> .... what? 3 of the justices were nominated by Trump. You think the people appointing them didn't have internal deliberations before they were appointed, including about things Trump had thought about like tariffs?

Following that logic, it make sense that those 3 voted with the administration.

Oh wait...

▲

mothballed a day ago | parent [-]

I don't see how a vote against is a vote against the administration. The whole point here is their corruption machine profited more off the justices voting against the tariff and for refunds. The tariffs were a mechanism to feign a tax for public purpose but then 'refund' them turning it into a tax to private business and Lutnick's financial engineering. Funneling the money straight into corrupt private enterprise via 'refund' is even easier for Trump than having to launder it through public coffers.

The key is whether they had insider information given their association with these justices.

▲

danielmarkbruce a day ago | parent [-]

>> SCOTUS largely functions as a post-facto legitimization machine for those that appoint them. They do not interpret the constitution so much as serve as god-people in funny costumes that provide the cultural message from god that the actions of their political persuasion were legal (or illegal) even in cases where a historical and literal reading of the constitution would otherwise find you with no way to find them legitimate if not for man in black robe say so.

You keep changing what you are saying.

	▲	mothballed a day ago \| parent [-]
		(1) they likely to have insider information. (2) Is that SCOTUS functions as a legitimization process (3) Is that de-legitimizing this particular tariff regime, while trump immediately pivots to a new tariff, is a best case scenario for the admin insiders as it lets them profit immensely from refund corruption while still pivoting immediately to a new tariff. The vote was one in favor of the Trump insiders. (4) It is hilarious that the best counter your argument et al includes is just glossing over the insider aspect, which means you're just yielding the entire underpinning to this thread to me, which is more than enough to satisfy the premise on its own even if you reject this particular vote as being in the service of the admin insiders. Of course, if you just smugly quote half of what I said and keep ping ponging one side or the other when I study the other half, citing muh changed argument, then you can play this fraudulent argument that pretends I "changed" what I said. This reveals your argument as a deliberate fraud so I will leave you the last word to lie further to the ether, rest assured I will not read whatever non-sense follows.