If a pretty boy like Gorsuch, who loves the sound of his own voice, was a trial court judge and you (as a party or a lawyer) called him names like Trump did and talked about his family being ashamed of him, you would have to challenge that judge before he ever got assigned as your trial judge for the rest of his career.

Gorsuch may not roll over for Trump anymore (absent a threat of some kind).

bearister said:

---

If a pretty boy like Gorsuch, who loves the sound of his own voice, was a trial court judge and you (as a party or a lawyer) called him names like Trump did and talked about his family being ashamed of him, you would have to challenge that judge before he ever got assigned as your trial judge for the rest of his career.

Gorsuch may not roll over for Trump anymore (absent a threat of some kind).

---

That's an excellent point.

It's also interesting to point out that Trump's latest 15% global tariffs that he announced on Friday after SCOTUS rejected his tariffs as illegal - - - are based on Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act. He's allowed to do so.

But he's only allowed to impose such a tariff for 150 days.
He would then have to get Congress to extend them and that's gonna be highly problematic.

I don't see the GOP wanting to increase taxes in an election year with midterms coming up.

From what I've read in the last day or so, there's no rule against him stopping them for a day and then restarting another 150 days. That being said it would most certainly be challenged in court if he was to do that.

Chuck Schumer with an assist from Stephanie Ruhle: Trump was berating Supreme Court Justices. It’s outrageous.

Both Chuck and Stephanie must've forgotten about the time Chuck actually threatened Supreme Court Justices.

Wasn’t mentioned. pic.twitter.com/MaItTilpSg

— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) February 21, 2026

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

So you DO or DON'T adhere to your comparative advantage economics prof?

---

I have no idea what you are asking? Is this like does the dude abides with comparative advantage? I just paraphrased what Galbraith said, which is under economic theory, consumers are better off without tariffs (or taxes for that matter). I think anyone with an economics degree agrees with that. The math works. He also said the math breaks down when countries cheat, impose regulation, etc. I might add tariffs are used as a political/foreign affairs weapon and as noted on this board often, people like imposing taxes, as long at the taxes are not on them. Look, there are trade offs that people must consider. Do you impose tariffs on Russian for invading Ukraine, and risk retaliation, higher costs of Russian goods, etc.? For the last several Presidents the answer is yes.

---

My undergrad degree was international affairs - economics.
We had a class on comparative advantage. Your Econ 101 class was spot on, the math works when every nation produces what it has a "comparative advantage" in.

Meanwhile, tariffs (like trade quotas, minimum wages, environmental regulations, etc) are "externalities".

Externalities screw up the math.
It's a fair debate to have as to whether some of these externalities make sense. For instance, I personally believe that environmental impacts MUST be considered heavily in a free enterprise capitalist system.

My question to you was whether you believe in free trade per comparative advantage or in the externality of tariff to achieve, say, Trump's objectives in implementing them.

I think Trump's rationality for tariff is basically insane, like everything else he does. But, ya know, I'm more than a wee bit biased against anything he does, including breathing.

---

With Trump you get a lot of bluster and often irrational chaos behind policies, so I'm not sure what to think most of the time with this guy.

---

What I was hoping to hear from you, as always with everyone, is that Trump is a clown and his policies stink.

---

Confrontational language and free floating resentment just begets the same. My criticism of Trump is likely to garner greater consideration..

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

So you DO or DON'T adhere to your comparative advantage economics prof?

---

I have no idea what you are asking? Is this like does the dude abides with comparative advantage? I just paraphrased what Galbraith said, which is under economic theory, consumers are better off without tariffs (or taxes for that matter). I think anyone with an economics degree agrees with that. The math works. He also said the math breaks down when countries cheat, impose regulation, etc. I might add tariffs are used as a political/foreign affairs weapon and as noted on this board often, people like imposing taxes, as long at the taxes are not on them. Look, there are trade offs that people must consider. Do you impose tariffs on Russian for invading Ukraine, and risk retaliation, higher costs of Russian goods, etc.? For the last several Presidents the answer is yes.

---

My undergrad degree was international affairs - economics.
We had a class on comparative advantage. Your Econ 101 class was spot on, the math works when every nation produces what it has a "comparative advantage" in.

Meanwhile, tariffs (like trade quotas, minimum wages, environmental regulations, etc) are "externalities".

Externalities screw up the math.
It's a fair debate to have as to whether some of these externalities make sense. For instance, I personally believe that environmental impacts MUST be considered heavily in a free enterprise capitalist system.

My question to you was whether you believe in free trade per comparative advantage or in the externality of tariff to achieve, say, Trump's objectives in implementing them.

I think Trump's rationality for tariff is basically insane, like everything else he does. But, ya know, I'm more than a wee bit biased against anything he does, including breathing.

---

With Trump you get a lot of bluster and often irrational chaos behind policies, so I'm not sure what to think most of the time with this guy.

---

What I was hoping to hear from you, as always with everyone, is that Trump is a clown and his policies stink.

---

Confrontational language and free floating resentment just begets the same. My criticism of Trump is likely to garner greater consideration..

---

Well, that's great, Wife

I encourage you to mimic my confrontational language AND my free floating resentment!

For criticism that will garner the greatest amount of consideration, might I recommend the use of graphics! Propaganda Images attract the greatest eyeballs and are retained in the brain best. Joseph Goebbels taught us that.

Perhaps after perusing these offerings you'll find one you'll really like to use as your own. Please feel free to do so! And remember, a snappy few words helps people retain the message!

Nope. Me neither as in I wasn't put to sleep. Not sure why you'd even make this post unless it's a personal attack.

BearlySane88 said:

---

Nope. Me neither as in I wasn't put to sleep. Not sure why you'd even make this post unless it's a personal attack.

---

Oh, geez.
How sensitive are you?

Here let me help you. This is a personal attack on your use of proper grammar: you should put "me, neither" in quotations and insert a comma.

There.
Feel better?

And here, I'm going to use the thumbs down emoji to make sure you know how I feel.

Lololol I needed a good laugh tonight. Thanks

You'll be the judge of grammar?

I have as much interest in discussing the "legal" findings of our Supreme Court as I do discussing a Shaman's tea leaves. But I do wonder what tariff supporters think of the tariffs after a year. What was gained? The trade deficit is basically unchanged. The fiscal deficit continues to worsen. Jobs stink. GDP growth is slipping. What are the benefits of this tax on American consumers?

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

So you DO or DON'T adhere to your comparative advantage economics prof?

---

I have no idea what you are asking? Is this like does the dude abides with comparative advantage? I just paraphrased what Galbraith said, which is under economic theory, consumers are better off without tariffs (or taxes for that matter). I think anyone with an economics degree agrees with that. The math works. He also said the math breaks down when countries cheat, impose regulation, etc. I might add tariffs are used as a political/foreign affairs weapon and as noted on this board often, people like imposing taxes, as long at the taxes are not on them. Look, there are trade offs that people must consider. Do you impose tariffs on Russian for invading Ukraine, and risk retaliation, higher costs of Russian goods, etc.? For the last several Presidents the answer is yes.

---

My undergrad degree was international affairs - economics.
We had a class on comparative advantage. Your Econ 101 class was spot on, the math works when every nation produces what it has a "comparative advantage" in.

Meanwhile, tariffs (like trade quotas, minimum wages, environmental regulations, etc) are "externalities".

Externalities screw up the math.
It's a fair debate to have as to whether some of these externalities make sense. For instance, I personally believe that environmental impacts MUST be considered heavily in a free enterprise capitalist system.

My question to you was whether you believe in free trade per comparative advantage or in the externality of tariff to achieve, say, Trump's objectives in implementing them.

I think Trump's rationality for tariff is basically insane, like everything else he does. But, ya know, I'm more than a wee bit biased against anything he does, including breathing.

---

With Trump you get a lot of bluster and often irrational chaos behind policies, so I'm not sure what to think most of the time with this guy.

---

What I was hoping to hear from you, as always with everyone, is that Trump is a clown and his policies stink.

---

Confrontational language and free floating resentment just begets the same. My criticism of Trump is likely to garner greater consideration..

---

Well, that's great, Wife

I encourage you to mimic my confrontational language AND my free floating resentment!

For criticism that will garner the greatest amount of consideration, might I recommend the use of graphics! Propaganda Images attract the greatest eyeballs and are retained in the brain best. Joseph Goebbels taught us that.

Perhaps after perusing these offerings you'll find one you'll really like to use as your own. Please feel free to do so! And remember, a snappy few words helps people retain the message!

---

It is impossible to take you seriously.

DiabloWags said:

---

bearister said:

---

If a pretty boy like Gorsuch, who loves the sound of his own voice, was a trial court judge and you (as a party or a lawyer) called him names like Trump did and talked about his family being ashamed of him, you would have to challenge that judge before he ever got assigned as your trial judge for the rest of his career.

Gorsuch may not roll over for Trump anymore (absent a threat of some kind).

---

That's an excellent point.

---

Here is decent article getting into Gorsuch. Four separate judges from both wings of SCOTUS wrote opinions to tell Gorsuch he was full of it.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/tariffs-case-supreme-court-justices-bicker-biden-trump-treatment-rcna259922

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

I have as much interest in discussing the "legal" findings of our Supreme Court as I do discussing a Shaman's tea leaves. But I do wonder what tariff supporters think of the tariffs after a year. What was gained? The trade deficit is basically unchanged. The fiscal deficit continues to worsen. Jobs stink. GDP growth is slipping. What are the benefits of this tax on American consumers?

---

Maybe that is the critical point. Trump's chaotic tariff strategy is not working.

---

I dont think I've heard that from any of his current supporters here

concordtom said:

---

bearister said:

---

"Good question, but we probably put most of the people here to sleep."

If you were to assign a percentage figure to the portion of that statement that is passive vs the portion that is aggressive, what would those numbers look like?"

BearlySane88 wrote:

"I appreciate the insightful debate and your posts are very informative. Thank you"

---

Lol that's what you picked up on.
I picked up on the "me neither, when I think "me, too" was the intended wording.

---

it oooozed Haskel.

But that said, and if you go back through the history of this thread we all agreed tariffs are A tool to which the ends can be known or unknown. At least I think that's a broad opinion . The problem with the pro tariff folks here is that they are selling them based on false promises that already haven't come true and where the tariff goal post is ever shifting and moves based on any trickle of good news …to the point where "not as bad as you libs thought" was a considered a tariff win.

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Maybe that is the critical point. Trump's chaotic tariff strategy is not working.

---

I dont think I've heard that from any of his current supporters here

---

His supporters here cant even admit that a tariff is a tax. One that is largely paid by the American consumer.

It's difficult to engage with people in a "good-faith" discussion when they won't admit that 2 + 2 = 4.

I was referring to WIAF's posts when I said that but keep on with the attacks that have nothing to do with this thread

Last year, I started about 140 threads here at Bearinsider.

My More Tariffs thread was started in February of 2025 and has over 116,000 views and 1185 replies over 34 pages.

And yet through the entirety of the thread, Trump supporters did nothing other than "cheerlead" how much money was coming into the U.S. Treasury and never once admitting that a tariff is a TAX.

It's like not admitting that 2 + 2 = 4

Then, the narrative by Trump supporters turned to "Oh look, those Nobel Prize winning Economists were all wrong about their forecasts for inflation"

Never mind that Trump TACO'd on his original tariffs when economists made those forecasts.

Now fast-forward to their reaction after the SCOTUS decision and there is an admission of CHAOS.

lol

DiabloWags said:

---

Last year, I started about 140 threads here at Bearinsider.

My More Tariffs thread was started in February of 2025 and has over 116,000 views and 1185 replies over 34 pages.

And yet through the entirety of the thread, Trump supporters did nothing other than "cheerlead" how much money was coming into the U.S. Treasury and never once admitting that a tariff is a TAX.

It's like not admitting that 2 + 2 = 4

Then, the narrative by Trump supporters turned to "Oh look, those Nobel Prize winning Economists were all wrong about their forecasts for inflation"

Never mind that Trump TACO'd on his original tariffs when economists made those forecasts.

Now fast-forward to their reaction after the SCOTUS decision and there is an admission of CHAOS.

lol

---

Can you stop private messaging me and insulting other posters? Thank you

DiabloWags said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Here is decent article getting into Gorsuch. Four separate judges from both wings of SCOTUS wrote opinions to tell Gorsuch he was full of it.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/tariffs-case-supreme-court-justices-bicker-biden-trump-treatment-rcna259922

---

I read that article differently.
Given the Court's 2022 decision on West Virginia vs EPA
Which I posted about on Page 3 of this thread:

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/133265/replies/2658196

---

WV vs EPA involved internal EPA rules. That those rules may have a global impact does not create a foreign affairs issue. Tariffs are targeted events toward specific foreign countries. That is foreign affairs. Gorsuch and the article are being disingenuous.

It is difficult to get into this without turning a post into a law review article. But sentence 2 of paragraph 2 is kind of silly. See page 153 of the opinion for context and explanation of K's handling of the Foreign Affairs / Major Question issue.

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

So you DO or DON'T adhere to your comparative advantage economics prof?

---

I have no idea what you are asking? Is this like does the dude abides with comparative advantage? I just paraphrased what Galbraith said, which is under economic theory, consumers are better off without tariffs (or taxes for that matter). I think anyone with an economics degree agrees with that. The math works. He also said the math breaks down when countries cheat, impose regulation, etc. I might add tariffs are used as a political/foreign affairs weapon and as noted on this board often, people like imposing taxes, as long at the taxes are not on them. Look, there are trade offs that people must consider. Do you impose tariffs on Russian for invading Ukraine, and risk retaliation, higher costs of Russian goods, etc.? For the last several Presidents the answer is yes.

---

My undergrad degree was international affairs - economics.
We had a class on comparative advantage. Your Econ 101 class was spot on, the math works when every nation produces what it has a "comparative advantage" in.

Meanwhile, tariffs (like trade quotas, minimum wages, environmental regulations, etc) are "externalities".

Externalities screw up the math.
It's a fair debate to have as to whether some of these externalities make sense. For instance, I personally believe that environmental impacts MUST be considered heavily in a free enterprise capitalist system.

My question to you was whether you believe in free trade per comparative advantage or in the externality of tariff to achieve, say, Trump's objectives in implementing them.

I think Trump's rationality for tariff is basically insane, like everything else he does. But, ya know, I'm more than a wee bit biased against anything he does, including breathing.

---

With Trump you get a lot of bluster and often irrational chaos behind policies, so I'm not sure what to think most of the time with this guy.

---

What I was hoping to hear from you, as always with everyone, is that Trump is a clown and his policies stink.

---

Confrontational language and free floating resentment just begets the same. My criticism of Trump is likely to garner greater consideration..

---

Well, that's great, Wife

I encourage you to mimic my confrontational language AND my free floating resentment!

For criticism that will garner the greatest amount of consideration, might I recommend the use of graphics! Propaganda Images attract the greatest eyeballs and are retained in the brain best. Joseph Goebbels taught us that.

Perhaps after perusing these offerings you'll find one you'll really like to use as your own. Please feel free to do so! And remember, a snappy few words helps people retain the message!

---

It is impossible to take you seriously.

---

sorry
I kinda thought you would get when I was being serious and when I was inserting jokes about my issue of rant.

Hey, at least I don't post a bunch of blatant lies and misinformation like others do!

I was curious about why this section 122 allowed the president to establish tariffs and in particular, why temporary. So naturally I asked Google and here's what came out:

Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 allows the President to impose temporary, uniform import surcharges (up to 15%) to address "fundamental international payments problems," such as large, serious balance-of-payments deficits or rapid declines in U.S. monetary reserves

It's been almost 60 years since I took econ classes at Cal, but I seem to remember that 'a balance of payments deficit' isn't the same as a trade deficit, because payments include investment inflows. So in ordinary circumstances the balance of payments is neither much of deficit or surplus. And I haven't heard anything about a repid decline in our money reserves. So could someone who understands law and econ better than I do explain how this is legal?

Also for you lawyers -- Can a statute that allows a temporary measure be used repeatedly after short breaks? Wouldn't that violate the measure's intention?