It's odd to me that something as fundamental as 'can the President unilaterally impose tariffs on any country he wants anytime he wants' is apparently so ill defined in law that 9 justices can't agree on it.
It seems likely to me the ruling took this long because John Roberts wanted to get a more unanimous ruling.
Additionally, the law in this case isn’t ill defined whatsoever. Alito, Thomas, and to a lesser extent Kavanaugh are just partisan hacks. For many years I wanted to believe they had a consistent and defensible legal viewpoint, even if I thought it was misguided. However the past six years have destroyed that notion. They’re barely even trying to justify themselves in most of these rulings; and via the shadow docket frequently deny us even that barest explanation.
> For many years I wanted to believe they had a consistent and defensible legal viewpoint, even if I thought it was misguided.
Watching from across the Atlantic, I was always fascinated by Scalia's opinions (especially his dissents). I usually vehemently disagreed with him on principle (and I do believe his opinions were principled), but I often found myself conceding to his points, from a "what is and what should be are different things" angle.
Because in practice the US Supreme Court is a partisan body, the United States is deprived of the potential for excellent jurists you'd expect with a population of hundreds of millions and some of the world's best law schools. Only a subset of your best will exhibit the desired partisan skew.
Despite the larger population and improved access, my guess is that the quality of Supreme Court Justices today is probably worse than in 1927 when it decided Buck v Bell (which says it's fine for states to have a policy where they sterilize "unfit" citizens, straight up Eugenics)
It would be worth looking at how other countries with comparable legal systems do it.
Eg., members of the Supreme Court of the UK are appointed by the King on the advice of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is required by law to recommend the person nominated by an independent commission.
The selection must be made on merit, in accordance with the qualification criteria of section 25 of the Act, of someone not a member of the commission, ensuring that the judges will have between them knowledge and experience of all three of the UK's distinct legal systems, having regard to any guidance given by the Lord Chancellor, and of one person only.
This seems to work fairly well and, although specific decisions are argued over as part of normal political discourse, it is generally seen as being non-partisan.
Ireland (which also has a common law legal system) has a similar setup, with the President appointing supreme court justices based on the recommendation of the government who, in turn, are advised by an independent panel. That advice is technically not legally binding, so this is in theory a less-strictly non-partisan system - but in practice it works out about the same.
I think the difference is that you can specify independently verifiable criteria for the selection process and require participants to decide based on those criteria alone without forcing them to become political actors who must directly bear the consequences of political decisions.
Not totally immune to issues of partisanship, but at least somewhat insulated.
BTW, the original intent of the Electoral College in the United States was pretty similar to this. Electors were supposed to be independent actors exercising their independent judgement in selection of the president. It wasn't sustainable for long.
I actually agree with you that the independant commission can lead to partisanship with extra steps.
Possibility to beat this deadlock: one party picking few candidates from the commission and OTHER party (parties) accepting one of them. Still can lead to "choose the lowest evil" and I can imagine Repiblicans not accepting anyone of Democrata were ruling.
This understates the failure: it was about as close to “immediate” as it could be. The whole structure was pointless just about as soon as the new state began to operate.
The electoral college is basically an appendix, except it was never a useful organ. It malfunctioned completely, right out of the gate.
Sure, so that suggests that these so-called "independent nonpartisan panels" are likely to fail immediately as well. It illustrates the principle that good intentions are no match for incentives.
It works fairly well because your PM and King aren't complete loons. At the end of the process there has to be someone making decisions, and when that person is a narcissistic 8-year-old in an 80-year-old's body, bad things are going to happen no matter how the system is written.
Given that the current system maximises partisan bias, it's actually hard to do worse.
Ideally you'd want to reform this hierarchically, but supposing we can only fix that final court, you want say a committee consisting of roughly a couple of academics who've taught this stuff, a couple of real on-the-ground attorneys who've argued before this court, a couple of retired judges from this court (if it had age limits, but today it does not) or the courts below it who've done this job, and five otherwise unconnected citizens (no specific business before any court now or expected) chosen at random the way most countries pick their juries.
That committee is to deliver a list of several people best qualified to fill any vacancies on the court which arise before the next committee does the same, if such a vacancy arises you just go down the list.
>roughly a couple of academics who've taught this stuff, a couple of real on-the-ground attorneys who've argued before this court
How are these members of the committee chosen then? Seems like you're just moving the problem around, if choice of committee member is also subject to partisan incentives.
Kavanaugh clearly isn’t in the same bucket. His votes go either way. I don’t recall seeing a single decision this administration where either Alito or Thomas wrote against a White House position. Not just in case opinions but even in an order. I don’t think we’ve seen a justice act as a stalking horse for the president in this way since Fortas.
Kavanaugh votes either way, but I don't think this is out of principle... I just think he's just kind of an idiot and thinks he can write a justification for just about any of his biases without making those biases obvious. It's kind of apparent if you read his opinions; they tend to be very verbose (his dissent here is 63 pages!) without saying a whole lot, and he gets sloppy with citations, selectively citing precedent in some cases while others he simply hand-waves. Take his opinion in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo (the "Kavanaugh stop" case): there's a reason why no one joined his concurrence.
Kavanaugh strikes me as principled, but in kind of a Type-A, "well, actually" sort of way where he will get pulled into rabbit holes and want to die on random textual hills.
He is all over the map, but not in a way that seems consistent or predictable.
His dissent in this case was basically "Don't over turn the tariffs because it will be too hard to make everyone whole" Which doesn't strike me as "principled" at all.
Wasn't it JFK who said "We choose to Not do these things bc they're kinda hard actually"? /s
This is nonsense, and the same nonsense as we heard in the insurrectionist ruling. Allowing fascism "Because it's inconvenient to do otherwise" is bonkers.
You need to be cautious with the notion of “his votes go either way”. In Hungary, where I’m from, and a Trump kinda guy rules for 16 years, judges vote either way… but they vote against the government only when it doesn’t really matter for the ruling party. Either the government wants a scapegoat anyway why they cannot do something, or just simply nobody cares or even see the consequences. Like the propaganda newspapers are struck down routinely… but they don’t care because nobody, who they really care about, see the consequences of those. So judges can say happily that they are independent, yet they are not at all.
This fake independence works so well, that most Hungarians lie themselves that judiciary is free.
> Weren’t Sotomator and Jackson the same with Biden? Kagan is much more principled
Very respectfully, there is no comparison between Trump and Biden in this respect. Indeed, the court adopted a new legal concept, the Major Questions Doctrine, to limit Biden continuing the Trump student loan forbearance.
FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. is an example of the same principle without the name (afaik it wasn’t named that until later.)
Basically the FDA tried to use its powers to regulate drugs and devices to regulate nicotine (drug) via cigarettes (device.) The conservatives on the court said, in effect, “look obviously congress didn’t intend to include cigarettes as a medical device, come on.”
Then Congress passed a specific law allowing the FDA to regulate cigarettes. This is how it should work. If congress means something that’s a stretch, they should say so specifically.
I think that's a fair example but it had the wrinkle that an FDA commissioner explicitly changed what the Agency's position on tobacco regulation was [1].
I don't have as much time to offer a similar assessment of the first two 'official' Major Questions Doctrine cases in the Biden administration, but neither was nearly as contentious as the FDA reversing its prior position.
For this reason, I see this decision as an argument against an agency changing course from an accepted previous (but not Congressionally defined) perspective. However, Chevron—at least according to interviews with lawmakers responding to the 'MQD' usage—ran counter to what the supposed understanding of how agency work would function. Again, I can find primary sources later.
You phrased something very poorly. Someone replied and you moved the goalposts; claiming that you were actually referring to the majority using a concept. And now you’ve moved the goalposts again.
I don’t know why you’re doing backflips to avoid admitting that you were wrong.
I wasn't wrong - the first time the concept was named in a decision was in the Biden administration. It sounds like you're not actually reading any of these, or aware of this issue?
I do agree that the idea that some agency actions should be used appeared in the case OP cited. But it's obvious that SCOTUS is using this concept much more broadly now.
Of course you don’t think you’re wrong. It’s obvious that you can’t admit you’re wrong - that was the point of my reply. The point was that you’re doing linguistic backflips and changing the subject to avoid admitting you’re wrong. And you’re still doing it.
A lot of people are capable of seeing through you.
Alito is one of the original proponents of the unitary executive theory (way before he was a Supreme Court justice). Everything he does should be looked at as an attempt to impose said theory and destroy America.
its truly bizarre that anyone with this view could get approved by congress. its so antithetical to the entire american political system. just blows my mind how spineless congress as an institution has been for decades.
Repealing the 17th amendment will once again incentivize the Senate to choose Supreme Court justices who seek to strengthen federalism & decentralize power
The dissent seems to be "Ignoring whether or not the President acted lawfully, it would sure create an awful big mess if we undid it. And he's gonna try again anyways, and maybe even succeed in that future attempt, creating an even bigger mess. So for these reasons, it shouldn't be undone."
When all of your decisions can be predetermined without even knowing the context of the matter you are surely a hack. It goes like this.....'Does this matter benefit Trump, corporations, rich people or evangelicals?'. Yes? Alito and Thomas will argue its lawful. Every single time.
Thomas isn’t a hack, he’s a shill. And he’s not even trying to be subtle about it. He’s somebody’s bitch and he literally drives around in the toys they bought for him as compensation.
If any justice deserves to be impeached it’s him. I can’t believe they approved him in the first place. Anita Hill sends her regards.
But the toys are so cheap. It can’t possibly be just a matter of the money, there has to be some blackmail involved. Either that or he was always self hating.
Then why accept them and face the embarrassment of being found out not reporting them properly?
You are correct compared to the $320k/year salary these empty nesters pull these things seem not that expensive. So why not just save up and buy them himself?
Yes, RED FLAG. Because apparently he likes nice things and spending money so much he can't seem to afford them himself or forgo the gifts and spare himself the scandal.
It’s not an absurd scenario. The law was written specifically to allow blocking imports from a country.
The nuance is that nothing Congress passed granted to right to tax. Additionally, they did grant the power to partially block imports. Nothing says you have to enact “no imports from Japan” vs. “no imports of networking equipment from Lichtenstein.”
>The law was written specifically to allow blocking imports from a country.
The precise wording is regulate. The idea that "regulate" means you can turn it on or off with no in-between is beyond parody. Absurd. Hilarious. Farcical.
That said the headline is misleading and should be renamed, nothing is changing from this ruling.
If you listen to the oral arguments, this issue was discussed at length.
There are two reasons for this distinction:
1. That's what congress decided. They get to determine tariffs, not the president. If the president doesn't like the law congress passed, he doesn't get to just ignore it.
2. Congress is very jealous of the right to tax and spend. They do not want to hand over this power to the president. Tariffs are taxes. If the president can just impose whatever tariffs he wants, he can raise revenue without asking congress for permission. That would grant the president enormous power to go around congress. Banning imports from a country does not bring in revenue for the president, so it doesn't pose the same risk to congress' power.
Trump has been trying to create a situation in which he can both raise revenue (through tariffs) and spend it however he wants (e.g., through DOGE's arbitrary changes to government spending) without ever asking congress. If he succeeds, the balance of power will be completely destroyed. The president will rule alone.
It really isn't ill-defined at all. Both the constitution and the law allowing the president to impose tariffs for national security reasons is clear. There are just some partisan hacks on the Supreme Court.
This specific law does not allow imposing tariffs, which is the whole point of the ruling. Roberts’s opinion says that a tariff is essentially a tax, which is not what Congress clearly delegated.
It’s one of the few things in the U.S. constitution that is not ill defined. Tariffs are very explicitly the prerogative of Congress.
The fact that the administration of tariffs is so much better defined than really anything else shouldn’t be surprising because tariffs is the proximate cause of the Revolutionary war.
It’s embarrassing that the 3 justices put their partisanship ahead of the clear language of the constitution and explicitly stated intentions of the founders.
Fully agree, but that's what happens when you keep piling laws on top of laws on top of laws and never go back and refactor. If I recall correctly, the case hinged on some vague wording in a semi-obscure law passed back in 1977.
The whole legal apparatus of the US doesn't want to hear that but your laws suck. They're flawed because of the political system borne of compromise with parties incapable of whipping their members to just vote in favour of a law they don't fully agree with.
"In fact, [proportional representation] robs him of personal responsibility; it makes of him a voting machine rather than a thinking and feeling person. In my view, this is by itself a sufficient argument against proportional representation. For what we need in politics are individuals who can judge on their own and who are prepared to carry personal responsibility."
That's the case in any country where a parliamentary body is split so closely.
When you need every vote to get legislature to pass, because you control 51% of a chamber, backbenchers on the ideological fringe of a party, (DINOs and RINOs) have a lot of power.
When you have a majority with comfortable margins, you can care a lot less about what the Sinemas and Manchins and McCains of a party think.
You're looking at the world with your American blinders on. The rest of the world's elected representatives vote with their party or they leave their party. What you're describing is a fundamentally American phenomenon.
But parties typically have to compromise with other parties in their coalition, so it would seem to amount to the same thing (compromise is required to pass legislation)?
Correct. The difference between FPTP and PR systems (Or countries with very strong regional parties) is that in a multi-party PR system, the coalition happens between party, in a FPTP two-party system, the coalition happens within the big tentpole parties.
There are many reasons for why two-party FPTP sucks, but this phenomena is present in multi-party systems, too. And, of course, sometimes politicians end up crossing the aisle, much to the chagrin of the party whip.
Old laws are often superseded or modified by newer legislation that's not novel or rare. This one wasn't because it hadn't been so roundly abused by previous presidents that it had been an issue worth taking up. It's the same with a lot of delegated powers, the flexibility and decreased response time is good when it's constrained by norms and the idea of independent agencies but a terrible idea when the supreme court has been slowly packed with little king makers in waiting wanting to invest all executive power in the President. [0]
[0] Unless that's power over the money (ie Federal Reserve) because that's a special and unique institution. (ie: they know giving the president the power over the money printer would be disastrous and they want to be racist and rich not racist and poor.)
Except that isn’t relevant at all. This Supreme Court is completely cooked. If the case was “can Trump dissolve New York as a state” you would still have 3 justices siding in his favor with some dog shit reasoning.
Read the opinions. Both are pretty reasonable. I think the dissent has a good point that a plain language interpretation of the term "regulate imports" would seem to include tariffs.
The bigger issue I think is that that statute exists in the first place. "Emergency powers" that a president can grant himself just by "declaring an emergency" on any pretense with no checks or balances is a stupid idea.
The original law (like many laws that delegated congressional authorities at the time) contained a legislative veto provision which gave the legislative final oversight of any administrative action. In the 80’s the Supreme Court found that legislative veto provisions were unconstitutional, but left all of those delegations standing. After that ruling, the administration can now do what it wanted without congressional oversight and the ability to veto any attempt to repeal the laws. In the oral arguments, Gorsuch raised the possibility that the law itself should have been found unconstitutional in the 80’s because the legislative veto was essential to its function. It looks like the court today took a minimalist approach, letting these delegations stand but minimizing the scope of the powers delegated.
Not a lawyer, but I found the majority opinion's position on "regulate" much more compelling than the dissent. In particular, the majority's argument that "regulate" is a pretty common function of the executive branch that in no other context implies the authority to tax (tariff), which is a pretty clear Article I power. The majority also convincingly argued that it seems unreasonable to interpret a law to broadly delegate Congressional power to the Executive branch without Congress making that intent explicit in the law. The dissent not only didn't make good counter arguments even read by themselves, but the majority opinion did a pretty good job refuting those arguments specifically.
It's obviously not that simple. If we follow your logic then we would expect that no previous President was able to enact tariffs. We obviously know that to be false as Presidents in the past have enacted a wide range of tariffs.
The argument the majority of the court went with in a few different forms is that a grant that goes against the constitutional grants needs to be explicit and IEEPA is not explicit.
Well, not really because that part doesn't grant the US President arbitrary powers to perform any action that would result in regulation (for example, he is not given the power to go around killing random people even if doing so would effectively regulate international trade; he can't declare war on another country even if doing so would be the best way to effectuate regulation of trade with another country) it gives him the OBLIGATION to perform regulation, using the powers delegated to him.
If giving the US President unlimited and arbitrary authority as long as they can claim it was useful for meeting a legal obligation created by Congress were the correct interpretation then we need look no further than the "Take Care" clause of the US Constitution, where the US President is given the obligation to take care that all laws are faithfully executed -- which, with this interpretation, would mean that any action would be under the purview of the US President as long as they could claim at doing that action resulted in the laws being faithfully executed.
Indeed, if you want to case intuitional blame here, it’s far more Congress’ fault for forcing the court to split these linguistic hairs rather than address this issue head on themselves.
Kavanaugh's opinion seems to say "well, this would be too hard to undo, so we should just leave it alone and let Trump continue". That hardly seems 'reasonable'. Just lazy and/or partisan.
> The plaintiffs argue and the Court concludes that the President lacks authority under IEEPA to impose tariffs. I disagree. In accord with Judge Taranto’s careful and persuasive opinion in the Federal Circuit, I would conclude that the President’s power under IEEPA to “regulate . . . importation” encompasses tariffs. As a matter of ordinary meaning, including dictionary definitions and historical usage, the broad power to “regulate . . . importation” includes the traditional and common means to do so—in particular, quotas, embargoes, and tariffs.
That doesn't sound like "well, this would be too hard to undo" to me, and making that argument elsewhere doesn't diminish the main point.
> If the case was “can Trump dissolve New York as a state” you would still have 3 justices siding in his favor with some dog shit reasoning.
As a counter-example, if the case was, say, "can a college use race as a factor in admissions"[0], you get 3 justices siding in favor using dogshit reasoning, just from the other side of the aisle. It's a bit ridiculous to think there aren't Democrat partisan judges on the Supreme Court.
The Bakke decision in 1978 upheld that race could be used as a factor in admissions. Your counter-example is precedent from 50 years ago. Does that same precedent exist in this tariff case?
It kind of shows that the USA does not have that strong means against becoming a dictatorship. George Washington probably did not think through the problem of the superrich bribing the whole system into their own use cases to be had.
Ah,yes, british constitutional law. In a country where no parliaments can bind its successors it means there is no constitution and the constitutional law is a polite fiction poorly held together with tradition and precedent.
All systems have weaknesses, but the utter criminal farce the US system has been betrayed to be yields a situation where zero Americans should be gloating about their constitution or values any more.
Oh look, Trump just declared a new, 10% global tariff because lol laws. Congress is busted. There are essentially zero real laws for the plutocrat class.
That was the fastest Supreme Court ruling in UK history though...
Similarly in the US, Watergate (Nixon impeachment) took only 16 days, and Bush v. Gore (contested election) took just 30 days to reach a Supreme Court judgement.
It takes a long time for something to get through all the appeals. Getting an injunction to put a stop to something during the appeals doesn't take that long.
The problem in this case is that Congress made such a mess of the law that the lower court judges didn't think the outcome obvious enough to grant the injunction.
As pointed out in other comments this process is entirely by choice of the court. In other cases where they just felt like ruling on something they have put things on their emergency docket and ruled on them immediately. Letting this situation ride for a year was a choice by the court.
Not doing something you could have done is frequently less of a choice and more of a lack of bandwidth to simultaneously consider everything which is happening at the same time. The vast majority of cases don't make it onto the emergency docket.
Many reasonable people would argue this was significant / enough of an emergency to justify devoting that bandwidth, even by the standards of the Supreme Court.
> The problem in this case is that Congress made such a mess of the law that the lower court judges didn't think the outcome obvious enough to grant the injunction.
"On Wednesday, the U.S. Court of International Trade dealt an early blow to that strategy. The bipartisan panel of judges, one of whom had been appointed by Mr. Trump, ruled that the law did not grant the president “unbounded authority” to impose tariffs on nearly every country, as Mr. Trump had sought. As a result, the president’s tariffs were declared illegal, and the court ordered a halt to their collection within the next 10 days."
"Just before she spoke, a federal judge in a separate case ordered another, temporary halt to many of Mr. Trump’s tariffs, ruling in favor of an educational toy company in Illinois, whose lawyers told the court it was harmed by Mr. Trump’s actions."
The appellate court decides whether to stay the injunction based on how likely they think you are to win more than which docket they think the Supreme Court is going to use. Cases going on the emergency docket are not common.
> If multiple appeals courts thought this case was a winner for the administration, we have an even bigger problem.
Do we? The law here was a mess. Prediction markets didn't have the outcome at anything like a certainty and the relevant stocks are up on the decision, implying it wasn't already priced in -- and both of those are with the benefit of the transcripts once the case was already at the Supreme Court to feel out how the Justices were leaning, which the intermediary appellate court wouldn't have had at the time.
> Sure. But some of them look clearly destined for it.
It's not a thing anyone should be banking on in any case. And if that was actually their expectation then they could just as easily have not stayed the injunction and just let the Supreme Court do it if they were inclined to.
That wouldn't explain the prediction markets thinking the administration had a double digit chance of winning. The sure things go 99:1.
> Hindsight is, as always, 20/20.
It's not a matter of knowing which docket would be used. Why stay the injunction at all if you think the Supreme Court is going to immediately reverse you?
"Though he normally aligns with Thomas and Alito, Gorsuch may be more likely to vote against Trump’s tariffs than Kavanaugh is, according to Prelogar. “It might actually be the chief, Barrett and Gorsuch who are in play,” she said."
"During the argument, several Justices expressed skepticism about the IEEPA expanding the President’s powers to encompass the ability to set tariffs."
This was the widespread conclusion back then; that the justices were clearly skeptical and that the government was struggling to figure out an effective argument.
They did not remove the injunctions. They stayed them.
Again, a stay does not necessarily mean “we think this is a winning case”. It can mean “the potential damage from this exceeds a threshold”. In fact, the appeals court affirmed the underlying ruling striking down the tariffs.
> The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a 7‑4 decision on Aug. 29, 2025, struck down President Donald Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA or the Act) to impose sweeping tariffs on nearly all imported goods from nearly all U.S. trading partners.
Although the Federal Circuit, in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, affirmed the U.S. Court of International Trade's (CIT) merits judgment, it nevertheless vacated the universal injunction issued by the CIT and remanded the case for further relief proceedings. The appellate court also stayed its decision until Oct. 14, 2025, allowing time for the government to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"On Friday, March 14, 2025, Trump signed presidential proclamation 10903, invoking the Alien Enemies Act and asserting that Tren de Aragua, a criminal organization from Venezuela, had invaded the United States. The White House did not announce that the proclamation had been signed until the afternoon of the next day."
"Very early on Saturday, March 15, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Democracy Forward filed a class action suit in the District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of five Venezuelan men held in immigration detention… The suit was assigned to judge James Boasberg. That morning, noting the exigent circumstances, he approved a temporary restraining order for the five plaintiffs, and he ordered a 5 p.m. hearing to determine whether he would certify the class in the class action."
"On March 28, 2025, the Trump administration filed an emergency appeal with the US Supreme Court, asking it to vacate Boasberg's temporary restraining orders and to immediately allow the administration to resume deportations under the Alien Enemies Act while it considered the request to vacate. On April 7, in a per curiam decision, the court vacated Boasberg's orders…"
TL;DR: Trump signs executive order on March 14. Judge puts it on hold on March 15. Admin appeals on March 28. SCOTUS intervenes by April 7.
That's a distinction entirely invented by the court, and under their control.
The emergency docket is whatever they want to treat as an emergency. The decision not to treat this as such - it's hard to imagine many clearer examples of "immediate irreprable harm" - was clearly partisan.
>apparently so ill defined in law that 9 justices can't agree on it
That is not how the Supreme Court works. SCOTUS is a political body. Justices do one thing: cast votes. For any reason.
If they write an opinion it is merely their post hoc justification for their vote. Otherwise they do not have to explain anything. And when they do write an opinion it does not necessarily reflect the real reason for the way they voted.
Edit: Not sure why anyone is downvoting this comment. I was a trial attorney for 40+ years. If you believe what I posted is legally inaccurate, then provide a comment. But downvoting without explaining is ... just ... I don't know ... cowardly?
In normal democracies you have multiple parties, so there is a much better chance of creating a coalition around the government and force election/impeachment if the leadership goes rouge. The US system turned out to be as fragile as it looks.
The failure of the US is not so much in judicial system (with some recent exceptions) mostly in how weak Congress has been for over a decade as executive power expands (arguably since Bush and including during Obama). The system was designed to prevent that from happening from the very beginning with various layers of checks on power, but the public keeps wanting a president to blame and fix everything. The judicial branch has been much more consistent on this matter with some recent exceptions with the Unitary executive theory becoming more popular in the courts.
Ultimately no system can't stop that if there is a societal culture that tolerates the drumbeat of authoritarianism and centralization of power.
> Yes but in practice they delegate this power to the executive.
No, they do not delegate the power to lay (set) taxes to the executive, they do assign the executive the function of collecting the taxes laid by Congress.
> Congress doesn’t run the IRS themselves after all
The IRS doesn't freely set taxes, it collects the taxes set by Congress.
The moment Congress authorizes that the Executive may use discretion then the Executive can effectively levy taxes. They may be wielding a bat owned by someone else, but who swings it is ultimately what's important.
Now I'm generally of the opinion that Congress shouldn't be allowed to give the Executive discretion but seems no one agrees with that and Congress would rather let the Executive write "not quite laws" on their behalf.
> No, they do not delegate the power to lay (set) taxes to the executive, they do assign the executive the function of collecting the taxes laid by Congress.
The quote from the constitution is "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes," not for the executive to collect taxes. If they can delegate collecting to IRS in the executive branch, why not can they not delegate the "Power To lay" taxes?
They don't delegate the policymaking. Tax code is always congressionally approved, and I'm unaware of any even remote argument that changing tax policy is delegated to the executive.
OTOH enforcement of congressional policies is basically always the role of the executive, so the fact that the IRS exists and does things doesn't really impact delegation.
Two of the justices would be happy to let Trump get away with murder. It's not that the law is ill-defined so much as a few justices are extremely partisan. Happily, a quorum of saner heads came about in this instance.
> The one where he specifically told people to protest peacefully?
I know the rules say to assume good faith but I don't see how anyone can do that given what you wrote. I'm really struggling to understand how that is your main takeaway from all the events that transpired that day.
But rather than rehash that maybe it's better to focus on current events. What are your thoughts on Trump, the first day assuming office in his second term, issuing a blanket pardon for all of the crimes his supporters committed that day in his name? Why would Trump who just wanted people to "protest peacefully," pardon those convicted of... beating officers with a flag pole, stomping on officers' heads, and crushing an officer in a metal door frame using a riot shield?
I do agree with you on one thing though:
> it's like they're living in another world
It truly saddens me to see so many people living in completely different realities. But I honestly don't think it's me or the person you're replying to that decided to relocate.
From all the evens that transpired that day? Trump directly told that crowd to peacefully protest. I don't know what more he could have done (on the day of). It was supposed to be a protest. It turned into a riot. The media didn't call it an 'insurrection' that first day, by the way. Or the second day. It wasn't until the third day that I heard NPR use it sometimes, other times they used the word riot. Was it a good thing? Hell no, it was despicable. Was it Trump's fault? Tangentially, sure, but he absolutely didn't call for them to do what they did. Could he have handled it better once it did? Sure. But keep in mind his administration suggested that the national guard be deployed to keep the peace and was turned down. How do you take that fact and the fact that he explicitly told them to peacefully protest and make it about him, not the protesters themselves that got out of hand?
I'm not a fan of Trump, and I certainly don't think that blanket pardon was appropriate. Neither was Biden's pardon of those close to him for any crime they could have possibly committed.
For what it's worth a lot of those people did get pretty ridiculous sentences for what was effectively a riot. Some probably deserved it, many did not. Compare their sentences to those that happened during 2020 riots and you'll see a massive imbalance.
> I don't know what more he could have done (on the day of).
In the first year of his second term Trump has repeatedly nationalized other states' national guards, against the judgement of those states' governors. He also threatened to deploy one state's national guard into "blue states" the President has personal grievances with. Let's not get into the why because the why is clearly not relevant to your comment, "I don't know what more he could have done."
Once again, you're either not responding here in good faith or you need to take a long honest reflection at how you came to that absurd conclusion.
> Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court determined that presidential immunity from criminal prosecution presumptively extends to all of a president's "official acts" – with absolute immunity for official acts within an exclusive presidential authority that Congress cannot regulate such as the pardon, command of the military, execution of laws, or control of the executive branch
Packing the court is unprecedented, and as soon as anyone did it, they would both do it continuously. It would also outrage the other party and make the first to do it more likely to lose the next election.
So you would get to pack the court for the rest of your current term before the other party gets back in and packs it the other way, and thereafter lose the courts as a check on the party in power forever because the first thing a party would do when they get into power is pack the courts.
As with partisan gerrymandering, packing the court cannot be the only step.
It would need to come with a commitment to a package of difficult to undo (i.e. amendments) reforms. SCOTUS term limits, preventing the Senate from refusing to even consider nominees, bans on justices receiving gifts (https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-un...), revocation of Presidential immunity, etc. You pack the court with an explicit promise to largely return to the old status quo when it's fixed.
Do you really think that if you packed the court, there is anything you could do to prevent the other party from doing the same thing the next time they're in power? Your plan would have to be to prevent them from ever getting back into power, and that's a civil war.
On top of that, Clarence Thomas is the oldest person on the court and Alito is only two years younger. By the end of the next Presidential term they'll both be in their 80s. You don't have to pack the court, you just have to be in office for the term or two after this one.
That was in a Presidential election year after Obama had already appointed two other Justices and the vacancy was the deciding vote, and Garland was more of a centrist than the previous nominees but was still left-leaning and would have flipped the court. Then they definitely lose if they confirm him but maybe win if there is a President from the other party the next year, and on top of that as long as they held the Senate even if they didn't retake the Presidency they could just confirm Garland in the fall instead of the summer.
That's not what it looks like in most cases. In the first half of any term the next election can't gain you the Presidency but it could lose you the Senate. On top of that, when it isn't the deciding vote, e.g. the first of either Alito or Thomas to be replaced, a moderate is a much better hedge than the coin flip even in the second half of a term, because if you take the moderate and then lose the next election at least you have the moderate in the other party's majority, meanwhile if you win the next election then you keep the majority regardless.
Which is to say, that's only likely to happen in the next few years if it happens for the second of the two Justices in the second half of a Presidential term and the Democrats lose the subsequent Presidential election.
> Do you really think that if you packed the court, there is anything you could do to prevent the other party from doing the same thing the next time they're in power?
I don't think it's 100% possible to stop a determined political movement in the US from doing A Holocaust, but I think it's worth at least trying to make it tough.
The point is your objection also applies to A Holocaust.
We can't 100% prevent anything; the Constitution could get amended to permit mass summary executions, with enough votes and public support. That doesn't mean it's not worth trying to make that tougher to accomplish.
The way you make that tougher to accomplish is by adding more checks and balances or repealing laws granting excessive authority to the executive. Packing the court would de facto remove an important one. The thing that would help that is a constitutional amendment prohibiting court packing.
> But the way you make that tougher to accomplish is by adding more checks and balances or repealing laws granting excessive authority to the executive.
That is what I describe as the "package" of reforms, yes.
> The thing that would help that is a constitutional amendment prohibiting court packing.
Good idea! Pack the court, and in that law, include a trigger provision that repeals it as soon as said amendment is passed.
(This has similarly been proposed in gerrymandering.)
> Good idea! Pack the court, and in that law, include a trigger provision that repeals it as soon as said amendment is passed.
Except then the other party just packs the court again instead of passing the amendment, whereas if you already have the votes to pass the amendment then you would just do that without packing the court.
The idea is to establish a "we can keep the everyone-loses war going, or we can fix it for both of us". It's hardly unprecedented; you're seeing it right now with the decision to reopen the government except DHS.
The real way you do this is by thinking ahead for five minutes. We consistently have the problem that everybody realizes checks and balances are important when the other party is in power but that's when they don't have the ability to institute them, and then they forget all about it the next time they're in power.
The easiest time to reduce executive power is when your party is in the executive branch to sign the bill.
Except that court packing is a purely partisan play where they gain nothing from not reciprocating in kind, whereas they benefit symmetrically from a reduction in executive power for the same reason as you -- it helps them the next time they're in the minority. And the symmetrical move wouldn't be to re-grant those powers to the executive, it would be to further limit the executive from unilaterally doing some things the other party doesn't think it should be doing.
The best case scenario would be to somehow get both parties actually targeting the other's corruption instead of just trying to get the votes needed to be the ones sticking the money in their own pockets.
It's more like "Mom, he punched me after I punched him after he punched me after I punched him after he punched me after..."
Nobody would have cared about Texas' gerrymandering except for Trump (stupidly) called for it - pretty much every political party has done it in their state over the years, but it's generally been gently putting their finger on the scale. But now that someone that half of the country have been convinced is literally Hitler had a part in it they feel like they can go absolutely wild with it. Everyone should be mad when gerrymandering happens, whether it helps your side or not. Representatives that feel absolutely secure in their seats are bad at their jobs, whether they're on your side or not. Going so hogwild in 'retribution' isn't virtuous.
Because the Texas redistricting hopes to bring the Democrats seats down from 13 to to 8, but a lot of those could still easily go either way. California made theirs to also pick up 5 but theirs are more sure. Virginia is the real whopper, where a purple state will move to all seats but one for Democrats instead of the reasonable almost down the middle split they now have.
I'm not defending what was done in Texas. Gerrymandering is gross. But I do hate how the discourse seems to be that Texas started it. They absolutely didn't. Neither party can be blamed for that, and this tit and tat back and forth is the wrong way to deal with it - so are so called "nonpartisan" committees, by the way. It's easy for a nonpartisan committee to quickly become quite partisan. What I wish would have happened is that there was a real dialogue about better fixes for the problem, but instead it became political mudslinging.
Easy part solution - put mathematical limits on the geometry. It wouldn't eliminate gerrymandering but it would certainly help.
"Whatever it took" is just appointing more judges. The president can do that. Unfortunately, the result would be that Trump would have just packed it the other direction and this case would have gone the opposite way.
Bills have gotten introduced to keep it at 9, but are generally shot down by democrats. Most recent one (I think, this isn't the easiest to research) is here. See all the sponsors are Rs[1]
Part of the problem is it requires an amendment so you need a super majority.
Imo democrats are waiting until they have enough of a majority to tank the reputation hit court packing would bring, but then lock it to 15 after they do so.
> “This court has determined that the only lawful sentence that permits entry of judgment of conviction without encroachment on the highest office of the land is a sentence of unconditional discharge,” Merchan said at the sentencing.
> The fact that the conviction only made his polling go up should tell you what the result of jailing him would have been.
We have precisely zero information on what a campaign by a jailed candidate who can't travel, campaign, or schmooze donors would result in.
> SCOTUS ruled that the President has immunity from criminal prosecution.
> SCOTUS ruled that said immunity applies to state crimes.
And yet he was criminally prosecuted.
> And they very regularly rule on other, more mundane criminal cases.
Sorry, they don't convict in criminal cases.
> “This court has determined that the only lawful sentence that permits entry of judgment of conviction without encroachment on the highest office of the land is a sentence of unconditional discharge,” Merchan said at the sentencing.
You're conflating things again. He was not punished for his crimes. That doesn't mean he was not convicted. You can't be immune and convicted. If he was immune, the case would have been thrown out. He's still a felon and so, clearly, not immune.
The immunity granted by SCOTUS was far more limited in scope than news outlets would have you believe.
> We have precisely zero information on what a campaign by a jailed candidate who can't travel, campaign, or schmooze donors would result in.
Are you saying a Biden-packed SC would have directly resulted in Trump being jailed? How? And my understanding was he was sentenced for the felonies, to unconditional discharge, because he was days away from beginning his second term. So how would that have gone differently just because the SC was packed?
Edit: Oh, maybe you’re thinking of things like the Colorado ballot eligibility case. Then if he hadn’t been electable, he would have been sentenced to serve time. Maybe, but are you arguing the Constitutional merits of Trump losing that case? Or are you okay with partisan hacks in the SC as long as they are Dems instead?
> Are you saying a Biden-packed SC would have directly resulted in Trump being jailed?
I don't think a Biden-packed SC would've found the President to be immune to criminal charges, no.
> And my understanding was he was sentenced for the felonies, to unconditional discharge, because he was days away from beginning his second term.
He was sentenced to nothing, directly because of the SCOTUS ruling. Per the judge: "the only lawful sentence that permits entry of judgment of conviction without encroachment on the highest office of the land".
Pre-SCOTUS ruling, no such "encroachment" existed.
His felony convictions came from crimes committed in the 2016 campaign. The judge “subsequently ruled that Trump's conviction related "entirely to unofficial conduct" and "poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch."”
(https://abcnews.com/US/judge-trumps-hush-money-case-expected...) so I don’t think it relates to SCOTUS’s immunity ruling.
> Merchan subsequently ruled that Trump's conviction related "entirely to unofficial conduct" and "poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch."
Again, at the actual sentencing, his ruling stated an unconditional discharge was "the only lawful sentence that permits entry of judgment of conviction without encroachment on the highest office of the land".
"I can sentence you, but only to nothing" is functionally not being able to sentence him.
If he was referring to the 2024 SCOTUS ruling, I guess I expected him to spell it out well enough for an armchair lawyer like myself, but you are probably right. Though I wonder if the "encroach" wording could be about the Supremacy clause and separation of powers (him being a state judge encroaching on the elected federal executive.) He wrote a lot at https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFs/press/PDFs/People%20v.%2... but I can't tell how much this SCOTUS ruling weighed into it. There are references to "presidential immunity" that, I think, encompass older cases than the 2024 one.
Anyway, in agreement with your larger point, the legal analyst at https://youtu.be/4tbaDI7ycrA?t=592 says he believe this SCOTUS would not have allowed a real sentence, so my nitpicking about the interaction of the 2024 decision with the lower court's sentencing doesn't matter much; SCOTUS would have let Trump go either way, and probably a Biden-packed court wouldn't have.
It's just another sign that modern Republicans aren't truly "Constitution-lovers" or textualists, that their leader is only safe because judicial activism invented immunity for him.
