That shows it was Biden's debt forgiveness that they disagreed with for the same reason they disagree with tariffs. The major questions thing seems made up tho. Just restraining prez powers for the good of The land, they never do that for other things tho. Just things that affect economy, that could lead to less profits for shareholders .
It's from ford v dodge a Supreme Court case. Henry ford wanted to use his profits to make more cars, more factories, hire more workers. Shareholders wanted the profits for them selves. Guess who won. It's precedent.
But that's not relevant to the tarrifs. That case just said a company works for its shareholders, which is reasonable. And it's a pretty dead ruling anyway. Do you know how many companies pay zero dividends today? It's most of them. And that's civil law anyway, not constitutional law.
Trump used the wrong law, he put the Tarriffs back up with an 150 experiation date using the Beautiful Big Bill that passed Congress so Congress agreed with it.
Log in
lol.
If it causes shareholders of corporations to somehow make less profits, it's illegal and trumps any other law in the land.
What part of the US Constitution did it violate?
The fact that tariffs are a kind of tax and the executive branch can't create new taxes.
Then why did Biden make tarrifs? https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/tariffs-case-supreme-court-justices-bicker-biden-trump-treatment-rcna259922
Because "that's different". Kagan is such a hack. At least Sotomayor occasionally gets it right.
That shows it was Biden's debt forgiveness that they disagreed with for the same reason they disagree with tariffs. The major questions thing seems made up tho. Just restraining prez powers for the good of The land, they never do that for other things tho. Just things that affect economy, that could lead to less profits for shareholders .
It's from ford v dodge a Supreme Court case. Henry ford wanted to use his profits to make more cars, more factories, hire more workers. Shareholders wanted the profits for them selves. Guess who won. It's precedent.
The Corporation (2003), co-directed by my friend Mark Achbar.
But that's not relevant to the tarrifs. That case just said a company works for its shareholders, which is reasonable. And it's a pretty dead ruling anyway. Do you know how many companies pay zero dividends today? It's most of them. And that's civil law anyway, not constitutional law.
I think it is the Supreme Court is basing this on that
Trump used the wrong law, he put the Tarriffs back up with an 150 experiation date using the Beautiful Big Bill that passed Congress so Congress agreed with it.