| Time | Text |
|---|---|
|
Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump's Tariffs
00:04:52
|
|
| So I'm in an airport, but leave it to the Supreme Court to totally screw up my show today by issuing one of the biggest rulings of the entire Trump administration right after my show already goes out. | |
| What happened? | |
| The Supreme Court struck down President Trump's tariffs. | |
| The tariffs are one of, if not the central part, of his entire economic agenda. | |
| The case is Learning Resources Center versus Trump. | |
| The ruling was 6-3. | |
| So it wasn't 5-4, it was 6-3. | |
| You had the squishy conservatives plus all the liberals in the majority opinion going against Trump. | |
| You had the more hardcore conservatives, especially Alito and Thomas, joined by Kavanaugh, in the dissent. | |
| What were the arguments? | |
| The majority opinion, John Roberts, Chief Justice, argues that Congress did not clearly delegate the power to implement these tariffs to the executive branch using the law that was at issue here, which is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. | |
| It's from the 1970s. | |
| He says, because Congress did not clearly delegate this power to the president, he has no right to implement these tariffs. | |
| Now, the conservatives in the majority relied on the major questions doctrine. | |
| The major questions doctrine was first really articulated in the 1980s, but it doesn't really pick up steam until 2000. | |
| It's not really articulated seriously in scholarship until 2008, and then it gains winespray currency in 2013. | |
| So it's a relatively recent idea, namely that common sense impels us to conclude that on major questions of economic and political importance, the Congress has to really clearly delegate these certain powers. | |
| Okay. | |
| The liberals who joined the squishy conservatives in the opinion, they say, look, we agree with the ruling, but we don't agree on the major questions doctrine. | |
| So they differ in their reasoning. | |
| And then you get to the good stuff, which is Clarence Thomas and Alito and Kavanaugh. | |
| And Clarence Thomas just gives a masterclass in his dissent. | |
| I haven't gone through the whole opinion, obviously, yet, but I've looked at these key parts. | |
| Clarence Thomas cites precedent going back to 1790, that Trump did in fact have the right to implement these tariffs. | |
| He even looks at, from the 1970s onward, Nixon's tariffs, Ford's tariffs, which are based on similar reasoning to the tariffs that Trump implemented. | |
| Courts had upheld those tariffs. | |
| So he gives this really beautiful historical precedent, legal precedent, judicial reasoning. | |
| Kavanaugh and Alito agree there as well. | |
| We don't have time to get into everything, and obviously I want to dig a little bit more into the text. | |
| This decision just came out, but it's really unfortunate for Trump. | |
| Now, practically, it doesn't mean that all of his tariffs are struck down, and it doesn't mean that he can't even maintain the tariffs that he currently has, albeit using different laws and different reasoning. | |
| But it's a blow, and it's a huge blow to the credibility of the United States. | |
| We've been negotiating all sorts of trade deals predicated on these tariffs. | |
| The tariffs, which in many ways, were being used as negotiating leverage by Trump. | |
| Supreme Court just totally blows that up for what is, in my opinion, kind of bogus reasoning. | |
| Now, the squishy Republicans in general, not on the court, just in public, are going to love this because the squishy Republicans hate the tariffs because the squishy Republicans basically just want to go back to 1990s Democrat liberalism. | |
| And they think that's the high point of human civilization. | |
| And so they're actually probably going to be cheering it. | |
| And some of them are going to argue that actually the Supreme Court just helped Trump because by striking down his tariffs, they gave him better economic policies, and that's going to work out better for Trump in the end. | |
| I'm a little skeptical of that because I think tariffs can have really strong economic power. | |
| And I think Trump's proven that because he's beaten all of the expectations over the past year, there's a little over a year now of his administration, where all the experts said that the tariffs were going to destroy the economy, the stock market at record highs, GDP consistently outperformed expectations, the tariffs just beat the experts' opinions. | |
| So the Trump agenda on economics is not totally destroyed, but this is a major blow. | |
| And for those who are not lawyers, I'm not a lawyer. | |
| I didn't go to any fancy law school. | |
| Haven't even finished reading the whole opinion yet because it just came out and it's very long. | |
| But a good rule of thumb is when Justice Sam Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas agree on a matter of law and the judiciary, they're probably right. | |
| Those are the guys who tend to be right. | |
| And then if you read their dissents in this case, you will be persuaded of that. | |
| And the libs are always wrong, and the squishy people in the middle are often wrong. | |
|
Major Blow to Trump's Agenda
00:00:37
|
|
| So an unfortunate decision to come from the Supreme Court creates a diplomatic nightmare for the Trump administration, might cause a lot of economic chaos. | |
| It's legally not quite sound if you read the majority opinion versus the dissents. | |
| But there you have it. | |
| A major setback, and maybe, if there's any silver lining in the storm cloud, maybe a little more reason for the Republicans to be concerned about November because the wins that we've secured over the last year are anything but stable. | |
| You know, they could turn in a minute. | |