SCOTUS Catch-all | SCOTUS overturns IEEPA Trump tariffs

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 855
  • Views: 36K
  • Politics 
UNCMSinLS said:
I can only imagine the volume of class action litigation resulting from refunds to corporations. Maybe I'll be able to get that $5 voucher for my next Delta flight!
Click to expand...
We didn't get any clarification on the refund process, largely because Gorsuch decided to use this expedited case as an occasion for him to take an imagined victory lap on the student loan case and a couple of other major questions cases.

He complains that Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissented from the major questions doctrines in those cases, but now they are endorsing the major questions doctrine so hypocrites! And how do we know they endorse that doctrine? Why, they joined an opinion that, in parts they specifically and expressly they did not join, invoked the major questions doctrine. Maybe no means yes in his world (he also takes aim at Barrett, replicating the XY versus XX dynamic that has been going on for some time now).

Anyway, he says that, regardless of whether they actually joined that part of the opinion, they are using major questions logic!! It is true that the logic they use is also used by major questions doctrine opinions, in the same way that Kagan and Gorsuch alike recognize the validity of arithmetic (usually). But nothing they say anywhere is an endorsement of the distinguishing feature of major questions, which is that the Court won't interpret Congress' words to mean what they are without an especially clear statement. I guess Congress should write statutes like: 1) here are the provisions enacted into law; 2) we really mean it!

In response, Kagan says, "dude you so thirsty." Well, not quite like that, but that's essentially the meaning of:

"JUSTICE GORSUCH claims not to understand this statement, insisting that I now must be applying the major-questions doctrine, and his own version of it to boot. See ante, at 17 (“My concurring colleagues all but endorse it today”). Given how strong his apparent desire for converts, I almost regret to inform him that I am not one.

That's my take, at least. And yes, Gorsuch is so thirsty. The one good thing about Thomas is that he's never been thirsty. His jurisprudence is basically, "I am going to base my rulings on a bunch of crackpot nonsense that matters to me, and I know that y'all think I'm nuts but I don't care." There's little begging involved.
 
Last edited:
Busy day so I haven't read the opinion and won't until the weekend, but for what incredibly little it's worth, here's my hot take --

Winners:

1. The constitutional order
2. US markets
3. Lawyers
4. China

Losers:

1-100. Trump
101a. Mike Johnson
101b. John Thune
102. The American consumer
103. The deep staters working in the IRS and the Treasury who will have to figure out how to deal with the massive shitshow Trump and the people who voted for him have unleashed on us.

Jurassic Park Poop GIF by Vidiots
 
superrific said:
Hmm. Reading that, you might get the impression that Gorsuch adheres to precedent. Must depends on who is responsible for the "rules shifting from day to day."
Click to expand...
My take away from that is not so much the message... it's the audience he's writing for. Striking to see a Supreame Court justice write his opinion as if his job is a 4th teacher teaching remedial civics and not actually, you know, a Supreame Court justice. He's writing like he has to sell this to the unwashed tik-tok masses.

How far we've fallen. This sort of thing used to be baked into the very fabric of our public life, a shared and consensual norm that empowered us to be the greatest nation on earth. An now we have Supreme Court justices that feel like it's imperative on them to "take the case to the people" (it's MAGA actually, he writing for MAGA) to sell them on a bedrock principle of how a functioning democracy should work. That's the job for a fourth grade civics teacher, not a Supreme Court justice.
 
lawtig02 said:
Busy day so I haven't read the opinion and won't until the weekend, but for what incredibly little it's worth, here's my hot take --

Winners:

1. The constitutional order
Click to expand...
I'd say this is more like winning the middle quarter of the second half down by 25 points. I mean, it's something, I guess.

I'm still waiting for the Supreme Court to strike down a Trump action that doesn't personally harm them.
 
superrific said:
I'd say this is more like winning the middle quarter of the second half down by 25 points. I mean, it's something, I guess.

I'm still waiting for the Supreme Court to strike down a Trump action that doesn't personally harm them.
Click to expand...
Fair. I was actually going to ask, because I haven't read the opinion or thought about its implications, are there any other controversial executive actions that are clearly impacted by the reasoning of this ruling?
 
Ddseddse said:
My take away from that is not so much the message... it's the audience he's writing for. Striking to see a Supreame Court justice write his opinion as if his job is a 4th teacher teaching remedial civics and not actually, you know, a Supreame Court justice. He's writing like he has to sell this to the unwashed tik-tok masses.
Click to expand...
No, that's just how Gorsuch does things. He frequently writes as if his audience are fools, his audience usually being other Justices.

In one of his first oral arguments, he made this comment disguised as a question:

For that matter, maybe we can just for a second talk about the arcane matter, the Constitution. And where exactly do we get authority to revise state legislative lines? When the Constitution authorizes the federal government to step in on state -- state legislative matters, it's pretty clear. If you look at the Fifteenth Amendment, you look at the Nineteenth Amendment, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment,
Ah, yes, the arcane matter that nobody on the court except Neil thinks about. RBG slapped him down hard: "Where did one-person/one-vote come from?"

His normal mode is Neil-splaining. I wouldn't read any more into it than that.
 
"I'm allowed to destroy the country but I can't even charge them one dollar."

He's an absolute psychopath.
 
“I read the language I’m very good at reading language and it went our way 100%”
 
superrific said:
No, that's just how Gorsuch does things. He frequently writes as if his audience are fools, his audience usually being other Justices.

In one of his first oral arguments, he made this comment disguised as a question:

For that matter, maybe we can just for a second talk about the arcane matter, the Constitution. And where exactly do we get authority to revise state legislative lines? When the Constitution authorizes the federal government to step in on state -- state legislative matters, it's pretty clear. If you look at the Fifteenth Amendment, you look at the Nineteenth Amendment, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment,
Ah, yes, the arcane matter that nobody on the court except Neil thinks about. RBG slapped him down hard: "Where did one-person/one-vote come from?"

His normal mode is Neil-splaining. I wouldn't read any more into it than that.
Click to expand...
👀 Oh... that makes it so much worse.

He can't really, deep down, believe that his fellow justices (nor even anybody liable to read the full text of a Supreme Court decision) don't understand the US government on a 4th grade level. I refuse to believe that.

I can believe he's a pompous ass that thinks that keeping things at a 4th grade level provides cover for whatever bullshit argument he's inventing at the moment to get to a ruling in favor of his preferred outcome. I'd buy that.
 
Calheel said:
Every president has uttered something similar at one point or other. Trump has gotten his way in the Supreme Court so much, yet acts like a little baby when he can’t have all the toys. If he weren’t perpetually allergic to working with Congress and having to share power with others, he wouldn’t have these problems.
Click to expand...
Right. His party controls both houses of Congress. They can pass whatever tariffs they want to. The problem is, most of Congress is smart enoguh to understand that Trump's tariff plan is imbecilic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top