe we can now ally with DPRK, Iran, Russia? Share weapons technology?
Letting the tariffs stick would ipso facto be an acceptance of the "National Emergency" The Orange Large One declared right out of the gate--- when there was and is--- no emergency. How about THAT question?
Letting the tariffs stick would ipso facto be an acceptance of the "National Emergency" The Orange Large One declared right out of the gate--- when there was and is--- no emergency. How about THAT question?
They will either completely ignore that question and just focus on the other questions that they will perform gymnastics to fit the 6-3 ruling they must have.
It would be ill-advised to expect anything but subservience from SCOTUS. Let's get that inflation roaring!
Media was all caught up with Gorsach’s tough questions in the first hour but they missed his final few minutes where he bailed out the flailing DOJ lawyer by saying “You meant to argue XYZ…”
Gorsach ignored the "Emergency" definition entirely and focused on the word "Regulate." He effectively said, "The statute says he can regulate. Regulate means tariffs. End of story."
Gemini AI predicts that Roberts is likely to write 6-3 opinion -
"The President has the power to strict-scrutiny 'regulate' commerce, but we are remanding this specific case to the lower court to determine if 'toy imports' qualify as an 'unusual threat' under the new standard we just invented."
When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate. In these circumstances and in these only, may he be said . . . to personify the federal sovereignty. If his act is held unconstitutional under thise circumstancies it usually means that the Federal Government as an undivided whole lacks power.12
Describing the second category, Justice Jackson stated:
When the President acts in absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority, he can only rely upon his own independent powers, but there is a zone of twilight in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority, or in which its distribution is uncertain. Therefore, congressional inertia, indifference or quiescence may sometimes at least as a practical matter, enable, if not invite, measure on independent responsibility. In this area, any actual test of power is likely to depend on the imperatives of events and contemporary imponderables rather than on abstract theories of law.13
The third category addressed situations where the President’s actions were contrary to will of Congress. Justice Jackson observed:
When the President takes measures incompatible with the express or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter. Courts can sustain exclusive presidential control in such a case only by disabling the Congress from acting upon the subject. Presidential claim to a power at once so conclusive and preclusive must be scrutinized with caution for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system.14
Say what?
Congress gave away the power to declare an emergency. We're in the first or second graph of Jackson's opinion.
The Supreme Court plans to next issue rulings on January 14
The court has now indicated on its website that it could release decisions in argued cases when the justices take the bench during a scheduled sitting next Wednesday.
The court does not announce in advance what cases will be decided, and there is no guarantee we will get a tariffs ruling next week.
If the Supreme Court can overturn Roe v. Wade and enable the Trump cartel to run amok, then why should we expect anything good from this motley crew.
US laws and the constitution are being subverted for political purposes. SCOTUS is no longer respected and is now relegated to political weaponization by the far right.
Comments
trump has several paths to implement tariffs, or effective equivalent. but all those options are binding and more serious, and trump will lose his ability to make daily tariff threats & changes based on bribes and ego.
in the case scotus rules against trump AND mandates tariffs refunded, trump will delay and grudgingly implement another option to retain the trump tariff tax.
but can even this disrupt this market momentum? stupider economic policy has been unable to.
Maybe they don't mind being cucks?
How does the investment picture change - this is what is important for us.
https://yahoo.com/news/articles/really-anderson-cooper-stunned-being-035342698.html
While Solicitor General admitted that IEEPA powers would allow a future president to declare a climate emergency and heavily tax gas-powered cars, the Court will spend months crafting a limited opinion that says their opinion only applies in very specific limited cases.
Jonathan Adler States that when a statute is ambiguous in the realm of foreign policy and national security, the Supreme Court typically applies a "strong deference" to the President.
Jack Goldsmith (Harvard Law School) has pointed to the 1976 Supreme Court case Federal Energy Administration v. Algonquin SNG, which upheld a president's authority to impose "license fees" (effectively tariffs) on oil imports under a national security statute (Section 232)
They believe that The word "regulate" in the IEEPA statute is broad enough to cover tariffs.
They also believe that the Court is very hesitant to strip a President of economic weapons (sanctions/tariffs) used during a declared "national emergency," fearing it would weaken the US presidency on the global stage.
I would bet on prediction markets, but the bet is worded that any mixed verdict, such as kicking part of case back to lower court is a NO, instead of a jump ball.
Gorsach ignored the "Emergency" definition entirely and focused on the word "Regulate." He effectively said, "The statute says he can regulate. Regulate means tariffs. End of story."
Gemini AI predicts that Roberts is likely to write 6-3 opinion -
"The President has the power to strict-scrutiny 'regulate' commerce, but we are remanding this specific case to the lower court to determine if 'toy imports' qualify as an 'unusual threat' under the new standard we just invented."
Congress gave away the power to declare an emergency. We're in the first or second graph of Jackson's opinion.
The Supreme Court plans to next issue rulings on January 14
The court has now indicated on its website that it could release decisions in argued cases
when the justices take the bench during a scheduled sitting next Wednesday.
The court does not announce in advance what cases will be decided,
and there is no guarantee we will get a tariffs ruling next week.
US laws and the constitution are being subverted for political purposes. SCOTUS is no longer respected and is now relegated to political weaponization by the far right.
They have the nerve to call themselves Justices.
TRUMP GOLDEN ENTERPRISES