r/stocks • u/samf9999 • 1d ago
Major questions doctrine to stop tariffs. Thoughts?
Supreme Court stopped student loan relief from by Biden on the basis of the major question doctrine, whereby show me shoes are simply too big for one person to make an arbitrary and capricious decision about, therefore require the consent of Congress. Why not apply this to tariffs? Why don’t the Democrats pursue this actively?
41
u/SnooRegrets6428 1d ago
And you think Trump will stop?
8
u/samf9999 1d ago
If the Supreme Court tells him to stop he has to. Otherwise, it’s the end anyway. That’s the only hope for the markets right now. Please call your Congress person or senator
37
u/somethingbytes 1d ago
lol, no he doesn't. A judge just told the Trump's people they need to return the one person deported illegally, and they said "talk to the other country". They have no interest in following what the court says. Who will make them, the marshalls? They're under Trump.
3
u/Little-Sky-2999 1d ago
Isnt there like, a career that could be made in stopping this madness, if its literally your job and your mandated to do it?
2
u/somethingbytes 1d ago
in what way? Frankly the only career would be being someone like the punisher, and I don't think anyone wants that
2
-4
u/samf9999 1d ago
Try doing that to the Supreme Court. If Magans don’t listen to the Supreme Court, then I don’t know why there would not be riots and even possibly a coup.
12
6
u/Qc4281 1d ago
You know the entire “constitutional crisis” talk that some overly sensitive and emotional liberals always talk about regarding Trump.
It’s exactly this - the Supreme Court has no army, fbi, agents, officers, anything. The only power the judicial branch has, is the assumption that all politicians respect the constitution and will play by the rules.
Trump has already ignored judges orders, signed EO saying that the courts (even the Supreme Court) cannot decide what is the law and that power lies with the president, and has a history of attacking any member of the judicial branch that goes against him. He’s already weaponized the White House and gone after any law firm that has ever represented the side against him. All those cases that Trump lost throughout 2020/2021 saying the election was stolen? The law firms that represented the other side were targeted by name via executive order saying they are banned from any government clearances, contracts, or ability to see government data/info and any of their clients will lose their government contracts.
2
u/samf9999 1d ago
If that’s the case, why doesn’t the Supreme Court just pack up and go home?
4
u/Milkshake9385 1d ago
Because they are getting bribes and living in luxury flying private jets and going on yachts
2
u/BendersDafodil 1d ago
Remember "Total and absolute immunity"?
3
u/samf9999 1d ago
You’re assuming they don’t give a shit about their own portfolios and financial well-being. You’re assuming that they’ll just sit there and watch this country getting ripped apart financially. Why assume? What else have the Democrats got cooking?
1
1
u/BendersDafodil 1d ago
Meh, the #SCOrrupTUS already have sugar daddies who give them "gratuities". They dgaf about no portfolio. That's for the lesser citizens.
4
u/Material_Policy6327 1d ago
They’ve already ignored the courts. There is nothing to stop him from ignoring the courts more unless Congress actually steps in
1
1
u/ohlayohlay 19h ago
The supreme court won't put him in a position a ere he is forced to do something he doesn't want to do, bc they know he won't. They don't want to look weak and irrelevant. They will go along bc everyone wins if they continue to agree with him or play the fence line
1
u/WhyAreYallFascists 1d ago
LOL. This is absolutely hilarious. First no, no he doesn’t and he won’t, no one will stop him. Second, they will never vote against their overlords plans, to buy every asset at rock bottom prices.
-7
u/Radio_Face_ 1d ago
You are having an anxiety attack
6
u/samf9999 1d ago
Yes. You should be too.
-6
u/Radio_Face_ 1d ago
What have you ever read or heard or been told.. that leads you to believe you should panic based on a week of data? Covid? 2009? 2000? 1990? 1981? 1980? 1973? 1969? 1960? 1958? 1953?
1
u/samf9999 1d ago
I think it has more to do with my brokerage account.
-4
u/Radio_Face_ 1d ago
Oh, then you’re new.
-1
u/Hardcore_Lovemachine 1d ago
And you're poor so we can ignore your ignorance. Shoeshine boy with his $50 account trying to play it cool because you're not worried.... Lol kid, the adults are taking here.
1
34
u/A92434 1d ago
I used to think that the people around Trump would keep him in check and prevent major policy mistakes, as they often did during his first term. But this time, he has surrounded himself with blind loyalists. These tariffs will be looked at as the worst policy error in over a century.
18
7
u/SausageSmuggler21 1d ago
Most anti-trump voices have been shouting that if he's elected a 2nd time, it will be horrendously worse than the first term. We can all go back and listen to the stuff we ignored.
-11
u/xploeris 1d ago
Pity those anti-Trump voices couldn't provide an attractive enough alternative to keep the country from choosing apoptosis. And they were all warned this would happen.
9
u/SausageSmuggler21 1d ago
I'll say this again. Democrats treated voters like adults. Republicans, the media, the financial people, encouraged childish self centered tendencies. The Democrats were correct.
-2
2
u/victorged 1d ago
Most of those people who kept his impulses on check were on record he's wildly unqualified and shouldn't be allowed back in.
Choosing to ignore those people telling you they werent going to be there a second time is certainly a strategy.
7
u/Free_Management2894 1d ago
Democrats can't really pursue that, because you need congress for that and who holds the power in congress?
5
u/samf9999 1d ago
No. They just need to appeal to the Supreme Court for an emergency injunction. The Supreme Court, can then place the existing tariff executive order on hold, and say the Congress has to pass it. At which point, it will be blocked because of the filibuster, and because enough Republicans will not support it.
5
u/Ashamed_Ad_8365 1d ago
There are already lawsuits from businesses harmed by the tariffs coming.
-1
u/samf9999 1d ago
I know that, but how many Democrats do you know talking about it?
2
u/Ashamed_Ad_8365 1d ago edited 1d ago
It may be prudent to let the courts act without political discourse and pressure around it. Talking about it it's not gonna make a difference, lawsuits are coming, and decisions will be made regardless.
You can read a summary here by a law professor who's looking to sue to government in representation of a damaged business owner.
10
u/i-can-sleep-for-days 1d ago
The tariffs are insane. This is the largest tax increase ushered in by one person without legislation. Seeing aside whether he can do it or not, the magnitude is too big for it to be legal in the context that gave presidents power to impose tariff.
Like 100 percent tariff on China evs. No one is complaining about that and yes that’s in place already. You can try to challenge it in court but it’s not an abuse of power because that’s targeted, it is protecting our domestic auto industry. But fucking tariff on Madagascar that makes vanilla beans that we don’t product domestically? It’s an abuse. That’s a tax on all Americans.
12
u/Lower_Set7084 1d ago
There's a conservative group suing to stop the tariffs because the emergency declaration they rest on is nonsense.
5
u/samf9999 1d ago
Yes, but they need to amplify this and raise the profile so that everyone is talking about it. Nobody on TV is talking about this.
8
u/FlaccidEggroll 1d ago edited 1d ago
The current Supreme Court only stops democrats from doing things, not vice versa. I'm pretty sure constitutional scholars have even said this about the current court. They will jump through hoops to make their argument so, offering zero charity to cases against democrats, and offering immense charity to those brought against a republican. They will switch between a textualist interpretation of the constitution, to an originalist interpretation, to an outright activist one, depending on who the case is being brought against.
Alito himself has repeatedly contradicted his opinions when faced with cases that differ along partisan lines:
When it's a Democratic case:
"The executive branch has zero authority to reinterpret or ignore an act of Congress, especially involving funds… The executive is seizing the power of the Legislature"- Alito 2023
"The judiciary has the sole prerogative to say what the law is." - Alito 2024
When it's a Republican Case:
"Does a single district-court judge… have the unchecked power to compel the Government… to pay out $2 billion taxpayer dollars? I am stunned" - Alito 2025.
1
u/suchahotmess 22h ago
There’s a conservative group suing on exactly these lines, however. So that will be interesting to watch go down. https://newrepublic.com/post/193612/donald-trump-lawsuit-tariffs-far-right-group
2
u/nomnomyumyum109 1d ago
The new temp budget had a provision that doesnt allow for the SC or Congress to stop tariffs I believe. I think the only chance is to to make the reason illegitimate (fentanyl)
1
u/samf9999 1d ago
No. The Democrats cannot do anything legislatively.. they don’t have the votes. The only reasonable chance is through the Supreme Court.
3
1
u/siberianmi 1d ago
The reason for the last batch isn’t fentanyl. He declared a new different emergency on trade.
1
u/Dihedralman 12h ago
Congress can always stop tariffs as it's their constitutional power that they let the President use under a law.
1
u/nomnomyumyum109 10h ago
Not according to the new temp budget they passed. It gave trump the power of tariffs until September or when its up for the new budget to pass.
6
3
u/AnonymousTimewaster 1d ago
You mean the Supreme Court that Trump stacked with loyalists during his last term?
3
u/samf9999 1d ago
I don’t think Roberts and Amy Coney are much fans of his
1
u/AnonymousTimewaster 1d ago
Then we'll see if Trump has any intention of following their rulings but I wouldn't hold my breath. However, they're just people at the end of the day, and they can be bought.
2
u/OrderlyPanic 1d ago
The major questions doctrine is a made up legal theory that exists nowhere in the constitution. It exists solely so that FedSoc Judges can illegitimate the actions of a Democrat President that they don't like. It does not apply to Republicans.
2
u/xploeris 1d ago
Why don’t the Democrats pursue this actively?
The Dems don't do anything "actively".
1
1
u/diefy7321 1d ago
Isn’t it funny that the same party that handed this power to the executive branch is the same one wanting it back? 
2
u/SausageSmuggler21 1d ago
The power to ignore judicial rulings? I assume you're being idiotic and trying to compare the concerning use of EOs that started with Obama, where everyone talked about the risky precedent to Trump's blatantly illegal use of EOs combined with his abuse of the judiciary. Is that what's happening here?
1
u/diefy7321 1d ago
The power to enact tariffs are granted to congress in the constitution. During the Great Depression, the Democrat congress gave FDR power to regulate tariffs (mostly to reduce), but they had an expiration date. Since then, they have been renewed by multiple congress assemblies (mostly democrat majority) to continue giving authority to president to enact tariffs on specific terms (e.g., national security).
2
u/99posse 1d ago
There is no point. The best thing the democrats can do right now is to get as little involved as possible and let history take its course. French revolution, fascism in Italy, nazism in Germany and many other excesses all ended up in the same way. A correction must start from the people, no conclusive and stable way otherwise.
0
u/xploeris 1d ago
There are better things the Dems could do - but they won't.
The correction is going to have to come from the people, and I wouldn't be surprised if we see the Dems go the way of the Whigs.
0
u/ContentMusician8980 1d ago
People didn’t vote for Democrats because they are perceived as weak and useless. Your proposed solution is for them to be even more weak and useless. Great plan. I’m sure that will really convince people Democrats have the answers.
1
u/111anza 1d ago
Very difficult, there have been precedence where the president enacted tariff under emergency declaration. The best Supreme court can do it to question the rationale that trump uses to enact the tarriff, but I doubt the Supreme court will weigh in on this, because technically it is congress job.
Our check and balance democracy is broken and frankly that's why its seemingly everything goes.
2
u/ContentMusician8980 1d ago
The key is there needs to be an emergency. If it is fentanyl, then the tariffs on virtually every country in the world is completely unrelated to that so it fails. If it is the trade imbalance, the Supreme Court previously allowed a President (Nixon) to do it because he said they were temporary, so it plausibly be viewed as an emergency response to a national security crisis. Trump on the other hand said tariffs are permanent and non-negotiable. That means he has now violated the Constitution since permanent tariffs are the responsibility of Congress . By his very own words he destroyed the thin legal rational that would allow him to create tariffs.
1
u/Ashamed_Ad_8365 17h ago
That is completely false, the Feb 2025 tariffs are the first time ever the emergency powers under IEEPA have been (clearly unlawfully) used to enact tariffs. First time in 50 years since the law has been in place.
-2
u/RightMindset2 1d ago
Congress gave the executive branch the ability to set tariffs. They did not do that for Student Loans. I can't for the life of me figure out why people find that difficult to understand the difference.
7
u/Ashamed_Ad_8365 1d ago edited 1d ago
Because Congress HAS NOT given the executive the ability to set tariffs and people need to stop repeating this lie.
Congress has granted limited power to impose tariffs in a temporary way or subject to approval and review, through a number of acts.
In fact, do you know which of these acts Trump is invoking to justify his tariffs?
NONE OF THEM.
He's citing the 1977 IEEPA, which is not about taxation or tariffs at all, has NEVER been used to impose tariffs before February 2025, and requires an 'unusual extraordinary threat' to be invoked regardless.
Make no mistake, these tariffs are unlawful. And if courts do not find as much, the US is no longer a functioning democracy.
edit: for anyone looking to better understand why they are unlawful, here
-3
u/RightMindset2 1d ago
There are multiple laws that give the president the ability to set tariffs which have been used by both Republican and Democrat administrations. You are only listing one and listing it in a misleading way.
- Trade Act of 1974: This law allows the president to impose tariffs or other trade measures to address unfair foreign trade practices, such as subsidies or dumping, under Section 301. It gives the president broad discretion to negotiate trade agreements and retaliate against trade barriers.
- Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962: This provision authorizes the president to adjust tariffs or impose restrictions on imports if the Department of Commerce determines they threaten national security. This was famously used by President Trump in 2018 to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum.
- Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974: The president can impose temporary tariffs or quotas to protect domestic industries from serious injury due to import surges, based on recommendations from the International Trade Commission.
- International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977: In cases of national emergencies, the president can regulate international commerce, which could include tariffs, though this is less common.
This has been upheld many times throughout the court systems. Like it or not, the tariffs are not unlawful. You can disagree with them but making hyperbolic statements like "And if courts do not find as much, the US is no longer a functioning democracy." is just idiotic.
2
u/ContentMusician8980 1d ago
Answer this basic question- when Congress passed any of those laws, did it intend for a President to have the right to unilaterally set exorbitant permanent tariffs on every country in the world? Even in the oft-cited one case where the SC allowed a President to set tariffs (Nixon), the court explicitly stated that a key reason the tariffs weren’t unconstitutional is that Nixon said they were temporary. Trump painted himself into a corner by saying the tariffs are non-negotiable. That means permanent, which is unconstitutional since it is a right given to Congress. It is his own words that make what he is doing unconstitutional based on the previous interpretation of the laws he is citing to enact the tariffs.
3
u/Ashamed_Ad_8365 1d ago edited 1d ago
Did you put that together with chatGPT?
Have you even read what I wrote? Trump is not invoking any of those three acts about tariffs, he's invoking the 1977 IEEPA EXCLUSIVELY, which has NEVER been used for tariffs (not 'less common' like your AI is claiming).
And even if it could be used for tariffs it requires an unusual extraordinary thread, and I already explained that clearly in my previous post.
I suggest you stop with the propaganda and so some actual research (i.e. not with chatbots)
0
u/RightMindset2 1d ago
Not having adequate manufacturing capability especially when it comes to critical industries such as production of steel and mining is a national security threat.
4
u/Ashamed_Ad_8365 1d ago edited 1d ago
That's what Section 232 is for (which has been invoked, lawfully, for the steel and aluminum tariffs), not the IEEPA. It has not been used for the Apr tariffs. Why? Because claiming that tariffing pants from Singapore or Lesotho will address a security threat is laughable.
Too bad invoking the IEEPA is just as laughable. But maybe it's gonna have a 10% chance of making it through the courts instead of 0%. Of course the Supreme Court is partisan so you never know there. I believe they will still vote it down though.
-3
u/Emotional_Goal9525 1d ago
As far as reasoning goes, canadian fentanyl is pretty extraordinary threat.
4
u/777IRON 1d ago
The fentanyl in the U.S., just like everywhere else in the world comes from China, not Canada. And the fentanyl that is in Canada mostly comes from the U.S. Crazy if you actually believe what you are typing.
2
u/Emotional_Goal9525 19h ago
If it somehow wasn't obvious, it is extraordinary stupid and miniscule threat.
4
u/Ashamed_Ad_8365 1d ago edited 1d ago
He's not even quoting fentanyl for the global tariffs, he's quoting trade deficits. Which is not a threat, it's not unusual and extraordinary, and he's tariffing countries the US has a trade surplus with anyway. And that's if the IEEPA even allows to impose tariff based on that emergency to begin with (it does not, as no one has even thought about doing it in nearly 50 years).
100% unlawful and abuse of power.
1
u/siberianmi 1d ago
The global tariffs aren’t about that and frankly Fentanyl is a law enforcement issue not trade.
0
u/samf9999 1d ago
Because you are wrong. Congress precisely gave that authority to the department of education to be able to modify student loans. But use that authority to try to modify ALL the student loans (at least the ones he wanted - up to $300b+) supreme Court said no.
0
u/RightMindset2 1d ago
Im not wrong and the justification you're using for why forgiving student loans was ruled illegal is wrong also. Knowledge of how our government and law works is severely lacking in this country it seems.
-5
u/Alone-Supermarket-98 1d ago
Probably because the power to impose tarrifs is vested solely with the President
5
u/samf9999 1d ago
No. Constitutionally it’s in Congress.
-4
u/Alone-Supermarket-98 1d ago
Constitutionally it is with Congrress. However, Congress has long enacted laws authorizing the President to adjust tariff rates on goods, including Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962; Sections 122, 201, and 301 of the Trade Act of 1974; Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930; and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977.
Courts have generally upheld these laws against constitutional challanges. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has traditionally given deference to the President in these cases, allowing the President to utilize these statutes unless he "clearly misconstrues" their scope and holding that they commit certain matters to the President's unreviewable discretion.
1
u/samf9999 1d ago
They have generally upheld these laws because but they’ve never had a case like this before. To assume what they would do without making a ruckus is admitting defeat, which is what Democrats are excellent at.
1
u/vannucker 1d ago
Sounds like he is clearly misconstruing the scope because it is for emergencies. Has is importing lot of vanilla from Madagascar an emergency?
1
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Hi, you're on r/Stocks, please make sure your post is related to stocks or the stockmarket or it will most likely get removed as being off-topic/political; feel free to edit it now and be more specific.
To everyone commenting: Please focus on how this affects the stock market or specific stocks or it will be removed as being off-topic/political.
If you're interested in just politics, see our wiki on "relevant subreddits" and post to those Reddit communities instead without linking back here, thanks!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.