[illithid0]

The power to impose tariffs is given to Congress in the Constitution. Exceptions are allowed but in rare and specific situations. The fact that SCOTUS struck it down means the tariffs as imposed were unconstitutional.

You can be for tariffs all you want, I'm not here to argue their efficacy. But you absolutely cannot with any intellectual honesty still be on the fence about whether he abused his power given this ruling.

It is not "flip flopping policy" to break the bounds of your Constitutional power and be shut down by one of the branches meant to check you.

[jopsen]

I don't think the administration cares about the appearance of impropriety.

[illithid0]

I'm not sure what this has to do with the Constitutionality of his tariffs or their ability to accomplish the stated goals.

[franktankbank]

It is flip flopping policy as far as it was here one day and struck down the next. That's what matters to people attempting to start something here. I should have stated I was not interested in arguing the actual rule process, you have 6-3 vote from the Supreme Court in your favor.

[alex43578]

It was absurd to think this was valid policy in the first place. The IEEPA clearly didn’t delegate unilateral tariff authority to the president, especially on the flimsy basis of a “trade emergency”.

If Trump wanted a durable trade policy, work with the legislative majority to pass a real policy with deliberation - just like they should have done with immigration.

[pavlov]

Almost all legal experts said from the start the Trump’s approach to tariffs was unconstitutional.

So who else could be to blame for the flip-flopping?

The executive is supposed to uphold laws made by Congress, not throw spaghetti at the Supreme Court’s wall and see if it sticks.