Federal Court of Appeals Broadcasts Tariff Trial July 31st, 10AM ET

[The AntiDonald]

What’s up with the mic? Can’t they mic things up better than this?

I couldn't listen to it. With my PC volume up to 100%, I was still having trouble hearing.

 

[Ikari]

The law never specifies that the process includes the courts. Yet, executive actions have been challenged in court throughout history.

Executive orders can be challenged in court and potentially struck down if they are deemed unconstitutional, exceed the president's authority, or violate existing laws. Courts may also review the reasonableness of executive actions that limit rights. Legal challenges to executive orders can arise from various sources, including individuals, organizations, and even states.

challenge to executive order - Google Search

EOs are routinely challenged in courts. Acts of Congress and legislation are routinely challenged in courts. When the People seek redress, they essentially sue the government and that goes through the appropriate courts. It's always been this way.

 

[The AntiDonald]

The sound is terrible; I can't make out half of what is being said. Too bad, I thought this could be interesting to follow but I am struggling.

Planned my whole morning around this and then shit for sound. Disappointed.

 

[The AntiDonald]

Well that's the funny thing.

A full overturning of Trumps tariffs would, in theory, require them to be paid back.

If they rule against, Trump will appeal to the SC and the lower court will stay their ruling. Nothing will change and the SC will rule for Trump. I have no faith left in this high court. They are MAGA captured and not going anywhere.

I could be wrong.

 

[The AntiDonald]

If an emergency doesn't exist, it's up to Congress to determine that...not the courts.

We live under a 3 co-equal branch rule in the constitution. If congress fails to do their jobs, there is only one branch left to set it straight. The judicial branch.

You don't just get to throw them out of the equation because you are afraid of the outcome. While everyone here knows you would prefer an authoritarian ruled America, we're not there yet, thank God. Donnie-2-Dolls is not a king.

 

[maxparrish]

If you go back to the site, the transcript option works and it lists the entire hearing. I' skimming it now, trying to determine which advocate is speaking and when.

 

[Mycroft]

We live under a 3 co-equal branch rule in the constitution. If congress fails to do their jobs, there is only one branch left to set it straight. The judicial branch.

If this is were a case about Congress not doing their job, then that private entity should be suing Congress.

You don't just get to throw them out of the equation because you are afraid of the outcome.

This has nothing to do with me. This is about the law.

But, I see you are at the point where you have no reasoned argument, so you are trying to make it about me.

Bye.

 

[MTAtech]

If they rule against, Trump will appeal to the SC and the lower court will stay their ruling. Nothing will change and the SC will rule for Trump. I have no faith left in this high court. They are MAGA captured and not going anywhere.

I could be wrong.

You may be right about the SCOTUS. Precedent says they should rule against Trump, since he’s making the same argument Truman made regarding steel mills and GW Bush made regarding Guantanamo—in both cases the courts ruled against the president.

 

[maxparrish]

So, if they find against, are all his "trade deals" nullified?

Not so much nullified as merely unenforceable. As the "deals" were largely aspirational promises by other nations, and the they have no say on how much or little we tax ourselves (tariffs), I doubt these "deals" will change. They won't rescind their promises, because for the most part they weren't going to happen anyway.

Rather, they will wait...especially as it will likely end up at the level of the Supreme Court.

 

[MTAtech]

If this is were a case about Congress not doing their job, then that private entity should be suing Congress.


This has nothing to do with me. This is about the law.

Nobody is claiming Congress isn’t doing their job. They’re claiming the president is exceeding his authority. But do continue to make absurd arguments to justify Trump’s actions.

 

[The AntiDonald]

If this is were a case about Congress not doing their job, then that private entity should be suing Congress.


This has nothing to do with me. This is about the law.

But, I see you are at the point where you have no reasoned argument, so you are trying to make it about me.

Bye.

In this case I'm pretty sure it's about you because you're the only one here arguing for Trump.

 

[The AntiDonald]

Nobody is claiming Congress isn’t doing their job. They’re claiming the president is exceeding his authority. But do continue to make absurd arguments to justify Trump’s actions.

I would say it's both. Congress has systematically been turning over their power to the executive. This case is no different.

 

[Mycroft]

Nobody is claiming Congress isn’t doing their job. They’re claiming the president is exceeding his authority. But do continue to make absurd arguments to justify Trump’s actions.

That other member is the one who says Congress isn't doing their job.

The President is not exceeding his authority. The law gives him the power to declare emergencies.

I'm not defending Trump. I'm defending the law.

 

[CSharp]

If this court follows the law, they will have to dismiss the suit.

Congress gave the President the power to declare national emergencies...subject to concurrence from Congress. The judiciary really has no say in the matter.

For someone who seems to be lacking in actual research and knowledge, you sure do speak authoritatively a lot.

 

[CSharp]

This is an extreme and false exaggeration of what the statutes say. The President does not have unlimited authority over tariffs.

And just as a general comment, I’m so sick and tired of authoritarian Trump supporters claiming Trump can do whatever the hell he wants. That’s not how system works, and if you guys hate American values so much and want to live in some sort of dictatorship you’re welcome to leave the country and move to a dictatorship any time you want.

word

 

[CSharp]

That other member is the one who says Congress isn't doing their job.

The President is not exceeding his authority. The law gives him the power to declare emergencies.

I'm not defending Trump. I'm defending the law.

You aren't doing a ****ing thing but pimping for the orange buffoon. But, in your opinion do you really believe there is an actual emergency? Can you answer honestly?

 

[Mycroft]

You aren't doing a ****ing thing but pimping for the orange buffoon. But, in your opinion do you really believe there is an actual emergency? Can you answer honestly?

yawn...

Now you are wasting my time and boring me with your personal attack.

Bye.

 

[NWRatCon]

Your understanding of the law is laughable.

Cringeworthy.

 

[NWRatCon]

I don’t know how any lawyer could argue for Trump admin.

No real lawyer does.

 

[NWRatCon]

You aren't doing a ****ing thing but pimping for the orange buffoon. But, in your opinion do you really believe there is an actual emergency? Can you answer honestly?

Why start now?

 

[CSharp]

yawn...

Now you are wasting my time and boring me with your personal attack.

Bye.

What personal attack?
So the answer is no, you cannot honestly answer. Color me shocked.

 

[NWRatCon]

guess we'll see if actual judges agree with a random anonymous internet poster....

...who doesn't have a clue how the actual law/Constitution works. "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority".

 

[maxparrish]

That other member is the one who says Congress isn't doing their job.

The President is not exceeding his authority. The law gives him the power to declare emergencies.

I'm not defending Trump. I'm defending the law.

And the remainder of us are defending the supreme law of the land, the constitution. No statute supersedes either liberty nor the separation of powers of the Constitution, including the exclusive power to tax the populace, held by Congress and no other.

It amazes me that the very same MAGA crowd who were incensed over the use of Biden's national emergency to nullify our liberties during COVID suddenly think a national emergency is okay for whatever President Trump thinks it is to impose mass taxes on the people, without the consent of Congress.

Hypocrisy, meet thy master?

 

[maxparrish]

In regards to the statutory law.

The King's position is that a national emergency is whatever he says it is, and that it then gives him unlimited power to violate other laws. That is palpably stupid.

After the National Emergency act of 1976, designed expressly to limit Presidential abuse of national emergencies, the IEEPA was passed in 1977. Unlike the act in 1976 in 1977 he IEEPA further specified "that the President may only use powers it authorizes to deal with an “unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat.”136 The statute further provides, somewhat ambiguously, that the President may only use IEEPA powers activated by a declaration of national emergency to “deal with” that specific emergency.13"

In other words, the later statue imposes a limitation that it be a true emergency, something unusual and extraordinary threat to the economy, and among its powers it does not specify that Congress is transferring its Constitutional power to impose mass taxes on US citizens.

Therefore there is only one of two possibilities:

a) Trump is clearly exceeding his authority as trade deficits, Brazil's treatment of its President, and numerous other excuses Trump has given comes within a country mile of meeting that criteria. OR

b) If, on the other hand, one hopes to defend King Trump on the presumption that the IEEPA wording is unclear and leaves room to ignore the criteria as too ambiguous then the President's actions are a violation of the Major Questions doctrine, as recently established by the Courts rejection of deference to an executive agency:

"
The Major Questions Doctrine, introduced by the Supreme Court in the Chevron decision, requires agencies to point to clear congressional authorization for transformative regulatory initiatives. This doctrine shifts the burden of proof from the courts to the agencies, which must justify their interpretive actions not directly authorized by Congress. The "elephants in mouseholes" metaphor from Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion in Whitman v. American Trucking Ass'ns (2001) illustrates this shift, suggesting that Congress does not "hide elephants in mouseholes" when granting massive power. "

If Congress did not provide clear Congressional authorization for this transformative tax and tariff initiative, then the executive actions are moot. The granting of massive power to the executive requires the administration to point to clear congressional authorization.

Hence, if the courts are not bending to politics, the mass tariffing is not authorized.

 

[The AntiDonald]

And the remainder of us are defending the supreme law of the land, the constitution. No statute supersedes either liberty nor the separation of powers of the Constitution, including the exclusive power to tax the populace, held by Congress and no other.

It amazes me that the very same MAGA crowd who were incensed over the use of Biden's national emergency to nullify our liberties during COVID suddenly think a national emergency is okay for whatever President Trump thinks it is to impose mass taxes on the people, without the consent of Congress.

Hypocrisy, meet thy master?

There is one huge difference. Covid was a national emergency. In fact, it was an international emergency.