SCOTUS

[BigFatMeanie]

Roberts, Kavanaugh, Barrett are conservative pragmatists. Gorsuch is principled, thoughtful, consistent. Even when I don't agree with the decision I can respect their reasoning and consider all of them to be honorable.

Thomas and Alito are unprincipled partisan hacks who would decide the same case in completely opposite ways based on which party it helps.

Interesting. I’m also interested in your thoughts on Kagan, Brown-Jackson, and Sotomayor.

[BlueK]

Interesting. I’m also interested in your thoughts on Kagan, Brown-Jackson, and Sotomayor.

Kagan and Sotomayor I think are in the same vein as the three conservative pragmatists but on the left. Brown Jackson makes originalist arguments a lot, but from a liberal perspective, kind of like the flip side of Gorsuch.

To hammer down my point about Thomas and Alito...if Joe Biden without Congress said he was instituting on his own, a debilitating tax on say gun manufacturers, and cited the same law Trump did as his authority, is there any way in hell Thomas/Alito would say it's ok? That would be a 9-0 decision against Biden on Constitutional grounds. Even more likely it would be struck down by the lower courts just like Trump's was but in this case the high court would decline to review it with no dissents, is what I think would happen.

Brown Jackson according to Google's AI:

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson employs originalist arguments, often described as "progressive originalism" or "originalist jujitsu," to counter conservative interpretations. She focuses on the original public meaning and intent of the framers, particularly regarding the Reconstruction Amendments, to support race-conscious policies and civil rights.

• Reclaiming History: Jackson argues that the 14th Amendment was intended to be race-conscious to ensure equality for formerly enslaved people, rather than strictly race-neutral.
• Targeted Arguments: She uses historical evidence, such as the 1866 Report of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, to challenge conservative arguments in cases involving voting rights and affirmative action.
• "Originalism Jujitsu": Experts note she uses the same interpretive tools as conservative justices to reach more liberal outcomes, highlighting a gap between conservative policies and the original meaning of the Constitution.
• Confirmation Testimony: During her confirmation, she expressed a commitment to looking at the text and understanding its meaning to those who drafted it.

[BigFatMeanie]

Kagan and Sotomayor I think are in the same vein as the three conservative pragmatists but on the left. Brown Jackson makes originalist arguments a lot, but from a liberal perspective, kind of like the flip side of Gorsuch.

To hammer down my point about Thomas and Alito...if Joe Biden without Congress said he was instituting on his own, a debilitating tax on say gun manufacturers, and cited the same law Trump did as his authority, is there any way in hell Thomas/Alito would say it's ok? That would be a 9-0 decision against Biden on Constitutional grounds. Even more likely it would be struck down by the lower courts just like Trump's was but in this case the high court would decline to review it with no dissents, is what I think would happen.

Brown Jackson according to Google's AI:

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson employs originalist arguments, often described as "progressive originalism" or "originalist jujitsu," to counter conservative interpretations. She focuses on the original public meaning and intent of the framers, particularly regarding the Reconstruction Amendments, to support race-conscious policies and civil rights.

• Reclaiming History: Jackson argues that the 14th Amendment was intended to be race-conscious to ensure equality for formerly enslaved people, rather than strictly race-neutral.
• Targeted Arguments: She uses historical evidence, such as the 1866 Report of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, to challenge conservative arguments in cases involving voting rights and affirmative action.
• "Originalism Jujitsu": Experts note she uses the same interpretive tools as conservative justices to reach more liberal outcomes, highlighting a gap between conservative policies and the original meaning of the Constitution.
• Confirmation Testimony: During her confirmation, she expressed a commitment to looking at the text and understanding its meaning to those who drafted it.

Thanks for your thoughts.

[frank ryan]

Trump said he is raising the new global tariff to 15 percent. So I guess the ruling isn't restraining him.

[All-American]

Trump said he is raising the new global tariff to 15 percent. So I guess the ruling isn't restraining him.

Just as Kavanaugh said. Very likely the order was already written, knowing how SCOTUS would rule.

[USUC]

Thomas and Alito are unprincipled partisan hacks who would decide the same case in completely opposite ways based on which party it helps.

I agree with this. It appears Thomas is principled when there is a Democrat in the Executive. There is certainly some partisan hackery among the 3 liberals as well.

Embedded Tweet

[Moliere]

Trump said he is raising the new global tariff to 15 percent. So I guess the ruling isn't restraining him.

At some point we need a country wide injunction against all of his new EOs and we also need companies to just refuse to pay the tariffs.

[dabrockster]

Interesting read on how the impact of Tariffs will help China in the end. I would love to read the positive impact it will have on the trade deficit as we have seen that balloon. These next 3/4 months will be interesting to watch..


Xi gains the upper hand as Trump’s trade war is plunged into chaos

China is one of the biggest winners from the Supreme Court’s ruling that the US’s tariffs are illegal

Even before the Supreme Court defeat, he had wound back these more punishing measures and had started to ease tensions over security restrictions, allowing the flow of powerful Nvidia AI chips to Chinese companies.

But concessions were offered in the face of equally powerful economic threats from Beijing. The deal last October to allow the sale of Nvidia chips came after China agreed to buy soya beans from the US.

China typically buys about half of the American crop, but had halted purchases abruptly last year, sending shock waves through the swing states in the Midwest dominated by farmers.

The chips-for-beans deal underlined the fine balance between the two nations when it came to making economic threats.

“The ‘soybean card’ is back in China’s hand,” Wu Xinbo, the director of Fudan University’s Center for American Studies, told Bloomberg on Sunday.

Trump is now lacking his most powerful trade tool should China choose to further tighten its controls on the trade of rare earth magnets and metals.

These magnets, for which China accounts for about 90pc of global supply, are critical for the manufacture of electric vehicles, renewable energy generators and defence systems.

Another potential win for China lies in the chaos seeded by the Supreme Court ruling. Bain at the BCC has said some British businesses are beginning to turn their backs on the US after months of flip-flopping on tariffs and restrictions. China may look like an ocean of stability by comparison.

Ultimately, “the Chinese will take this in their stride”, says Douglas McWilliams of the Center for Economic Business Research.

Beijing has already moved to reduce its reliance on US technology and imports. McWilliams says: “The Chinese are looking in a different direction now.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...ed-into-chaos/

[dabrockster]

And so it begins.. The SCOTUS kicking the bucket down the road has already begun the windfall of litigation opportunities for companies to file suits..

FedEx Sues for Refund of Trump Tariffs Rejected by Supreme Court

The company, which did not specify how much it was seeking, is expected to be one of many demanding compensation for levies ruled unlawful.

FedEx filed a lawsuit on Monday demanding a refund of the U.S. tariffs that the Supreme Court ruled were unlawful last week.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade, asks that Customs and Border Protection, the agency that collects tariffs, make the repayment to FedEx. The company is expected to be one of many that will sue for a refund.

FedEx did not state a dollar amount that it is seeking. Analysts say the emergency tariffs that the Supreme Court rejected, which President Trump began imposing a year ago, had raised as much as $175 billion for the U.S. government.

“It was totally expected that they would do this, because there’s probably millions and millions of dollars on the line here for them,” said Scott Lincicome, an economist at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, referring to FedEx.

FedEx’s customers will expect the company to pass on any refunds, Mr. Lincicome said, noting that larger customers are likely to have well-established procedures for being paid back.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/23/b...smid=url-share

[Jeff Lebowski]

And so it begins.. The SCOTUS kicking the bucket down the road has already begun the windfall of litigation opportunities for companies to file suits..

FedEx Sues for Refund of Trump Tariffs Rejected by Supreme Court

The company, which did not specify how much it was seeking, is expected to be one of many demanding compensation for levies ruled unlawful.


https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/23/b...smid=url-share

What bucket are they kicking down the road?

[dabrockster]

What bucket are they kicking down the road?

They refused to include any language on the the collected money from the tariffs and outright said in the ruling they were only ruling on the constitutionality of the tariffs and nothing more. As I had mentioned before, there was only one Justice who spoke on the incoming lawsuits and the mess it will make which was in the dissenting ruling. PAC spoke about the onslaught of litigation as a windfall to lawyers that will sure to come. This is the beginning of that litigation.

[All-American]

They refused to include any language on the the collected money from the tariffs and outright said in the ruling they were only ruling on the constitutionality of the tariffs and nothing more. As I had mentioned before, there was only one Justice who spoke on the incoming lawsuits and the mess it will make which was in the dissenting ruling. PAC spoke about the onslaught of litigation as a windfall to lawyers that will sure to come. This is the beginning of that litigation.

What's wrong with an onslaught of litigation? Plaintiffs pay attorney's fees. Defendants pay attorney's fees. Even some intervenors and amici will pay attorney's fees. Everybody wins!

[Jeff Lebowski]

They refused to include any language on the the collected money from the tariffs and outright said in the ruling they were only ruling on the constitutionality of the tariffs and nothing more. As I had mentioned before, there was only one Justice who spoke on the incoming lawsuits and the mess it will make which was in the dissenting ruling. PAC spoke about the onslaught of litigation as a windfall to lawyers that will sure to come. This is the beginning of that litigation.

But isn’t that how they should handle it? Is it their job to legislate the payments?

[Moliere]

I’m probably simplifying it too much but the whole refund question should be administratively easy. Companies should clearly know all the tariffs they paid because they submit returns with that information. I’m not sure why they can’t just amend those returns and get a refund for the difference between the original return and the amended return.

[All-American]

But isn’t that how they should handle it? Is it their job to legislate the payments?

The refund process will be a pain, but yes-- the Court did exactly what it should have done with it. If the administration ends up losing sleep over figuring out hot to give back money they should not have taken in the first place, then maybe next time don't take money you should not take in the first place.