photo #8746925

HERE WE GO!!!🚨 Supreme Court Justices Grill Trump's Tariff Authority in Oral Arguments Given what I just heard and following this, I believe The Supreme Court is LIKELY to UPHOLD the President's authority to impose tariffs.🔻 Breakdown:- Justice Kavanaugh questions the "odd donut hole" in the statute: why the President can shut down all trade or impose quotas with every country but not a 1% tariff, arguing it lacks common sense. - Benjamin Gutman argues tariffs are a fundamentally different power—akin to taxation for revenue—while the statute authorizes controlling or freezing trade, like embargoes, not revenue-raising measures. - Gutman emphasizes context matters; no other federal statute uses "regulate" to authorize tariffs or taxes, and tariffs fall under commerce power, not taxation, citing historical figures like John Marshall and Joseph Story. - Justice Barrett notes the interpretation allows embargoes on global trade but bars minor tariffs, probing if tariffs undermine the statute's goal of controlling transactions during emergencies. - Gutman clarifies embargoes ensure hard limits (e.g., no more than 1,000 units imported), while tariffs only add costs without guaranteeing control, potentially allowing trade to continue.- Justice Jackson challenges why blocking all trade isn't a bigger deal than a small tariff, and questions reliance on the Algonquin case, which was statutory interpretation, not constitutional. - Gutman responds that Algonquin looked at text, context, and legislative history, suggesting Congress intended emergency powers for stopping trade, not revenue generation.- Justices discuss framers' concerns: revenue-raising powers were core to Article I, posing different risks than trade controls, and tariffs might create incentives misaligned with emergency goals. 🔻Overall Lean of SCOTUS Judges:Remember, this is a bite sized morsel of the entire argument.- Conservative Justices (e.g., Kavanaugh, possibly Alito based on related reports) appear more open to the administration's interpretation, questioning the limitations on presidential tariff authority and expressing concern about removing it from the "suite of tools" for economic emergencies.- Liberal Justices (e.g., Jackson, possibly others) seem to be probing the breadth of presidential power, potentially leaning towards a narrower interpretation that aligns with historical and constitutional concerns about revenue-raising authorities.🔻 My Educated Guess on the Decision:Given the current composition of the Supreme Court and the oral arguments, it is likely that the majority WILL SIDE with the administration, upholding the President's authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Via MJtruth