SCOTUS Catch-all | SCOTUS overturns IEEPA Trump tariffs

[Calheel]

DO know which wording, really just one word, related to IEEPA, was in question and ended up being the reason Trump was denied the ability to impose tariffs?

Article I?

Or is that two words?

 

[ZenMode]

Article I?

Or is that two words?

The phrase, was "regulate commerce". Ultimately, it was SCOTUS interpretation of "regulate" that got him.

Interestingly, the emergency powers that Biden tried to use to forgive a trillion in student loans said "statutory or regulatory provision". Sounds very similar to "regulate commerce" but the liberal justices had a much different opinion about the use of emergency powers when it was a Dem President.....

 

[superrific]

The phrase, was "regulate commerce". Ultimately, it was SCOTUS interpretation of "regulate" that got him.

This is incorrect. It is not close to being correct. Regulate was interpreted as it was because of the surrounding context.

Courts do not interpret the same language in different statutes the same way, just because they are the same word.

Why don't you just suck it up and go to law school, man? You will have plenty of time there for your humiliation fetish.

 

[ZenMode]

This is incorrect. It is not close to being correct. Regulate was interpreted as it was because of the surrounding context.

Right.... context is part of interpretation, so what I said is, in fact, correct... and close to correct.

Courts do not interpret the same language in different statutes the same way, just because they are the same word.

Agree. They, at least the liberal justices, appear interpret similar things differently depending on who's in the White House.

 

[superrific]

Right.... context is part of interpretation, so what is said is, in fact, correct... and close to correct.

Whatever this is supposed to mean. You're doing your little routine again, I see. "It was one word" -> 'no, it was a lot of words" -> "so I was right because contexts are words."

Not engaging any more on this. It's boring. It's like the Lakers taking on a high school JV team. It quickly loses everyone's interest.

 

[ZenMode]

Whatever this is supposed to mean.

What it's supposed to mean is what I said was correct and not incorrect.

You're doing your little routine again, I see. "It was one word" -> 'no, it was a lot of words" -> "so I was right because contexts are words."

The wording or specific word isn't relevant. What's relevant is the double standard by liberal justiced.

 

[superrific]

The wording or specific word isn't relevant.

Ah, yes, the famous legal theory of "nothing matters."

 

[Calheel]

What it's supposed to mean is what I said was correct and not incorrect.


The wording or specific word isn't relevant. What's relevant is the double standard by liberal justiced.

I haven’t been following this whole debate. But are you saying the liberals have a double standard because they were ok with the executive using emergency powers to defer student loan payments but not tariffs?

Is that your argument?

 

[finesse]

Ah, yes, the famous legal theory of "nothing matters."

And the way he tried to insinuate that such a double standard was established. If only he wasn't such a klutz at it.

 

[superrific]

But are you saying the liberals have a double standard because they were ok with the executive using emergency powers to defer student loan payments but not tariffs?

That's the sane washed version.

 

[ZenMode]

Ah, yes, the famous legal theory of "nothing matters."

Nice try. I said the interpretation of one word, or phrase was important in the decision. Whether or not that's true is irrelevant. What matters is the hypocrisy.

 

[finesse]

Nice try. I said the interpretation of one word, or phrase was important in the decision. Whether or not that's true is irrelevant. What matters is the hypocrisy.

That's awfully hypocritical of you.

 

[ZenMode]

I haven’t been following this whole debate. But are you saying the liberals have a double standard because they were ok with the executive using emergency powers to defer student loan payments but not tariffs?

Is that your argument?

Student loan payments, rent abatement and another one related to environmental changes in the auto industry.

 

[superrific]

Whether or not that's true is irrelevant.

A succinct summary of your entire posting history. Props to you. You understand yourself well, lololol