What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[garbon]

Supreme Court rules Trump overstepped by imposing tariffs.

Now what?

Looks like other things he might be able to do but still good when his stacked court rules against him. Gives people some hope.

[Valmy]

The multiple rounds of civil war and revolving door of emperors probably didn't help, either.

Yet somehow Honorius died on the throne of natural causes.

[Valmy]

Supreme Court rules Trump overstepped by imposing tariffs.

Now what?

No idea. But glad the separation of powers still sort of exists, at least on paper.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

For reference, the NY Times estimates 27% of the current tariff burden was invalidated.  However, based on those numbers about 33% of US imports were tariffed prior to Trump's shenanigans.  I'm assuming most of the invalidations will revert to pre-Trump levels, so it's unclear to me what this does to the overall tariff picture.

[Zanza]

The importing companies will sue the US government and will get the money back, paid for by the same taxpayers that already paid the higher prices. Windfall profits!

[Sophie Scholl]

As the wise scholars known as the Wu-Tang Clan once said, "C.R.E.A.M.".

[PJL]

The Supreme Court is fine with fascism and the culture war stuff as long as the economy isn't adversely affected. Trump's tariff stuff threatened to destablise the economy unnecessarily and cause harm to actual GOP constituents. Hence why they struck down the tariffs.

[crazy canuck]

People here seem to be confusing the "fall of the Roman Republic" and the "fall of the Roman Empire."

The Republic fell, IMO, because the quaint political and economic organization of the Republic couldn't handle the consequences of having created an empire.

The causes of the fall of the Empire are, as has been noted, multiple and complex.

Good clarification

[Norgy]

About 400 years between the fall of the republic and sack of Rome.

Rome never really fell though.
Though the imperial authority in the west was usurped. The British and later Americans have tried to take on the imperial mantle. Successfully? Hardly.

Rome died on its own.
It did not need a future America, and honestly, just fuck yourselves. We Europeans will manage our own demise.

[viper37]

Supreme Court rules Trump overstepped by imposing tariffs.

Now what?

Lutnick's sons will sue the admin to get back their money.

They sold the legal rights to a potential tariff refund in exchange of 20-30% of the duties already paid.  Canto Fitzgerald.

I expect an advantageous out of court settlement for this part.

There were also tariff swaps being sold by someone close to Trump. It's a lucrative business.

For the rest Trump just announced that he's reviving a 150 years old law for implementing tariffs.  No justification needed, but Congress will need to rule on it by August.

[viper37]

About 400 years between the fall of the republic and sack of Rome.

Rome never really fell though.
Though the imperial authority in the west was usurped. The British and later Americans have tried to take on the imperial mantle. Successfully? Hardly.

Rome died on its own.
It did not need a future America, and honestly, just fuck yourselves. We Europeans will manage our own demise.

Byzance had a good run.

[The Minsky Moment]

Roberts managed to cobble together a majority in a case that was legally pretty straightforward (the substantive part of his opinion is only 15 pages and probably could have been half that) but politically controversial. 

But looking more closely, it is revealing of the nature of the each of the justices on the Court, and the fact that small "c" conservatives are a minority of this Court. Roberts' opinion is conventionally conservative in that it is based on the "major questions doctrine" - i.e. a presumption that a general grant of authority by Congress to the President does not encompass authority to impose sweeping ("major") policy change.

The "major questions doctrine" got a big public airing in 2023 in Biden v. Nebraska, when the Supreme Court struck down Biden's student loan forgiveness program.  That holding was controversial because federal law seemingly gave the President unambiguous authority to "waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to the student financial assistance programs".  But the Supreme Court held 6-3 that (in essence): "yeah but that's too much"

Given the holding in Biden v. Nebraska, the tariff case should have been an obvious lay-up, and indeed the Roberts opinion treats at as such.  The policy and separation of powers impact of tariffs on every nation on earth is even greater than the loan forgiveness whereas the statutory language cited by Trump was far weaker and more ambiguous than the in Biden v Nebraska.  Yet 3 of the justices from the Nebraska majority jumped ship and flipped to the dissent.  You can probably guess who . . .

Thomas wrote a characteristically batty opinion, referencing his own prior dissents, Blackstone etc., holding that Congress could delegate nearly the entirety of its legislative power without implicating separation of powers concerns.  How did he justify that in light of his support in Nebraska? He basically ignores the issue, sticks the case in a string cite at the end ("see also") and just says well this case is different. 

That blithe approach would not work for Kavanaugh (joined by Alito), whose sanctimony does not permit such an obvious dodge. Instead, he dumps out a 63-page opinion to respond to Robert's opinion which is 1/3 that length. The opinion is full of the tendentious special pleading we've come to expect from Justice Boof, including the puzzling claim that the major questions doctrine shouldn't apply to foreign trade. (Recall that the Constitution gives Congress sole authority to regulate foreign trade and the President none).

The key difference of course between the tariff case and Nebraska, aside from the fact that the applicability of the major questions doctrine is more compelling in the tariff case, is that one involved Trump and one involved Biden.  For the 3 "c"onservatives, that distinction didn't matter and they applied the holding consistently.  For the other three, support for the administration trumps legal consistency.

This doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know, but it highlights it in a particularly glaring way.

[Syt]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/trump-rants-destroy-countries-tariffs-191021654.html

Trump Rants About Right to Destroy Countries After Tariffs Ruling

President Donald Trump claimed Friday the Supreme Court had granted him the power to destroy other countries,  after the high court took away his weapon of choice: sweeping reciprocal tariffs.

Speaking to reporters, Trump rambled about how "ridiculous" it was for the Supreme Court to block the illegal tariffs he'd imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, while also bragging that the court had only strengthened his grip on other strings he could pull.

"The court has given me the unquestioned right to ban all sorts of things from coming into our country—to destroy foreign countries," Trump claimed. "But a much more powerful right than many people thought we even had, but not the right to charge a fee.

"I can destroy the trade, I can destroy the country, I'm even allowed to impose a foreign country-destroying embargo. I can do anything I want—but I can't charge one dollar," Trump fumed. "Because that's not what it says, and it's not the way it even reads."

Trump imposed his so-called "reciprocal tariffs" in April 2025 using the IEEPA, a rule that allows the president to regulate commerce in case of a national emergency—but doesn't actually include the word "tariff." In the court's ruling Friday, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the actual language in IEEPA "cannot bear the weight" of Trump's tariffs.

Still, Trump couldn't seem to wrap his head around it.

"I'm allowed to embargo them, I'm allowed to tell 'em you can't do business in the United States anymore, 'We want you out of here!' But if I want to charge them $10 I can't do that," he continued.

Despite the crushing blow to his sweeping reciprocal tariffs that have caused mayhem abroad and at home, Trump insisted the ruling was somehow a good thing because it validated other statutes that were "even stronger than the IEEPA tariffs."

Trump even patted himself on the back for holding back with his initial tariffs. "I didn't want to do anything that would affect the decision of the court. Because I understand the court, I understand how they're very easily swayed," Trump said.

"I wanted to be a good boy," Trump added. Good boy no more, it seems.

Trump ended the press conference by announcing his plan to impose new 10 percent tariffs under Section 232, a rule that allowed tariffs to be levied on certain products that threaten national security. Good luck with that, Donald.

[The Minsky Moment]

Totally on brand that Trump is completely mystified by separation of powers and the rule of law.

[HVC]

Baby needs his bottle