Leah Litman

And so I think the courts at that hearing were very nervous about trying to second guess the president's determinations about whether there was an unusual and extraordinary threat, even though Donald Trump's claims for why there is are just insane. Like the trade deficit has existed for a really long time. That's neither unusual nor extraordinary.

And so I think the courts at that hearing were very nervous about trying to second guess the president's determinations about whether there was an unusual and extraordinary threat, even though Donald Trump's claims for why there is are just insane. Like the trade deficit has existed for a really long time. That's neither unusual nor extraordinary.

And so I think the courts at that hearing were very nervous about trying to second guess the president's determinations about whether there was an unusual and extraordinary threat, even though Donald Trump's claims for why there is are just insane. Like the trade deficit has existed for a really long time. That's neither unusual nor extraordinary.

But the court didn't seem to be comfortable with any kind of rule that the lawyers challenging the tariffs had offered for when courts could say something wasn't actually unusual or extraordinary. And then there are the host of doctrines and rules that the Republican appointees on the Supreme Court have come up with, like the major questions doctrine, the idea that

But the court didn't seem to be comfortable with any kind of rule that the lawyers challenging the tariffs had offered for when courts could say something wasn't actually unusual or extraordinary. And then there are the host of doctrines and rules that the Republican appointees on the Supreme Court have come up with, like the major questions doctrine, the idea that

But the court didn't seem to be comfortable with any kind of rule that the lawyers challenging the tariffs had offered for when courts could say something wasn't actually unusual or extraordinary. And then there are the host of doctrines and rules that the Republican appointees on the Supreme Court have come up with, like the major questions doctrine, the idea that

agencies can't do anything that big, you know, under statutes that are generally worded or the non-delegation doctrine, which is supposed to limit the extent to which Congress can confer authority to make regulations on non-legislative entities. The problem is the Republican justices have basically created these rules that gerrymandered in exceptions for the things Republicans wanted to do.

agencies can't do anything that big, you know, under statutes that are generally worded or the non-delegation doctrine, which is supposed to limit the extent to which Congress can confer authority to make regulations on non-legislative entities. The problem is the Republican justices have basically created these rules that gerrymandered in exceptions for the things Republicans wanted to do.

agencies can't do anything that big, you know, under statutes that are generally worded or the non-delegation doctrine, which is supposed to limit the extent to which Congress can confer authority to make regulations on non-legislative entities. The problem is the Republican justices have basically created these rules that gerrymandered in exceptions for the things Republicans wanted to do.

So the major questions doctrine might not apply to the president or the non-delegation doctrine might not restrict the president's ability with respect to foreign affairs and trade. And so it's unclear to what extent at all these doctrines that the Supreme Court invented are going to be much use in these cases.

So the major questions doctrine might not apply to the president or the non-delegation doctrine might not restrict the president's ability with respect to foreign affairs and trade. And so it's unclear to what extent at all these doctrines that the Supreme Court invented are going to be much use in these cases.

So the major questions doctrine might not apply to the president or the non-delegation doctrine might not restrict the president's ability with respect to foreign affairs and trade. And so it's unclear to what extent at all these doctrines that the Supreme Court invented are going to be much use in these cases.

Yeah. So I think there are kind of two different things going on. One is, I agree with you, there's always been this ridiculousness in the Supreme Court's insistence that they are going to somehow teach Congress to legislate.

Yeah. So I think there are kind of two different things going on. One is, I agree with you, there's always been this ridiculousness in the Supreme Court's insistence that they are going to somehow teach Congress to legislate.

Yeah. So I think there are kind of two different things going on. One is, I agree with you, there's always been this ridiculousness in the Supreme Court's insistence that they are going to somehow teach Congress to legislate.

Like, if only the Supreme Court justices undid Chevron and adopted this major questions doctrine, then of course Congress would just buck the fuck up and start passing more legislation. And it's like, how delusional Are you to think that you could single-handedly do this? Like, it's not about you.

Like, if only the Supreme Court justices undid Chevron and adopted this major questions doctrine, then of course Congress would just buck the fuck up and start passing more legislation. And it's like, how delusional Are you to think that you could single-handedly do this? Like, it's not about you.

Like, if only the Supreme Court justices undid Chevron and adopted this major questions doctrine, then of course Congress would just buck the fuck up and start passing more legislation. And it's like, how delusional Are you to think that you could single-handedly do this? Like, it's not about you.

And yet they still cling to this fantasy world that just does not describe the reality that we are living in. And then, you know, they have also... while they have been skeptical of administrative agencies like the EPA, they have simultaneously been very pro-presidential power.

And yet they still cling to this fantasy world that just does not describe the reality that we are living in. And then, you know, they have also... while they have been skeptical of administrative agencies like the EPA, they have simultaneously been very pro-presidential power.