Listening to the supreme court hearing about tariffs

[drray23]

Solicitor general Sauer is arguing the case on behalf of the Trump administration unfettered use of tariffs.

He is getting a lot of pushback from both sides. It's not looking good for Trump.

If they strike down his use of tariffs he will need to get congress to approve them.

Given that the senate just passed two bills to repeal them, prospects are dim.

Hopefully Trump blows a gasket and his whole attempt at playing dictator collapse.

The result of yesterday's elections is only the start.

[pandr32]

1. That's encouraging.

Thank you for the observations.

[rurallib]

2. here is hoping they announce a decision soon and not wait until June

Certainly Alito and Thomas will vote for a dictator

[AnotherMother4Peace]

3. Sauer is arguing the case like someone trying to sell a piece of shit car: speaking very fast, playing w/words, LYING.

[yellow dahlia]

5. Good observation.

[dalton99a]

8. .

[yonder]

58. Looks like the head brain is at odds with the tail brain

Trump's claim that his tariffs have brought in 17 trillion dollars certainly doesn't line up with Sauer's argument that that claimed revenue is "incidental".

The Steatorrheasaurus lumbers on.

[Old Crank]

70. Incidental?

Did Trump claim to have collected 3 trillion and 8 trillion?

[Disaffected]

12. Heh, he is the epitome of

a "fast talking lawyer". I don't know why they would have someone like that argue such an important case - just another example I guess of a crap Trump appointee.

And it doesn't sound so far that the court is very impressed with his arguments.

[Mr.WeRP]

39. He argued the immunity case for Trump.

[Attilatheblond]

44. Yeah, but the authoritarians on the court already wanted to give him immunity so, not a tough nut for him

Tariffs are voter repellent. People aren't buying Trump's lies about who pays and they see prices going up. Possibly the RWers on the court will see the writing on yesterday's wall and figure their side is gonna lose a lot of voters if the tariffs remain.

[2na fisherman]

57. Same mannerism of Speaker Johnson

Lil' Mike talks fast like that while delivering word salad and lies when he is questioned by the media. Maybe it's something taught in law schools as something to do when you know your case is weak and you are relying on the creation of reasonable doubt as you try to confuse a judge and jury. It's similar to the infamous OJ defense: "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit."

[yellow dahlia]

4. I am listening also. I came to DU to post about it, so thanks for doing so.

I share your observation that it is not going well for Sauer and the regime.

The questions coming from Sotomayor are particularly pointed and unraveling. Kagan and Jackson are also offering strong questions.

There has been some interesting interaction. Coney-Barrett asked a question and he started rambling on without actually addressing the question, and Sotomayor interjected - sir, please answer Justice Barrett's question.

Coney-Barrett seems to be pushing back against the premises and law being applied by Sauer. I even here some skepticism in the questions from Roberts and Cavanaugh.

I will be interested to hear how the court interacts in the arguments from the "other side" (plaintiffs).

I look forward to the analysis from the legal experts at MSNBC to see if they agree with you and me that things don't look like a "shoe-in" for the regime.

P.S. Sauer is difficult to listen to.

[peggysue2]

6. Good to hear

Let's continue the winning streak!

As for Trump? The more gaskets he blows the better.

[lastlib]

24. I just hope he blows "the big one"---soon.

Just that one will be enough!

[yellow dahlia]

7. Oh good! MSNBC doing some quick analysis.

[yellow dahlia]

9. They went back to Gorsuch questioning.

He is raising the issue of the slippery slope this could become w/ Congress ceding power to the "president".

Even Gorsuch is not playing along.

[AnotherMother4Peace]

11. Gorsuch was "struggling to understand" Sauer's argument & cut through the bullshit w/a concession from Sauer, which

elicited laughter from the Supremes. So the Supreme Court just LOL'ed at Sauer. Sauer is like wrestling with a greased pig.

[multigraincracker]

26. My cable co. dropped MSNBC.

I wonder who owns Buckeye Cable?

[yellow dahlia]

29. That's terrible! I think people should write in to your cable co.

Meanwhile, you can watch MSNBC on your phone or computer.

Go to the MSNBC website. Start watching live. They will ask you to sign in with the password from your cable co.

Unless you sign out again, I believe you will stay signed in. You can close out the "tab" and then come back to it later.

Another option is to listen to MSNBC on tunein radio...which you can get for free.

And when you have MSNBC on your phone, you can even hear it through the bluetooth in your car...if you have bluetooth.

[Frasier Balzov]

32. Gray Media. Stock symbol GTN.

[Glass City]

42. Buckeye Cable is family-owned

Buckeye Communications is owned by the Block family in Toledo, OH. They also own the local newspaper The Toledo Blade (named that because Toledo's sister city is Toledo, Spain who was once renowned for creating world-class swords). Best newspaper name ever! They also own the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

[RussBLib]

49. welcome to DU

I would pitch a fit if my system deleted MSNBC. We use DISH, so it is unlikely.

[multigraincracker]

64. I live about 100 yards north of Toledo.

I can see it out my window. Just moved here and get lost in Toledo when I get off of Alexis.

[FakeNoose]

74. The Block Family is more-or-less hated in Pittsburgh

The Post-Gazette came out pro-Chump back during his first run 2016, and a LOT of Pittsburghers dropped their PPG subscriptions. It hasn't gotten any better in the last 9 years either. We're a BLUE city, pro-Union for the most part, and Block has done nothing but antagonize most of the locals. It's a long, sad story.

[Meadowoak]

45. I get MSNBC on sling blue, $45 mo. For about 200 channels including MSNBC.

[drray23]

63. Yeap same here.

We no longer use cable, just stream.

[duhneece]

71. We watch for free. https://www.livenewsnow.com/american/msnbc.html Nt

https://www.livenewsnow.com/american/msnbc.html

[lostincalifornia]

10. I wouldn't be so confident about THIS supreme court. I think the odds are they will rule in the sociopath's favor,

arguing that the president doesn't need congress for "emergency use of tariffs", and they will hedge. I think they will send it back to the lower court to decide what an "emergency" is, but allow the current tariff policy to stay in place until that is decided.

[Tumbulu]

43. I am listening to it, and it sounds to me as though they will support T

I am wishing that I am wrong, but it does not sound good to me.

[lostincalifornia]

65. Same here

[Meadowoak]

46. I just wonder what Trump has in the supremes. I bet some of them are in the Epstein files.

[CousinIT]

76. They've only enabled his grabbing of more and more power up to this point.

I don't expect that to change.

[bronxiteforever]

13. Trump loses. Charles Koch is funding attacks against the tariffs

Charles Koch-funded group sues Trump over tariffs, alleging power grab
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/04/08/new-civil-liberties-alliance-lawsuit-trump-tariffs-china/82996118007/

And yesterday
President Donald Trump is used to battles at the Supreme Court against liberal advocacy groups, but Wednesday’s high-stakes argument over his tariff policy features a very different foe — a legal center funded without public disclosure by some of the country’s wealthiest conservatives.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-s-foe-in-tariffs-case-a-legal-group-funded-by-conservatives/ar-AA1PLZUf

These tariffs are a GOP civil war battle. My money (pun intended) is on the conservative billionaires that really own the party. The Supremes lose nothing by siding with GOP economic interests. Why back a lame duck POTUS with a novel legal theory when the sugar daddies don't want this policy? They will be around a lot longer than Donny the lame duck dotard.

[yellow dahlia]

30. Thanks for the info and context.

[617Blue]

36. Yep. Been saying for a while they will do the right thing here - probably for the wrong reasons.

They are saving Assmouth from himself.

[Woodycall]

48. Exactly...

[LetMyPeopleVote]

14. Neal Katyal is arguing against trump's tariffs

Katyal is great

[yellow dahlia]

31. He really is great.

[Coldwater]

15. Good News: Trump gets reeled in and the US economy improves,

Bad news: with a booming economy this time next year, trump will take credit, even though it was SCOTUS that put a muzzle on his tariffs which were harming the US economy.

[speak easy]

37. Not so.

After the prices go up - they won't go down.

[Wednesdays]

61. The economy is already in the crapper.

It won't recover before next November.

[AnotherMother4Peace]

16. "Gorsuch to Trump Lawyer: If POTUS has "Inherent authority" in Foreign affairs, are there any limits?"

MSNBC wording.

[AnotherMother4Peace]

17. Neal Katyal Is the plaintiff Attorney and Is already kicking ass. We'll see. We're talking tRump's supreme court. nt

[LetMyPeopleVote]

18. Neal is doing great

[LetMyPeopleVote]

19. This made me smile

Link to tweet

[yellow dahlia]

35. Thanks for the smile.

[Fil1957]

20. Strangely If Trump loses this case, it will actually be good for him, because it will help the economy. That will help

his numbers on the economy, which are abysmal.

[drray23]

21. I think its past the point of non return

At least for the 2026 elections.
Damage has been done. Removing the tariffs will help but its going to be chaotic. Meanwhile healthcare is skyrocketing and costs out if control.
The tariffs spurred inflation and retailers won't lower their prices back down a lot even if tariffs are removed. That's usually how it goes.

[dalton99a]

22. +1. Prices go up, not down.

[Glass City]

50. Crypto is a Ponzi scheme

What purpose does it really serve as a currency? Anyone looking to hide their transactions for money laundering, drug dealing, etc will use it. We saw this already with Silk Road, didn't we? Now we're seeing holdings being hacked and robbed, serious volatility caused by pump-and-dump, etc.

[reACTIONary]

59. You left out ransom! Use case for crypto....

..... Illegal commerce, money laundering, collecting ransom.

[Buckeyeblue]

72. This decision will not be announced until late June

That probably will not be enough time to make much of a difference before November. Who knows if the government will be opened by then.

There are a lot of reasons voters will break against Trump.

[surfered]

23. Doubting Thomas here. The majority has given Trump so much latitude before, I'll be surprised if they rule against him.

[Aviation Pro]

40. They know the hand that feeds them

And it ain’t the fucking chomo.

[Silent Type]

25. trump will try to pack the court if he loses. I can hear him whining about how he was bringing jobs back to USA, but

the Court stopped him.

[Ray Bruns]

27. "Sauer countered by claiming Trump's power to enact tariffs was "a foreign-facing regulation of foreign commerce."

[/img][/url]

[617Blue]

33. They are trying to help Tramp by saving him from himself. I knew they would.

[Grammy23]

34. I know Sauer can't help the quality of his voice,

But it is very hard to listen to him. Not to mention he speaks so fast it is like listening to a growling machine gun. Very rapid fire. Plus, he talks over the Justices when they ask questions. His manners regarding that are atrocious. Katyal is composed, knowledgeable and respectful. There is no comparison between Sauer and Katyal.

Given that, we still cannot assume that the Justices will rule against wanna bee King tRump. 🙄

[IbogaProject]

38. That would be great if they have to open Congress to try

Then the Epstein vote would happen.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

41. What's not to like with Neal Katyal dropping a truth bomb: tariffs are taxes.

Link to tweet

[ashredux]

47. Just a thought, but last night blue wave might have an impact on the court.....

This may be a bit far out, but last night’s elections, and the “blue wave“, might have an influence on some of the younger justices that have more or less okayed everything Trump wants. There will be a life after Trump, and that’s coming quickly. They may actually decide the actual law, and rule against Trump, for it might be in their own self interest going forward. Just a thought.

[Ligyron]

51. I wonder who it was thought up this tariff bs?

Cause it sure as shit ain’t Trump.

He’s not that smart. Or dumb as the case may be.

[Ol Janx Spirit]

73. Peter Navarro is the one that really came up with the Administration's tariff policy after...

...pushing for them against China for years.

I believe the evil Turnip himself has also had a tariff fetish for a while, but Navarro is really the driving force behind them.

About 15 years ago, Navarro shifted his views radically out of fear of the economic rise of China.

He went so far as to write several books where he cited a fictional person he called Ron Vara--an anagram of his last name--to support his views of tariffs.
https://web.archive.org/web/20250409105751/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/16/us/politics/peter-navarro-ron-vara.html

THIS is the person the Wizard of Ooze listens to. THIS is the reason the world has been thrown into economic turmoil.

Only the best people....

[Ligyron]

77. Thank you for that.

Navarro, it Figures…

[Bluetus]

52. Gee, is SCOTUS starting to read the room?

Dems need to make it very clear that if SCOTUS doesn't clean up their act in a very big way -- and RIGHT NOW -- they are not going to like the results of Congress' Constitutional power to regulate the courts once we return to power. Hopefully, by then all the spineless centerests will have learned the lesson that we must push progress aggressively. We should be talking very openly about specific changes we will demand of the SCOTUS, including expansion, term limits, regular appointment by the sitting President that cannot be killed by saboteurs in the Senate, and the strongest possible code of ethics with criminal penalties for corruption on the court. And I am not talking about a blue chip committee to study this for years and then never do anything. I am talking real action.

There is no middle, you are either advancing society or else you are sliding into fascism. We need to make abundantly clear to SCOTUS that the only way they can remain remotely as they are is by cleaning up their own corrupt hose and going back to clean up the Constitutional messes they have made with Citizen's United, Heller, and Trump v. United States.

"Trump v. United States", WTF? That pretty much sums up everything.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

[Warpy]

53. In the early 1930s, when there was an actual national emergency

Hoover took the time to go to Congress to get them to do the wrongthing to deal with it. They passed a package of Republican tariffs called Smoot-Hawley very quickly and those tariffs are credited with making he Depression into the Great Depression.

Republicans love tariffs. It's one reason sensible people won't vote for them.

The Orange Pustule has to be slapped down hard on this abuse of emergency powers crapola. I just don't know if the right wing fantasists on this court ate equal to the job.

[Joinfortmill]

55. From your lips to the powers that be.

[crud]

56. seemed like Alito, Thomas and the other R wingers

were looking for a way to rule for the orange stain, but kept getting frustrated. I'm sure they will settle on something. We'll see if Barret and Roberts go along with it.

[kentuck]

60. Sauer's voice is so grating....

...that I can never hear what he is actually saying? He could be reading a cookbook for all I could tell. But, the Justices "appear" to understand what he is talking about?

[Jbraybarten]

62. I feel like there can be an event that can cause an unraveling. Maybe this is it. Something has to break the

narrative he controls and the well, his control in general. There needs to be chaos against him in the party.
Given how grifty that lot is, hopefully when they see this weakens him, they revolt (well enough of them) beyond tariffs.
Tariffs they don't want to begin with, but are too chicken to fight him.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

66. Tariffs are nothing but taxes on the American people, paid by Americans

Link to tweet

[ananda]

67. He might be too busy trying to figure out...

how to make his outrageous gold projects
affordable without tariffs.

[V850i]

68. They will slice the baby

Nobody, from either side of the aisle, ever thought that the immunity argument would fly either. They will slice this baby so that he keeps the powers, but will make the ruling ambiguous enough they can stop a Democrat President from wielding the same powers for climate change as discussed during oral arguments today (or anything else for that matter)..

[Silent Type]

69. Sounds like the might well restrict him, but question is what they will allow. His bullying other countries with tariffs

is just wrong.

[Martin68]

75. The Washington Post has been reporting a lot of skepticism from a majority of the judges. One issue is whether the

tariffs are a tax or a regulatory fix. If it is a tax, the executive can't impose it without a full vote by Congress. Trump has made sure that everyone understands that he imposed tariffs to raise revenue,70% of which is paid by American consumers. He has repeatedly called it a tax on foreign companies.