>>176305, >>176306, >>176307, >>176308, >>176309, >>176310, >>176311, >>176312, >>176313, >>176314, >>176315, >>176316, >>176317, >>176318, >>176319, >>176320, >>176321, >>176322, >>176323, >>176324, >>176325, >>176326, >>176327, >>176328, >>176329, >>176330, >>176331, >>176332, >>176333, >>176334, >>176335, >>176336, >>176337, >>176338, >>176339, >>176340, >>176341, >>176342, >>176343, >>176344, >>176345, >>176346, >>176347, >>176348, >>176349, >>176350, >>176351, >>176352, >>176353, >>176354, >>176355, >>176356, >>176357, >>176358, >>176359, >>176360, >>176361, >>176362, >>176363, >>176364, >>176365, >>176366, >>176367, >>176368, >>176369, >>176370, >>176371, >>176372, >>176373, >>176374, >>176375, >>176376, >>176377, >>176378, >>176379, >>176380, >>176381, >>176382, >>176383, >>176384, >>176385, >>176386, >>176387, >>176388, >>176389, >>176390, >>176391, >>176392, >>176393, >>176394
Twelve, the Chief Justice appears to have come up with a so-called majority opinion that is as narrow as possible in order to attract enough votes to overturn the tariffs, at least under this one statute. But in doing so he did not show leadership. He created a big mess.
This so-called majority opinion provides no precedential value.
It provides no constitutional or legal guidance.
It says the court does not have the authority or ability to get involved in policy. Yet I found this ruling to be more about policy than the Constitution or law.
The majority had a problem, which I knew they would on the several occasions I've discussed this case with you right on this show.
Where exactly is the separation of powers? Where is that line drawn when it comes to tariffs?
Yes, Congress has the power of the purse.
The President has broad power over foreign policy and national security and diplomacy. Obviously, trade and its relationship to the President's broad powers cannot be ignored.
Yet the ruling essentially does that; but then the Court says they're not doing that. It's just ruling on a single statute.
In other words, the Court's ruling was, as I said, result-oriented, policy-driven, despite the majority's disclaimers.
When the Supreme Court cannot come up with a coherent, understandable decision based on the Constitution and the law, you know then it is conducting itself as politicians, it is activists, and it has no business doing what this Court did.
It interfered in a matter that should be left to the legislative and executive branches because the constitutional question on who gets to lay tariffs has in fact, an absurd question.
What do you mean, Mark? Because both Congress and the President have a role. And if Congress thought the President went too far, it could use the power of the purse, the appropriations process, under Article I, to stop him.
As I've said here repeatedly, Congress didn't even try.
And so this is the mix and the battle between the elected branches and to have basically six lawyers, a majority, who can't really come up with a single theory, get involved and decide one way or another is appalling.
It's absurd. So where are we now? It's a foolish overreach by the Supreme Court.