It’s not the courts job to worry about the impact of policies it’s the court job to focus on legalities. If they don’t do that then there is no need for a Supreme Court.
watch_out_4_snakes on
Can you imagine making a ruling at that level simply based on the difficulty of implementing the solution and completely ignoring the applicable law? WOW!
jimtow28 on
It was also incredibly disruptive to scramble them in the first place.
No_Philosopher_1870 on
Suppose that the tariffs are overturned and the tariff revenue collected has to be refunded. It would be a one-time boost for the companies in profits.
SavagePlatypus76 on
Ridiculous
BarkerBarkhan on
Alright, if that’s the precedent they set, then if/when a Democrat gets into office, we cancel all student loans and burn the receipts.
PsychLegalMind on
I use to admire her skills and ability to argue before the Justices. This comment coming from her about the non-legal rationale to rule one way is an incredibly stupid comment. Even when directed to this Supreme Court.
Yet, the six on the bench do give a damn about what Trump thinks, but shocking to me is that this former beauty queen/solicitor is turning out to be not much different than Trump.
Johnny-Unitas on
What a pathetic statement.
pm_me_yo_creditscore on
NomadicScribe on
I thought the tech bro economy loved “disruptors”.
LetItAllGo33 on
We went from going to the moon because it was hard to not unfucking the economy because it might disrupt one of the President’s many tantrums.
Careless-Pin-2852 on
Well vote in the mid terms
Tigerianwinter on
I love how “it’s hard” is a sensible reason to not do anything regardless of the benefit.
ForwardBias on
So now laws exist only if you haven’t broken them so much that sorting out the ramifications would be…difficult?
cephu5 on
“Well, you can’t unkill someone so definitely not going to judge on that murder case” SCOTUS/s
Flokitoo on
I will assure you that they will rule how Trump tells the to rule. If Trump needs an out, Roberts will make a big showing that he is standing up to Trump. If Trump doesn’t need an out, SCOTUS will rule in his favor.
16 Comments
It’s not the courts job to worry about the impact of policies it’s the court job to focus on legalities. If they don’t do that then there is no need for a Supreme Court.
Can you imagine making a ruling at that level simply based on the difficulty of implementing the solution and completely ignoring the applicable law? WOW!
It was also incredibly disruptive to scramble them in the first place.
Suppose that the tariffs are overturned and the tariff revenue collected has to be refunded. It would be a one-time boost for the companies in profits.
Ridiculous
Alright, if that’s the precedent they set, then if/when a Democrat gets into office, we cancel all student loans and burn the receipts.
I use to admire her skills and ability to argue before the Justices. This comment coming from her about the non-legal rationale to rule one way is an incredibly stupid comment. Even when directed to this Supreme Court.
Yet, the six on the bench do give a damn about what Trump thinks, but shocking to me is that this former beauty queen/solicitor is turning out to be not much different than Trump.
What a pathetic statement.
I thought the tech bro economy loved “disruptors”.
We went from going to the moon because it was hard to not unfucking the economy because it might disrupt one of the President’s many tantrums.
Well vote in the mid terms
I love how “it’s hard” is a sensible reason to not do anything regardless of the benefit.
So now laws exist only if you haven’t broken them so much that sorting out the ramifications would be…difficult?
“Well, you can’t unkill someone so definitely not going to judge on that murder case” SCOTUS/s
I will assure you that they will rule how Trump tells the to rule. If Trump needs an out, Roberts will make a big showing that he is standing up to Trump. If Trump doesn’t need an out, SCOTUS will rule in his favor.