6 |
1,378 |
| JOINED: |
Oct 2024 |
| STATUS: |
OFFLINE
|

The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, ruled that President Trump exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) by imposing broad tariffs, as the law does not explicitly permit such actions—even during declared emergencies—since tariff-setting power is constitutionally assigned to Congress.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25...7_4gcj.pdf
I think this was predictable considering the constitution clearly lays out who has authority for these types of actions. The administration used the IEEPA as justification even though the word tariff never comes up in it. There is precedent for targeted tariffs by the president, but these were blanket tariffs on the whole planet, with some of the reasoning arbitrary.
Unfortunately for the nation, the Big Beautiful Bill was passed with the assumption tariffs would offset the reduction in revenue, and increasing of spending. This doesn’t just fall on Trump, but also the republican legislators who should have known how all of this would play out given it is their jobs to legislate, not the executive.
Its going to take some time for the dust to settle for us to realize the impact this will have on debt and foreign policy.
207 |
5,408 |
| JOINED: |
Dec 2023 |
| STATUS: |
OFFLINE
|
That screws nearly all of Trumps entire foreign policy on how to get things done. And that means foreign countries will go back to taking advantage of America economically. But we kind of knew that this was going to happen.
6 |
1,378 |
| JOINED: |
Oct 2024 |
| STATUS: |
OFFLINE
|

(02-20-2026, 10:15 AM)FlyersFan Wrote: That screws nearly all of Trumps entire foreign policy on how to get things done. And that means foreign countries will go back to taking advantage of America economically. But we kind of knew that this was going to happen.
Our trade did need to be reevaluated. I also think that tariffs can be a very effective tool to do that. But we needed a plan on how to do that, clear guidance for why the were being put in place, and domestic policy to incentivize restoring.
All of this required codifying the plan. Without that, businesses and foreign entities knew they just had to hang tight to see what stuck, and that’s looking like not much.
The fallout is going to be much more debt and a loss of most of our leverage. This was all predictable unfortunately.
207 |
5,408 |
| JOINED: |
Dec 2023 |
| STATUS: |
OFFLINE
|
(02-20-2026, 10:19 AM)CriticalStinker Wrote: This was all predictable unfortunately. Agreed.
And if Trump went through congress for tariffs, he'd be shot down.
The Democrats would never stand for him being successful and they coddle foreigners.
So I see tariffs going away.
6 |
1,378 |
| JOINED: |
Oct 2024 |
| STATUS: |
OFFLINE
|

(02-20-2026, 10:20 AM)FlyersFan Wrote: Agreed.
And if Trump went through congress for tariffs, he'd be shot down.
The Democrats would never stand for him being successful and they coddle foreigners.
So I see tariffs going away.
I don’t think it’s that simple. His first term tariffs didn’t go away when he left office. In fact, we started to counter China more with things like the CHIPS act while keeping tariffs in place. That’s not to praise Biden, but to show there was an appetite on both sides of the aisle.
If the tariffs were focused on China, or showed targeted applications to benefit American industry, I think it could have passed in a Republican controlled Congress and senate. The problem is we targeted Allies, and the language of “reciprocal” tariffs was disingenuous.
We had a trade surplus with Australia yet hit them with tariffs. Canada was the number one importer of US goods, and got hit harder than many other countries.
The blame goes on Trump and legislators for letting this happen while voting on finance bills assuming tariffs would offset their effects. They’re all guilty, left and right.
17 |
5,406 |
| JOINED: |
Nov 2023 |
| STATUS: |
OFFLINE
|

So, what happens now?
'l'll just check my Giveashitometer....Nope. Nothing...
6 |
1,378 |
| JOINED: |
Oct 2024 |
| STATUS: |
OFFLINE
|

(02-20-2026, 11:04 AM)Oldcarpy2 Wrote: So, what happens now?
Trump claims he has backup plans to roll out tariffs with different legal framework. I don’t think he’s bluffing, but nothing supersedes the constitution, which is what this case was ultimately ruled on.
So my guess is prolonged back and forth of legal battles.
After the dust settles, we’re looking at increased debt, decreased leverage and a possibility for tariff refunds. Howard Lutnick’s sons at Cantor Fitzgerald coincidentally and by pure luck I’m sure created a contract to buy the rights for tariff refunds from companies for Pennie’s on the dollar.
Its all a mess, and a very preventable one.
The responsible thing to do would be accept accountability, and take this to Congress to be codified, which should have been done from the beginning. Instead I think it will be a circus where companies constantly have to figure out how to navigate this while flooding man hours into keeping up and requoting big projects (I say this from personal experience).
17 |
5,406 |
| JOINED: |
Nov 2023 |
| STATUS: |
OFFLINE
|

02-20-2026, 11:18 AM
This post was last modified: 02-20-2026, 11:18 AM by Oldcarpy2. 
(02-20-2026, 11:11 AM)CriticalStinker Wrote: Trump claims he has backup plans to roll out tariffs with different legal framework. I don’t think he’s bluffing, but nothing supersedes the constitution, which is what this case was ultimately ruled on.
So my guess is prolonged back and forth of legal battles.
After the dust settles, we’re looking at increased debt, decreased leverage and a possibility for tariff refunds. Howard Lutnick’s sons at Cantor Fitzgerald coincidentally and by pure luck I’m sure created a contract to buy the rights for tariff refunds from companies for Pennie’s on the dollar.
Its all a mess, and a very preventable one.
The responsible thing to do would be accept accountability, and take this to Congress to be codified, which should have been done from the beginning. Instead I think it will be a circus where companies constantly have to figure out how to navigate this while flooding man hours into keeping up and requoting big projects (I say this from personal experience).
Thanks. Does sound like a mess. I wonder what Trump will have to say. I don't do X.
'l'll just check my Giveashitometer....Nope. Nothing...
6 |
1,378 |
| JOINED: |
Oct 2024 |
| STATUS: |
OFFLINE
|

(02-20-2026, 11:18 AM)Oldcarpy2 Wrote: Thanks. Does sound like a mess. I wonder what Trump will have to say. I don't do X.
He called it a disgrace, and this just in:
https://x.com/watcherguru/status/2024880...zLwcRvUqtg
Quote:JUST IN: ?? President Trump says he has to do something about the courts after Supreme Court rules against tariffs.
17 |
5,406 |
| JOINED: |
Nov 2023 |
| STATUS: |
OFFLINE
|

(02-20-2026, 11:22 AM)CriticalStinker Wrote: He called it a disgrace, and this just in:
https://x.com/watcherguru/status/2024880...zLwcRvUqtg
Ah. What's he gonna do about the Courts? So much for the rule of law I guess.
Were the Judges Trump appointed?
'l'll just check my Giveashitometer....Nope. Nothing...
|