442 Comments
User's avatar
Carol Bradford's avatar

Any smack down from the Supreme Court will be OK with me. There’s no hope for Alito or Thomas, but perhaps the other four conservatives will open their eyes for once.

Henry Cohen's avatar

Their eyes have been open; they've just ignored what they saw. The difference this time is that they will not be able to think of a basis for upholding the tariffs that is not utterly risible, and they don't want to be laughed at. Alito and Thomas are too arrogant to care whether they're laughed at.

Les Peters's avatar

“The difference this time is that they will not be able to think of a basis for upholding the tariffs that is not utterly risible”

The difference this time is money. The cash cows who installed the SCOTUS Six and have continued to pad their bank accounts via their spouses want the tariffs gone. The SCOTUS Six will do what their paymasters want. It has nothing to do with a threshold of embarrassment.

Leigh Hamilton's avatar

I would hope (ha) that they are feeling the intense dislike of the American people, with the understanding that when, not if, the Democrats take the House, Senate and WH in '28, things will change dramatically - and for them as well. They can be impeached, convicted and removed and the first one to go should be John Roberts for his unconstitutional rulings. Then Thomas for just being a gross, unethical perv.

Bob Bowden's avatar

More than unethical. KLEPTOCRATIC

GJ Loft ME CA FL IL NE CT MI's avatar

Thomas hates America. He should be in jail for tax evasion, but the DOJ is too afraid to charge a Justice with income tax evasion. Hopefully, he'll go looney-tunes like Trump and he'll have to resign (but not until 2027).

Henry Cohen's avatar

Thomas hates everything, most of all himself.

He should also be in jail for perjury during his confirmation hearings. That was more serious perjury than the justices who apparently lied at their hearings about not overturning Roe v. Wade, because, theoretically, they could have meant it and changed their minds.

Brian MacKay's avatar

Gift tax is paid by the giver, not the receiver. Seems weird till you think about it. Say you give your young granddaughter $25k. If she were to pay tax on it, the rate would be very low. By making the giver (you) pay, the IRS collects more.

Sorry, as deserving of a conviction that Thomas is, that's no a viable path

GJ Loft ME CA FL IL NE CT MI's avatar

It isn't the gifts that he received that are the evasion, it's the complete write off of the $200K+ loan from Crowe that he should have declared as income when he wrote it off. That is income tax evasion.

Peter Thom's avatar

“A pretzel too far” for the Supremes, indeed. Well, Thomas and Alito are inter-twisted with their spouses. But for the other ‘conservatives’ to have backed up all the way to “no taxation without representation” is either pathetically craven or nakedly biased.

The court’s conservatives have finally rested their case on the primary slogan of the American revolutionaries fighting the overreaching king and listed amongst other grievances in the Constitution. Obstructing justice? ✔️ cutting off trade? ✔️ Obstructing immigration? ✔️ Waging war? ✔️ Kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies? ✔️ Depriving people of trial by jury? ✔️ Transporting people beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences? ✔️ AND FINALLY … Imposed taxes without consent? Only taxes without consent is a pretzel too far for them. Mind boggling.

NubbyShober's avatar

The single overarching purpose of today's GOP is to transfer the tax burden from the top 5% to the bottom 95%. Trump's tariffs are currently being almost entirely eaten by importers, most of which are big corporations owned by institutions and Very Important Rich People. GOP Supremes are very sensitive to this.

Now if Trump had encouraged our big importers to immediately pass on these import taxes to consumers, the Little People, the conservative Supremes probably wouldn't've given a rat's ass.

Peter Thom's avatar

What share of Trump’s tariffs are consumers shouldering? It depends whom you ask? Goldman Sachs says 55%, while the St. Louis Fed says 35%. In any case the share consumers are paying is trending up, so on your thesis the Supremes had best hurry up.

NubbyShober's avatar

Because of the shutdown, there's not much economic data coming from the government. Well, that and Trump firing anyone who crunches data he doesn't like, so it's probably more a 1000% reduction. Like the discounts he demanded for all of us from Big Pharma.

Brian MacKay's avatar

I'm still waiting for issues with bills of attainder, corruption of blood and the quartering of troops. There's still some of the constitution that the Trump administration has not violated

Jessica Holliday's avatar

The most consequential vote / the deciding vote is the swing vote. And Roberts strives to be and nearly always is in the majority / swing vote. During oral argument, Roberts called tariffs "foreign facing," code for "within the president's authority" but Gorsuch appeared to be anti-tariff. Thus, the appearance that SCOTUS standing up to Trump. A 5-4 or 6-3 vote against tariffs is a vote for The Federalist Society and the wealthy supporters who advanced the careers of the R justices, not a vote for standing up to Trump.

Acela's avatar

But as Prof. Krugman says, this would create enormous uncertainty.

We all know how:

Businesses LOVE uncertainty.

The job market LOVES uncertainty.

The stock market LOVES uncertainty.

Our economy LOVES uncertainty.

Great job, Donald. Make it so that nobody can plan anything past next Tuesday.

George Patterson's avatar

"Speak of next year and the Devil laughs." Japanese proverb.

Ryan Collay's avatar

Even plan for what happened last week! Fuckin’ it up for years!

‘You want to get paid, good luck with that!’ So sue me!

Can you imagine what it must be like to have worked for him? I’m assuming they keep him a bubble and tried to have him not notice…now we need to give him a ‘pretend’ phone, like The Beach Boys with the Dad…give him a little knob to pay with!

Pragmatic Folly's avatar

He doesn't, why should we? 😂😳

Jessica Holliday's avatar

Because the R justices are standing by their boosters, they are not citing Trump's repeated assertions of national emergencies as they should and would if they were actually standing up to Trump. The R justice boosters are supportive of national emergencies as a basis for Trump actions that go their way.

Bill Taylor's avatar

Yeah, there is a national emergency. We might be invaded by penguins!

Kathleen Weber's avatar

Kavanaugh will be on the wrong side on this one. It will be a 6-3 decision.

George Hicks's avatar

That (6-3) seems right; but mainly because Gorsuch can't abide the thought of a future Democrat exec imposing killer tariffs to combat a global warming emergency.

The tariffs will come back in a different, somewhat less threatening form, and the SC will have to get real about how to deal with the problem of a bad-faith executive with "emergency powers" that no one can clearly overrule. There is a likelihood that the SC will actually set itself up as the sole arbiter of that issue. They could even do it in this case, but probably won't, giving Tr more time to wreak new forms of havoc.

Jeff Luth's avatar

SC will simply thwart any d president effort for the general health and welfare of Americans and enable any R president’s efforts to bend justice and prosperity to the few.

Mary E's avatar

Trump, d.o.b. 1946

Thomas, d.o.b. 1948

Alito, d.o.b. 1950

CB, perhaps we can be hopeful.

Les Peters's avatar

October 2020. An obese elderly “president” catches Covid. Against most odds he survives. I wouldn’t hold my breath. Also, considering MAGA currently holds both chambers of congress, the Senate would approve an even worse replacement for Alito or Thomas.

Matt Gregg's avatar

There is literally (not figuratively) no one 'worse' than Thomas. He is the standard. Thomas has never ruled differently than what the Tyrant would want him to. There may be people who are slightly better at articulating the ridiculous positions he holds, but the positions won't change significantly.

Mary E's avatar

LP, very good point.

George Patterson's avatar

He served as a good guinea pig for experimental treatments. That probably saved a number of lives.

Robot Bender's avatar

Or the flu, especially in the condition he's in.

ISeeWhatYouDidThere's avatar

If one of the Supremes falls sick wouldn't T. have to recall Congress to appoint a successor?

And wouldn't newly elected Adelita Grijalva have to be sworn in?

And wouldn't she be the 218th vote to release the Epstein files?

LM's avatar

It’s the senate that approves SCOTUS nominees

ISeeWhatYouDidThere's avatar

Thanks. So the senate could be recalled to approve a new SCOTUS nominee without Rep Grijalva taking her seat?

LM's avatar

The senate’s already in session and yes, they could approve a nominee without the house being recalled.

Joan Semple's avatar

Unless I am mistaken, this Canadian gal believes the Senate is in session? It is only Congress who are out.

Rena Stone's avatar

The Senate has currently been in session - and yes, they don't have anything to do with the Speaker of the House swearing in a new House member.

George Patterson's avatar

Only if that justice dies or retires.

Mason Frichette's avatar

Maybe, Chief Lawless Justice Roberts will write a decision stating that while the tariffs are illegal, Trump can't be a proper Dictator without the unfettered power to levy tariffs. So, this one time, until the next time, we're all going to just ignore the Constitution, because who can really say what the Founders/Framers meant almost 250 years ago. No, clearly we need a "New Originalism," not hampered by what a bunch of guys wanted or thought they wanted way back when.

He won't do that, but the level of hypocrisy coming from the SCOTUS SIX on a regular basis is just as bad.

R Mercer's avatar

If there actually was a threshold of embarrassment, they blasted through that a long time ago.

They don't even actually seem to be very concerned about preserving their own power/authority or that of the Courts.

Lance Khrome's avatar

I see a "qualified" NO on tariffs, but YES on executive prerogatives to declare "emergencies", where tRump could indeed invoke an "economic" emergency, though he needs to choose another statute more forgiving in law than the IEEPA. Watch for it, as the Notorious Six aren't nearly done rewarding tRump's assaults on democracy...witness the *Orr* ruling, and waving through tRump's barring of trans people to list gender rather than sex at birth on their passports.

Let the gratuitous cruelty carry on.

Howardsp's avatar

Who of those two is more crooked? Hard to choose, isn’t it.

Dennis Allshouse's avatar

kavanaugh is a douchebag, don’t count on him

Kathleen Weber's avatar

Trump's latest losses are welcome, but my fear is that Trump will be even more erratic and destructive as he sees his power declining. He will definitely try out the Insurrection Act.

Charles Bryan's avatar

In 1776 and for 7 years thereafter, the signatories to the Declaration of Indpendence were at risk of losing their heads were they ever captured by forces loyal to the mad king of the time. We must, as Shakespeare once said, screw our courage to the sticking place. Surely the sacrifices of our forefathers and mothers require nothing less.

Joseph Jannuzzi's avatar

The "Mad King" was actually ill with porphyria . His son, the Reagent, was misled by some unscrupulous members of Parliament who were determined to milk the rich colonies for their own gain.

George was actually a gentle and moderate King when not ill. The outcome was the same but the real villains were different. History is too important to risk even innocent distortions.

Brian MacKay's avatar

I think the democrats should start thinking about the post-trump era.

1. Come up with a list of laws and constitutional amendments that would prevent a future president from trying this again (for example, an amendment that would allow congress to take back a power delegated to the president without requiring presidential assent)

2. Start thinking about something like the South African "Truth and Reconciliation" process. Something will need to be done with folks like Miller, Vought and friends. I think the SA T&R process makes more sense than years in court.

Charles Bryan's avatar

I do not think a Truth and Reconciliation process (a la South Africa) will work with MAGA, as they do not inhabit the same 'fact universe' we do. I think something more akin to the Allies' "De-Nazification" campaign of 1945-49 is called for with prosecutions for crimes against humanity against the leading MAGA architects the order of the day. Also war crimes trials for the murderers of those innocent fishermen in the Carribean.

You are giving MAGA too much credit for its humanity; they are actually monsters in human skins and need to be handled as such.

Susan Swan's avatar

The de-nazification of Germany also involved handing them (at least west Germany) a new constitution. Yours needs to be highly revised by disallowing any money whatsoever in politics - make them publicly funded with each party getting the same budget, do away with the electoral college (some other form of not having first past the post such as ranked ballots would be good), depoliticizing Supreme Court appointments, term limits on the SC, depoliticizing districting, and ensuring that the president not only isn’t above the law, but can be arrested and tried for crimes even while in office

Charles Bryan's avatar

Canada, please liberate us!

We apologize for all the moose jokes!

You are cordially invited to visit my Substack for my latest piece: "I'm Sorry You Were Lied To."

Susan Swan's avatar

Y’all let the confederates off the hook after the civil war. You shouldn’t be making the same mistake with the worst of the MAGA forces. Miller and the rest of the Gestapo belong in prison.

Charles Bryan's avatar

Alabamian here. They're still fighting the Civil War down here. Scratch the surface of their white skins and many of them still bear a grudge against Sherman. For myself, I've long thought that Sherman did not go far enough and should have instead salted the earth (Roman style). I keep those sentiments to myself though, because you never know who has a white robe and hood in their closet down here.

Charles Bryan's avatar

If we want to get deep into the weeds, the real villain was neither George III nor the Regent, but the PM Lord Frederick North and other members of the cabinet (with able assists from George Grenville and the Pitts pere et fils). That said, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, et. al. were committing treason against the crown and would have received summary executions were they captured by forces loyal to His Majesty.

In much the same way, I suspect that Trump today merely serves as a figurehead for Stephen Heinrich Himmler Miller, The Puppykiller, Kegsbreath and all the little Eichmanns (like Tom Homan) in his court The times require us to exhibit the same courage against those monsters as our forebears did in 1776.

Sean M Carlin's avatar

He knows a great deal about insurrections. The only time he will not use the INSURRECTION ACT is when he organized and implemented the insurrection.

M Randall's avatar

Likely, he will invade Venezuela first. Classic move for a president to distract with foreign affairs when politics go badly at home. When protests arise at home, then the Insurrection act.

Keith Wheelock's avatar

MQ Clinton pulled a Wag the Dog when he ordered an attack against a ‘bin Laden’ factory in Sudan. Actually it was a medical facility that was opened by the American ambassador. Apparently the CIA got some dirt from nearby and made an erroneous assumption.

Oh well, my wife and I are dog lovers. I spent a month in Anglo-Egyptian Sudan in 1954 when things were rather peace.)

Alan Forrest Imhoff's avatar

This is exactly the sequence recent history would predict.

Charles Bryan's avatar

I so want Caracas to serve as his Stalingrad (or, failing that, Hue '68).

Ellen Skogsberg's avatar

Expect the unexpected by Trump now. The tide is slowly turning 🌊

Martian2024's avatar

He or Hegseth already fired a lot of generals and admirals: doesn’t look 👀 too good, alas.

beckya57's avatar

Agree with your overall point, but the Insurrection Act isn’t the martial law button it’s often made out to be; if it was he would have used it already.

Daniel G.'s avatar

This goes without saying. He will do this whether he suffers majors setbacks or not.

Christie Manussier's avatar

He ASSUREDLY will be worse with every loss and rebuke. Such is the way of narcissists and dictators (a Venn Diagram that may not *quite* be a perfect circle, but must be damned close). But, that was inevitable ~ the only roads to being rid of him in the long term, once he was reelected, are losses and opposition that makes him lash out in ever-more cruel and unhinged ways and/or his legacy of Big Macs coming home to roost. Or, (most likely) some combination of the two.

andré's avatar

The Insurrection act.

After Trump's impeachment & conviction !!!

Henry Cohen's avatar

I don't think that the Supreme Court "normally bends itself into a pretzel to ratify administration policies" as much as the six Republican politicians posing as justices don't give a reason at all. Using the shadow docket, they "temporarily" overturn lower courts' injunctions against Trump's illegal actions without bothering to explain why the lower courts, which themselves carefully analyzed the law, were wrong. That's because the six Republican politicians know that the lower courts were not wrong.

Henry Cohen's avatar

I wouldn't expect them to come right out and say that they don't care what the law says, and that, having lifetime appointments, they'll do what they want.

David Grinberg's avatar

Most bullies are cowards

Alan Forrest Imhoff's avatar

Ralphie beat the shit out of Scut.

Ellen Skogsberg's avatar

Yep. Like bullies on the playground with low self esteem. Sad really.

Derelict's avatar

If I recall correctly, back in August Trump was claiming his tariffs had already brought in $8 trillion. That's several times more money than the value of the entire U.S. economy! By now, we should have, what, $18 trillion in tariff revenues?

That should have paid off the national debt, and leave enough money to make every man, woman, and child in America a millionaire. Where's my money, Donald?

Prosaic Political Punditry's avatar

Trump needs to reduce his estimate by oh.. about.. 1,500%.

Kathleen Dintaman's avatar

The hero politicians will be ready to say "fact check me". A contrast to liar in chief.

Kristin Newton's avatar

The stockholders of Tesla, agreed to make Musk a trillionaire. That could pay off the national debt, and leave enough money to make every man, woman, and child in America a millionaire. Why don’t those in power care about the common good? What will they discover as they breathe their last breath. Will they be sorry?

Robot Bender's avatar

He's going to have to meet performance guarantees that are virtually impossible, especially with the financial condition of Tesla and the ridiculous overspending on his AI.

Ian Ollmann's avatar

The national debt is $31 trillion. Musk pay package, while outrageous and unjustified, would do little about the debt.

Sharon's avatar

That's got me laughing. I'm reminded of the old nursery rhyme... there's a mare that's lamed leaping over a stile. "Oh oh money will make the mare go?" More money is going to galvanize and get Musk back in the game? I don't think so.

Ellen Skogsberg's avatar

Some in "power" perceive themselves in a god like/holier than thou/not equal to you self image. Musk is only one of them. Their ego is what drives them. Shhh.... don't tell them we know they are actually sheep in wolves clothing.

Charles Bryan's avatar

As one of my professors long ago told me, you are far too logo-centric. LOLOL

Robot Bender's avatar

Exactly. If he was telling the truth, the national debt would almost be paid off.

Brian MacKay's avatar

Math is not a Trump administration forté. Did you see that Dr. Oz said that the pharma deal they announced (on GLP1 medications) would result in Americans losing a collective 135 billion pounds. Given that there are about 340 million people in the country, that's over 500 lbs/person

Derelict's avatar

I can only afford to lose about 40 lbs, so someone else is going to have to take up the slack.

Kathleen Herzog's avatar

US economy Jan 2025 (Biden)

Yes, the U.S. economy exceeded $23.9 trillion under President Biden, with significant growth reported during his administration. By 2024, the economy was noted for its strong performance, surpassing expectations in terms of GDP growth.

D Kitterman's avatar

With all due respect Mr. K, all of these legal machinations seem insanely pointless because the President of the United States is now finally obviously and visibly mentally incapacitated. Why has no member of Congress invoked the 25th? Why are we fucking around with our national security? Or why isn't he being impeached for the outright insane and illegal murder of people in boats, or the killings and harm being imposed on the streets of America, or at least, the Epstein files. Plenty has been brought into the legal records of his insanity and illegalities. Tearing down the East wing of the White House? Shutting down the government, air travel, starving impoverished Americans and others around the world, firing Black military officers, raping little girls? There is plenty to choose from, but tariffs seem to be further down the national list of egregious complaints. He is insane. The lights are on, but nobody is home.

john augustine's avatar

the electorate knew he was a lunatic before the election last year and they still voted for him because of the price of their eggs

D Kitterman's avatar

They voted for him because they are ignorant, racist, christo-fascists, who loved hearing a disgusting man saying disgusting things. I have two family members who literally know nothing, nada, zip, zero about economics, history, the Constitution, and who live in a rural county where they give the side-eye to anyone not white. These deeply ignorant people watch Fox news and only Fox news, a corporation that should be prosecuted for all the profoundly dishonest lies they feed to gullible Americans.

Kristin Newton's avatar

That’s why the education system in America needs a drastic overhaul. Everyone should have access to a good education, not just the elite. As we can see, democracy can’t survive if the voters are ignorant.

David Grinberg's avatar

I agree we need a serious public education overhaul. But with respect, access to education isn't, by itself, the solution. A startlingly high percentage of the US public CHOOSES ignorance. About 20% in some way conflate the Constitution with the Bible, while a third says biblical law should take precedent over secular law. About a third (probably mostly the same third) say that the US Civil War wasn't about slavery. Even if we could eliminate the racists', bigots', and religious nuts' influence on education, we are unlikely to overcome these other learned behaviors.

Ian Ollmann's avatar

The education system won’t fix sixty year old voters.

D Kitterman's avatar

But getting rid of lying Fox News sure would help. A nice billionaire could buy Fox and turn it into something amazing. Maybe Mackenzie Scott or George Soros.

George Patterson's avatar

Nobody can buy Fox if Murdoch won't sell.

D Kitterman's avatar

The US is in 34th place in the world statistically according to The National Center for Education Statistics.

𝔅𝔢𝔢𝔩𝔷𝔢𝔟𝔲𝔟𝔟𝔞's avatar

This is why Trump loves the uneducated.

Joan Semple's avatar

And once again, avian flu is rising and this time with no one left working at CDC to test and/or track it. Those eggs are going to get mighty scarce & expensive again.

Kalyrn's avatar

Doesn’t the CDC give the order to cull

The infected birds? So unless they all die quickly this could be a problem.

Max Kerpelman's avatar

If Republicans truly cared about the country, they would do this, or impeach and convict. However, what they truly care about is re-election; they're afraid of Trump's endorsing rivals in their next primaries. Perhaps Tuesday's results will give them second thoughts, but I doubt it.

Gordon Reynolds's avatar

I sometimes wonder about that fear. Are they truly afraid for their jobs? Or are they afraid of the supporters who’d make their life hell were they to displease dear leader? Or might it actually be that more than a few of them actually want what Trump is giving them? If it’s really only their jobs they’re worried about then a number of them should find last Tuesday’s election results sobering. Watching MTG lately, I have to wonder where exactly their fear is placed.

Max Kerpelman's avatar

I've seen comments on You Tube and an article in The Atlantic which suggest just that about MTG - she's positioning herself as MAGA without Trump. Does she think her constituents are fed up with Trump's failed promises, and his backing is now a hindrance, not a help? Tuesday's results would certainly support that.

Or, is she just mad at Trump because he wouldn't endorse a Senate run for her? It could be both.

Some Republicans may be true believers, and, like Trump, will ignore the reality that contradicts them. Others might be making too much money now off Trump's whims and corruption to care about the next election. Others, as you say, are afraid that their constituents are so invested in Trump that opposition is political suicide (i. e., they'll vote for someone else at Trump's request).

And some, I fear, are just too stupid to know better.

Thanks for the conversation!

Jeff's avatar

Why hasn't Congress invoked the 25th? Because they haven't delegated responsibility to themselves. Right now, it's on the Cabinet, unless Congress passes a law delegating responsibility to a different group (which I assume could be Congress itself). The relevant part is Section 4, 1st paragraph:

"Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President."

(https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-25/)

Note that makes the VP (JD Vance) Acting President.

Also, the President can regain his powers quickly by simply sending a letter to Congress (also Section 4, now second paragraph):

"

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office"

Which sets up another turn of the Cabinet (current body that can make a request) (continuation of 2nd paragraph):

"unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. " (continuation of the 2nd paragraph)

At which point Congress actually is empowered to do something (end of the 2nd paragraph):

"Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office." (end of Section 4)

Joan Semple's avatar

And Congress is not even in session. Coincidence? I think not.

Rachel C's avatar

Thanks for your clear explanation of this. I get tired of folks wanting to do this or that without understanding what the laws and rules are. 👹

D Olson's avatar

He has not been removed yet because he is doing what they want, and later he provides cover: twas him, not me.

George Patterson's avatar

He is doing what Steve Miller wants. Most congresscritters are doing what DonnyJon tells them to do. As stated earlier in the comments, most of them are afraid of being primaried.

Chenda's avatar

I can't see him staying in office till the end of his term, his cognitive decline will become impossible to hide eventually.

Bronwyn Fryer's avatar

It’s already impossible to hide.

George Patterson's avatar

Reagan finished his second term after his Alzheimer's became obvious. I remember the Doonesbury strip in which the reporter is taking people on a tour of Reagan's brain with synapses shorting out around him.

M Q's avatar

It is easier to impeach and convict than to apply the 25th amendment.

George Patterson's avatar

Not with this group of congresscritters. Either one will be impossible.

Charles Bryan's avatar

Trump's rationale for the imposition of these so-called "reciprocal tariffs" was that, somehow, a trade deficit constituted some threat to national security or some such blather. If so, I have an enormous security threat from my local Kroger, since I run a huge deficit (and balance of payments deficit) with them on a weekly basis. (On the other hand, I get food and drink to sustain me as a result of my personal Kroger trade deficit.)

I once again applaud Mr. Krugman for rushing in where angels fear to tread, i.e., into the demented babblings of a mad king\tyrant. The entire civilized world should place the U.S. in a three-year economic quarantine (or until Trump resigns) now. That's what you do in a public-health emergency and there's clearly a contagion on the loose inside the U.S. government.

Karel Tripp's avatar

I suspect they have already, but are not shouting about it.

Joan Semple's avatar

Oh, we have been shouting up here in Canada! Look at Uncle Dougie’s anti tariff Reagan ad during the World Series. That was fun! Prime Minister Carney has been less in-your-face but no less focussed on ‘moving on’. And don’t forget our grassroots ‘Elbows Up’ rebellion which persists to this day & has had an impressive effect on buying (or I should say not buying) American. That’s gonna persist for some time going forward because, well your current administration is completely untrustworthy. You may not realize this but 80% of all Canadians live within 100 miles of the US border and for the most part, we the people, are done. Elbows Up! 💪🇨🇦💪

Karel Tripp's avatar

Granted, but UK calling, and Europe is playing a ‘nuanced’ game.

Joan Semple's avatar

So is Carney. Don’t let that fool you into believing all is well.

James Moseley's avatar

I listened to the hearing and I am not sure Trump will lose. Kavanaugh made it clear that he wasn’t interested in the facts and just wanted to battle the attorney. Barrett made some excellent arguments against the tariffs, but I find she always talks out of both sides of her mouth. This is a 6 to 3 majority conservative court and, even by conservative standards, justices like Kavanaugh and Thomas are puppets for Trump. Barrett basically doubted illegalizing the tariffs because reimbursing companies would be “a mess.” What? “Sure your honor, DNA proves the convicted murderer didn’t kill her but releasing him from jail would be a mess so let’s just move on???”

Orc's avatar

Remember the first judgement Gorsuch participated in? It was to let the execution of a man go ahead whom DNA evidence showed couldn’t have been the murderer.

James Moseley's avatar

Wow. These supremes have some colorful pasts. Yikes

Spencer Weart's avatar

Reimbursing may be the key here -- it has gotten far too little attention, but you can bet the Supremes are not totally ignorant of the economics. Reimbursement is mandatory if the tariffs are ruled illegal, regardless of what new tariffs Trump may impose. Reimbursement means (1) yes, a big howling mess as lawyers and accountants scramble, but also (2) a sudden injection of $100 billion or so into the economy just as it's starting to falter, and just in time for the midterm elections. A nice problem for justices whose chief motivation is to enhance Trump's power.

RCThweatt's avatar

Don't think so. Their chief motivation is to protect their own. Trump's candidacy had to be protected because the Democrats were moving toward reform of the Court, 18 year terms and ethics standards.

Karel Tripp's avatar

Forgive my ignorance but has the administration actually taken possession of actual $$, or are they just a promise from governments trying to deal with a schizophrenic administration?

Spencer Weart's avatar

Yes it's taken in actual $$. When a US importer takes possession of something imported (which usually means releasing it from a warehouse) they pay the tariff, and the money goes into the Treasury. I've read that something well over $100 billion has already been collected, making a modest reduction in the federal deficit.

Karel Tripp's avatar

May I ask where that information is available. In these times I tend to double, treble etc check that information such as this is reliable. Bearing in mind the chief statistician was fired and economic data is not being collected on a regular basis.

Spencer Weart's avatar

Sorry I'm not an expert here, tbh it's just something I heard on NPR's "Marketplace" podcast, which is usually very reliable and interviews people who actually import. I'm too lazy to do the research for you, I recommend asking Perchance and look at the references it cites.

𝔅𝔢𝔢𝔩𝔷𝔢𝔟𝔲𝔟𝔟𝔞's avatar

Every dime collected, by any means, reduces the deficit.

But the tariffs aren't enough to cover the big fat tax cut for billionaires.

M Q's avatar

It looks like it bears repeating:

The tariffs don't come from governments or even foreigners. They are paid by American individuals and corporations to the US government at the point that the goods that Americans have paid for arrive at our ports.

George Patterson's avatar

The tariffs have certainly taken in some money. Both I and my wife have made orders in which the tariff is billed separately. In one case, my wife's order was held by Customs for several weeks until the tariffs were paid. Furthermore, other governments don't pay the tariffs, so they don't "promise" anything. Customers like myself and my wife pay the tariffs.

Brian MacKay's avatar

Tariffs are collected by the "Customs and Border Patrol" (yes, CBP, the tear gas guys) as a tarriffed good crosses the border into the US. Yes, those are real dollars that are being collected

Brian MacKay's avatar

Actually, both Gorsuch and Coney Barrett occasionally show some spine (not often, but it does show up now and then). I'll be impressed if Kavanaugh shows that he can stand on his own feet with this.

𝔅𝔢𝔢𝔩𝔷𝔢𝔟𝔲𝔟𝔟𝔞's avatar

That's exactly what Scalia said in HERRERA v. COLLINS, 506 U.S. 390 (1993))

So long as the t's are crossed and the i's are dotted on the paperwork, he was cool with the execution of an innocent person.

Windriven's avatar

Never underestimate the ability of this Supreme Court to do something stupid and harmful.

David Wyon's avatar

Calling out "a pretzel too far" is a valuable addition to the language of politics. I look forward to seeing this phrase being widely adopted.

Laura's avatar

A soybean too far!

Raun Norquist's avatar

DjT is the artful dodger when laws or reality face him down. He will simply find another law to bend and we will have to take that new assault through the courts, more time, more court congestion, more funds wasted…. It makes his mantra of waste, fraud and abuse not a condemnation but a rallying cry!

George Patterson's avatar

True. Paul listed the possible excuses for the President levying tariffs. Other people in the media have opined that DonnyJon will simply pick another excuse and keep his tariffs in place. I'd bet they are correct.

Michael P Sulzer's avatar

I think Trump has "normalized" declarations of emergency. The MM hardly rarely gives his use of an emergency as an excuse the attention it deserves. So I guess that the Supremes can get away with ignoring it, too.

Ivan's avatar

Giving Presidents power to act on emergencies and urgent national security grounds are reasonable. But there is no justification for allowing such actions to be without time limits for congressional approval. If we ever get a competent congress they need to make sure that all emergency powers have a relatively short period before they have to be approved by congress. If the actions are reasonable in response to a real emergency it would not be hard to get an approval.

Jeff's avatar
Nov 7Edited

And it definitely should be short. In an emergency, Congress has previously acted quickly. They passed a war declaration on Japan on December 08, 1941, one day after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. They passed a war declaration on Al Qaeda on September 14, 2001, three days after 9/11. For the 1st Gulf War, they passed a war declaration on January 12, 1991, the same day it was introduced.

(source: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RS21405)

Edit: Fixed al Qaeda declaration that Sep 14 is 3 days after 9/11, not the day after. Originally thought it was day after, didn't fix when found source before publishing.

Brian MacKay's avatar

It actually took Bush longer to sign it (the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force") than it did for Congress to pass it.

* Attacks: 11-sep-2001

* Introduced & passed in the Senate: 14-sep-2001

* Passed in House: 14-sep-2001

* Signed by Bush: 18-sep-2001

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_of_2001

Tom Blees's avatar

"They passed a war declaration on Al Qaeda on September 14, 2001, one day after 9/11."

What, is this new math?

Jeff's avatar

My error. Originally thought it was day after, didn't fix when found source before publishing. Fixed now. Thank you.

George Hicks's avatar

I agree. It's either legislation or else the Supreme Court will arrogate to itself that power, and we know how long that takes and how un-democratic it can be. The country needs a good-faith exec who can respond quickly to a real emergency, but we also need a check and balance on that power that is democratic.

Laura's avatar
Nov 7Edited

Trump 2.0 is a direct result of the infamous immunity ruling, today’s Dred Scott equivalent of a Supreme Court decision that defies decency, violates the constitution and invites abuse of power. Ditto for Citizens United. If the conservative supremes are starting to backpedal it’s because they understand that their robes aren’t shields and their ‘wise words’ just aren’t cutting it anymore.

Rena Stone's avatar

Nope. I think their suddenly "reasonable" views on tariffs - and on the regulation of the Fed - is b/c they don't want to let Chump kill the golden goose (aka, the US economy). But they're otherwise okay with him destroying civil rights and the rule of law.

Laura's avatar

These morons in robes apparently think that they can have their great modern economy with an imperial and lawless executive. Good luck with that. The immunity decision is bad for American values , bad for business, and bad for the Supreme Court. The stench is undeniable.

Mark Mabro's avatar

What's disgraceful is that the Supreme Court even heard the case in the first place. They should have accepted the ruling against Trump from the Appeals Courts and refused to hear it. When history is written about this period, Trump won't be the only guilty culprit in the demise of the U.S. The Court has played a highly prominent and shameful role in aiding the descent.

Brian MacKay's avatar

I agree. I expected them to deny certiorari (but, then again, Thomas and Alito are two votes for the administration before any question is considered). Is the voting for "cert" released (4 votes are required for cert)

Tom C's avatar

When the Supreme Court rules the tariffs unconstitutional and illegal, and the economy, perforce, improves, with lower inflation and more growth, Trump will take the credit.

Sun's avatar

As Lawrence O’Donnell pointed out last night, all T***p ever had a do about the economy was…nothing, and claim credit for the roaring economy Biden left him with. But no. He sabotaged, plundered, and betrayed us.

Brian MacKay's avatar

Yeah, after the election, and before the inauguration, I really thought Trump would have spent the rest of this year on a victory lap, taking credit for all the good stuff that resulted from the IRA, the CHIPS act and especially the infrastructure act.

But, no, Russell Vought and Stephen Miller needed to be placate and the country destroyed

Max Kerpelman's avatar

I would like to think that rolling tariffs back to Jan. 1 levels would be good for the economy, even if it gave Trump a political benefit. However, wouldn't it increase the deficit already baked into the OBB? If Trump bothers to do anything at all to address that, it would be a call for further slashes in the government and the safety net, so we might not be better off. It's hard for me to be optimistic.

Tom C's avatar

Let's hope that when Democrats take over, we address the deficit with a much more progressive income tax. Tax Elon Musk's $1 trillion pay package at 80%. Maybe he'll renounce his citizenship and leave.

Max Kerpelman's avatar

Let's hope we still have free elections.

Kerry Kilborn's avatar

If Musk were to do that, it would cost around $200 billion in exit tax. Might look quite affordable to him. On the other hand, he may not be able to continue to invest in US assets, so it could cost considerably more.

George Patterson's avatar

Where would he go? I doubt that Canada would take him back (although Canadian law doesn't seem to allow them to strip him of citizenship), and he certainly wouldn't fit in back in South Africa.

Brian MacKay's avatar

Malta, or somewhere else with a golden visa program

Thomas Kraus's avatar

Please highlight the fact that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant's family is going to make a lot of money off of the illegality of the tariffs. His sons have been buying up on the cheap the rights to the refunds of the illegal tariffs. It's a direct transfer of wealth from businesses and consumers into the Treasury Secretary's family's bank accounts.

Amy Norman's avatar

You're thinking of Lutnick, the commerce secretary, and his sons.

Thomas Kraus's avatar

You are right... thank you

Thomas Kraus's avatar

As Amy pointed out, I should have said Howard Lutnick, Commerce Secretary, not Bessent