Trump hyperventilates about tariffs

Two “deadlines” have come and gone for the SCOTUS to rule on the constitutionality of Trump’s tariffs. Meanwhile, Trump is throwing brush-back pitches. He bleated on social media: “”If the Supreme Court rules against the United States of America on this National Security bonanza, WE’RE SCREWED!”

So the tariffs aren’t to enforce fair trade practices, they’re a “National Security bonanza?” What does that even mean? Since when was national security about bonanzas?

“The court heard arguments in early November. Both conservative- and liberal-leaning justices asked skeptical questions of the method by which the president imposed his most sweeping duties. Trump imposed his tariffs by invoking a 1977 law meant for national emergencies.”

A favorable outcome in a national emergency isn’t a bonanza. A bonanza is a windfall profit. Trump is admitting that his intention was money-making, not national security.

Look, if the SCOTUS overturns the national emergency justification, it will be because the method was unconstitutional, not the tariffs themselves. Trump could simply use conventional tariff-approval mechanisms. The only entity “screwed” by an adverse ruling is Trump, whose scheme for authoritarian government would be slowed slightly.

Trump bloviates about tariffs