I still have a bad feeling about the tariff case even [View all]

though it was heartening to hear some of the questioning from some of the MAGA justices. Put simply I don't trust this bunch at all and I would not be surprised if they come up with some decision with horrendously tortured reasoning that allows Crumb The 1st to continue on. I agree with some commentators who cautioned against reading too much into oral argument questioning.

The kind of scenario for this plays out along the lines of: "While it would be impermissible to take these actions because of "x" we find that these actions were taken because of "y" and therefore are permissible under the law." Or they give him an out in some other way of weasel wording a decision that can be twisted to allow him to continue.

I was troubled by the way the reference to the tariffs being "foreign facing" was allowed to continually be repeated and the phrase was more or less accepted without correction. The assessment and collection of tariffs is done at the point of importation not at the point of export and they are collected from the importer. Whether the importer is later reimbursed in part by the exporter has no bearing and is a matter between them and not the government.

Someone may reimburse you for a tax you have to pay but it is still a tax. The reimbursement or not between two private parties doesn't change the definition of what the government, an unrelated party to the reimbursement, action carries as a definition. You can't say imposing a fine for speeding isn't a fine because somebody reimburses or pays the fine for the violator. The reimbursement may nullify that financial impact but that is a matter between the violator and the person reimbursing them.

I felt there should have been more of an argument made that the definition of an action by the government is not predicated on what machinations parties make to deal with the action once that action is taken by the government. There should have been an emphasis that trying to weasel around and backtrack eventual sharing/not sharing of the charges imposed by the government somehow determines the definition of the government action is backward reasoning and "bootstrapping" in reverse.

Maybe hope springs eternal and we will get a 5 to 4 decision in the right direction. But even if we get a favorable ruling in its conclusion it is still a bad matter to allow faulty assumptions and assertions to carry forward even if the eventual outcome is to our liking. Those faulty assumptions can and likely will be used down the line as basis for argument in other cases and may result in being legal dogma that unnecessarily takes decades or more to correct.

The Supreme Court went 7 to 1 in 1896 in Plessy v Ferguson and the more than 5 decades it took until Brown v Board changed it inflicted so much damage on the American society and the legacy of the Plessy decision and its damage still confronts us with effects to this day. Legal cases that came after Plessy relied on this bigoted, hateful and fundamentally flawed case. It stands as an example to the importance of understanding that allowing flawed declarations or concepts to stand as a case moves to decision and beyond can inflict damage far beyond what is perceived as possible at the time.

The eventual yay or nay of a decision is one thing. But our case decisions, the reasoning and wording, phrases and concepts used and echoed must be formed by challenged argument and corrected in decisions as well at the time of the decision. Too often court decisions come down to a conclusion that leaves the baggage of faulty assertions and assumptions unanswered or sometimes included in part of the reasoning for the decision.

A "lazy" court will often brush things aside and grasp at a specific legal aspect to a case and state that this is the only item needing resolution. Hopefully this court will find enough time away from accepting "gifts" or speaking to the Federalist Society to do a thorough decision. Hope springs eternal but also hangs by threads of what is left of the cloth of our Constitution.