I agree with the SCOTUS.  It is my opinion that I agree.

 If the POTUS is going to use 50 U.S.C. §§ 1701 they should expect this type of response due to lack of specific language of powers.  This is my opinion, is a predictable interpretation referencing Article III, which by the way has been called "Unconstitutional" by one member here, which I imagine is now magically completely Constitutional by their assessment.

 I wonder what legislative avenue will be used to restore tariffs.

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11281

I'm also curious, because if it doesn't work, Donald Trump's policy will be in shambles.

And America with it, because what will we do in the coming years?

I wouldn't be surprised that the rule of law as we know it is past its prime. Not that I'm a proponent of that, but it does point to it.

What does the rule of law even mean, considering the number of arrests in the Epstein case?

I understand that Trump is being recalled, but it seems like a decision where the Supreme Court wants to keep power out of Trump's hands, which is also what the law is intended for, of course. But times have changed, and it would have been legally possible to rule differently.

I believe the Supreme Court is being unnecessarily harsh here and is placing the consequences entirely on Trump, and that makes it a political decision for me rather than a legal one. The Supreme Court must, of course, adhere to previous jurisprudence, but again, times are different now. All institutions are faltering, and this decision during the Epsein file crisis...

I wouldn't be surprised if the rule of law is seriously undermined by this action, or by the lack of action.
It is clear that there is a network (an elite) of very powerful people who are in control and are absolutely criminal. What will the higher court do about this?

I'm also curious, because if it doesn't work, Donald Trump's policy will be in shambles.

And America with it, because what will we do in the coming years?


 What we did before.  The US was hardly in economic duress before tariffs - but if you like Trump the US economy was doomed, and if you don't like Trump it was the best economy in recorded history.

 

I understand that Trump is being recalled, but it seems like a decision where the Supreme Court wants to keep power out of Trump's hands, which is also what the law is intended for, of course. But times have changed, and it would have been legally possible to rule differently.

 I disagree.  This very specifically follows Article III of the US Constitution.  Trump, and really his advisors since we all know he has no idea how the US Government works, should have used a process that was more likely to succeed instead of expecting the SCOTUS to ignore law.



 I believe the Supreme Court is being unnecessarily harsh here and is placing the consequences entirely on Trump, and that makes it a political decision for me rather than a legal one. The Supreme Court must, of course, adhere to previous jurisprudence, but again, times are different now.

 This argument is no different than Needles argument that US law doesn't apply because things are "different" now.  The US Constitution has Amendments for a reason.  It's so we have a consistent rule of law that is flexible but applied equally and not a rule of law that applies differently to lets say Trump, but not any other POTUS.

 

  All institutions are faltering, and this decision during the Epsein file crisis...

 Epstein has nothing to do with this.  Another staple of US law is not bringing in unrelated aspects to undermine the equal application.  If I am being sued for fraudulently over charging a customer, I can't defend myself by saying he is a ped o phile, or saying bigger companies are more evil than me.

 
 This post is an opinion.

 

lets hope so.

 I think you are overselling it.  My opinion is you are overselling it.  In a few years Trump will be gone, new SCOTUS rulings will happen, a whole other line of doomsday actions will happen.

 I don't know what "all other institutions" are to you, but I imagine plenty still exist.  

 This post is an opinion.

From the Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent

“Let's be clear about what today's ruling WAS and what it WASN'T. Despite the misplaced GLOATING from Democrats, ill-informed media outlets, and the very people who gutted our industrial base, the Court did not rule against President Trump's tariffs."

"Six justices simply ruled that IEEPA authorities cannot be used to raise even $1 of revenue."

"This administration will invoke alternative legal authorities to replace the IEEPA tariffs."

"We will be leveraging Section 232 and Section 301 tariff authorities that have been validated through thousands of legal challenges."

"Treasury's estimates show that the use of Section 122 authority, combined with potentially enhanced Section 232 and Section 301 tariffs, will result in virtually unchanged tariff revenue in 2026."

he doesn't know what a free-market economy is
the king has no____________.