Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
I would appreciate your opinion on the SC ruling on this case as a lawyer.
The excerpt that I posted earlier is interesting because he is explicitly calling out Congress to do their job and pass laws to be followed by the president. Congress has been a dysfunctional mess for a while and with the midterms coming up its not looking good for Republicans to hold the same majority they have now although it's entirely not clear how the recent restricting and potential election law changes will affect that.
Gorsuch is telegraphing that he will be ruling against widespread executive power in the future but that also remains to be seen, although this is a pretty powerful message.
The ironic thing is that the Chevron Doctrine was brought about in the Reagan era to give broad executive powers, but 25 years later the conservative push returned to small limited government. MAGA brought about a conservative push for great federal power in the executive and as such Gorsuch finds himself a man out of time.
Below you can read some more excerpts from Gosuchs concurring opinion, it's a good read for everyone.
The party’s that used to champion the constitution during bidens term has fallen very far from the tree.
Back at ya Joey
Joey B and others openly rooting for subverting democracy is fucking insane.
The Shop
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
Free shipping: VITALMX
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
I can understand both sides of the argument. The breaking question is whether tariff policy is tax policy or foreign policy. In other words, are the tariffs more for the purpose of collecting revenue or controlling relationships with foreign nations? I don’t think there’s a clear answer there. I don’t know if Trump knows that answer. The tariffs against China seem more like foreign policy. The blanket tariffs on all nations seem more like taxation.
The majority opinion takes the approach that tariffs are tax policy, and because taxation is an enumerated power of congress the major questions doctrine dictates that any delegation of that power be in clear terms. The dissent takes the position that tariffs are foreign policy, and the major questions doctrine doesn’t apply to foreign policy, thus the plain language of IEEPA grants the power to tariff as regulation.
My personal philosophy aligns with the majority. But my understanding of the law would go the other way. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter because legal realism says the law is whatever the Supreme Court says it is.
Regarding Gorsuch, I don’t think he’s telegraphing anything he hasn’t already in the past. He’s long been a proponent of the major questions doctrine. The issue with comparing this with Chevron is that the court here is not trying to determine a concept within an area of the law as much as it is trying to determine what area of law it’s in.
Kagan would and has argued that the MQD is simply not necessary. Just read the text of the law and apply it. There is something about that which I agree with except that power seeking entities ,mostly Presidents or agencies under his control, can divine ambiguity which can cloud any real interpretation of the plain text. Up until Chevron was killed, that was all that the power seeking entity needed. And sure enough, power just kept flowing from Congress to the Presidency. Mostly in dribs and drabs but definitely only in one direction. This was the slow process of turning our system of public participation into a form of dictatorship. I am very glad that this court has put a stop to this. It was used at least 3 times to quash Biden admin overreaches and now has put a final fuck you stamp on it. Congress needs to do it's job. Up until this court, all it is is a cheer leading squad for the President. In my view, this turned around back when Roberts gleaned a legal tax authority to uphold the ACA. He was so harshly criticized for this, and not just by partisans but by people he admired, that it set a path to finally kill Chevron and now this.
I haven't read through all of the decision but the analysis I've seen is consistent with yours.
To the original point, that except is still interesting in that it does call out impulsive executive decision making as opposed to deliberative legislating, something that is rare in this day on the conservative side.
When the IEEPA law was passed there were still many statesmen in Congress and Presidents at that point in time were semi rational. They could not foresee what would happen 45 years later when neither of those descriptions are true. I have no real issues with TGF's analysis and the point of my posts is to add some additional thoughts.
Been battling FedEx for a $1500 tariff bill that they sent me to collections on. I knew the $1500 would be deemed BS, if you know the law and constitutional law it’s obvious. You can’t just randomly send an individual a $1500 bill out of the blue. But normal dudes like me and you get fucked all the time. FedEx will be fine I’m sure.
Joey B wants the Epstein thread to be gone and the topic to be forgotten. Thats the kind of person he is.
So, do I need to pay the $42 I was billed from FedEx for my RXR chest protector from France? That was a surprise to see the other day.
probably
calling tariffs an "economic boom" will always make me laugh. what a moron.
Assuming that was an honest question, I would not expect to see prices change anytime soon. Partly because the seller still has to work through existing inventory and new tariffs are coming soon. As for predicting what will happen, the previous tariffs were changed some 25 times. As for the new tariffs, they were already changed once even before they were imposed. Welcome to the new stable business climate.
More like joking sarcasm. I kept getting emails and texts about this and I thought it was spam, but I got a letter in the mail from FedEx, and I guess I owe $42? No idea why I'm now getting it after I've had the item for 2 months. I'll pay it, but still lame. I thought the import thing was wrapped up in prices from the manufacturer, I guess not.
Whoever imports pays the duties. So if a retailer imports the items then sells it to you, they paid and include it in the retail price. In this case it sounds like you bought directly from the French retailer, so you imported it and are responsible for paying the duties.
What I find surprising is that FedEx would release the item before its paid.
That’s a hefty fee, did they say that was 100% tarrif related? Unfortunately I doubt we get any type of refund but the company will. I don’t see any union jobs sprouting up in the future making motorcycle parts or gear, hence my frustration with blanket tarrifs.
Existing domestic manufacturers are having to raise prices due to tariff related cost increases. Those price increases cover increased material operating costs, not labor.
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/23/fedex-trump-trade-tariffs-refunds-supre…
Pit Row
I see no problem with that as long as they refund their customers who already paid them. It's an easy paper trail judging by what a couple of vitards say. The story I read was that FedX is billing the recipient separately for the tariff costs sometimes weeks or months after delivery because they have to settle with customs first. FedX often becomes the actual importer because they pick stuff up directly from Customs and deliver to downonmonday or whoever else. And as "most" of us know, the importer pays the tariff and generally passes on the cost.
The New York Fed pretty much confirmed what most of us already knew and they are sure to be punished for annoying the king. Hassett has said they need to be disciplined. But then he unsaid it and apologized so maybe he will be disciplined for unsaying it and apologizing. Everything is going to work out just fine, just give it time. Like 3 more years.
It’s rare in the MAGA brand and in the conservatism you’ll the news, but conservatives are not monolithic and among legal minds there are differing opinions. The prominent conservative organization among jurists and law schools is the Federalist Society. In this case, Barrett and Gorsuch wrote the majority while Kavanaugh and Thomas dissented. All four justices are members of the Federalist Society. Members sitting on opposite sides of an opinion isn’t exceptional.
I think if you were to survey SCOTUS opinions and read through the dicta in concurring and dissenting opinions you would find a lot of examples where conservative justices aren’t completely in sync with mainstream conservative trends but are consistent with the opinions of other conservative lawyers.
all hail king trump
Post a reply to: Tariffs ruled on by Supreme court. 6-3 ruling