David J. Lynch

Well, Steve, if you were sitting alongside me, you would have been in what we call obstructed view seating.

So it was more of an auditory experience than much of a great viewing experience.

But that said, it was historic.

There was a real atmosphere in the room.

The questioning was quite serious and probing from all the justices, I think, and for all the attorneys.

And it was like watching the legal equivalent of an Ali-Fraser fight.

Both sides, I think, stumbled in places, and both sides made their cases to the best of their ability.

I do think coming out of it, though, the justices did appear, or a majority, I should say, did ask some pretty skeptical questions of the Solicitor General, which

makes me think the president's emergency tariff plans anyway might be in some trouble.

Absolutely.

And he he asked a pretty probing question, asking if in the event of a of a Democratic.

Is that music coming on your end, Steve, or is it on mine?

I see.

But no, I do think Gorsuch asked a key question, because if you accept the government's argument here that President Trump has this sweeping authority to levy all sorts of emergency tariffs, you've got to ask yourself in 2029 or 2033 or whenever,

What about a Democratic president?

What about President Gavin Newsom declaring a national emergency about climate change?

And this is what Justice Gorsuch asked specifically about.

Wouldn't this reading of the Emergency Economic Powers Act allow a Democratic president to impose a 50 percent tax on imported cars and imported auto parts?

And the Solicitor General reluctantly concluded that it was very likely that would be the case.

Well, I think it's controversial because you get, as you say, competing theories of the case.