ONE SMALL TINY PROBLEM

Wednesday the Supreme Court ("Textualism, textualism, textualism!!!) takes up the challenge to the Dear Leader's willy-nilly imposition on tariffs without congressional approval.  "Barbados thinks it can win a trade war with us? Think again tough guy."

The Dear Leader's justification for his careful and well thought out imposition of tariffs?  A Jimmy Carter era law: International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”). 

The question is simple?  Has Congress given the president the authority to impose broad import duties (i.e., tariffs) by invoking an emergency-powers statute that was originally aimed at foreign threats? 

The answer is simple to the six conservative justices on the Supreme Court: Of course the President is right. The law gives him the powers do impose tariffs when he wants, for how much he wants. If it's Wednesday, the tariffs on China must be 30%. If it's Friday, the rate is 11%. 

And of course, the legal reasoning that the majority will use is textualism. Just rule based on what the law says.  People will die- sorry, Textualism does not allow us to intervene. The planet will be destroyed- sorry, Textualism does not allow us to intervene. 

Textualism rules the day. So all the majority needs to do is read the IEEPA (which sounds like a bad local pub brew in Cleveland) and simply point out that the law gives the President the right to impose tariffs in an emergency. Should take about three pages- The Dear Leader wins because he always wins (except when prosecuted in NY State Court). 

One eeny, weeny, teeny  tiny small problem. IEEPA never mentions imposing tariffs or duties, nor creating taxes. Under past precedent, tariffs are legislative‐taxing measures belonging to Congress. 

The United States Court of Appeals for the DC Federal Circuit ruled 7-4 via Textualism reasoning, that the Dear Leader exceeded his authority under IEEPA by imposing sweeping tariffs. The majority held that the statute did not clearly authorize tariffs and in fact did not have the word tariffs in the statute. 

So now, that truckload of valium in DC being delivered to the Supreme Court will be used by six judges whose two loves in life: their sole desire to please the Dear Leader, and the use of Textualism to accomplish all their personal goals, are in conflict. 

What to do? Oh what to do? Will their love of unencumbered presidential power - when they like the president- carry the day? Or will they demonstrate the kind of intellectual honesty that their love affair with textualism requires? They love giving speeches about how textualism often requires them to rule in ways that they personally would not do. (If it hasn't happened in the past, in the future the audience should cough **bs**bs** bullshit** bullshit**). 

Call us pessimistic, but we predict the kind of legal yoga that will allow these sycophants to support their Dear Leader. 

Something like, "Textualism can be carried a bit too far. It is perfectly reasonable to apply the legal principle to deny starving children food, dying people medicine and medical insurance, but it must yield when a Republican President that we like declares an emergency. Plus, the president says he sees the word tariffs in the statute, and as we have often ruled recently, if the president says it, then it must be true. "

So let's see how intellectually honest these six bootlickers really are.