SCOTUS Interruptus: Court Repubs stay intellectually honest

The Supreme Court struck down a significant portion of President Donald Trump’s global tariff plan, ruling that the power to impose taxes lies with Congress. Many Republicans greeted the Feb. 20 decision with measured statements.

Some, like me, even praised it. It is important the Supreme Court be intellectually honest and uphold the Constitution. Trump can whine, but those justices can rule as they see fit. A seat on the Supreme Court is a lifetime political appointment in Washington, DC, much like being married to Bill Clinton.

In the 6-3 decision, the court determined the president overstepped his authority by using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977 to impose tariffs. The court ruled that the power to impose taxes, including tariffs, is held exclusively by Congress.

The case was similar to Biden trying to pander to students and forgive $500 billion in student loans. The court said he could not. Being intellectually honest on these votes are Amy Coney Barrett, John Roberts and Neil Gorsuch, who voted against both Biden and Trump on this similar issue.

Proving to be complete partisan hacks and intellectually dishonest were the court’s three liberal voices — Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. In an example of blatant dishonesty and partisanship, those three justices said Biden could forgive loans, but that Trump could not levy tariffs. They should be embarrassed, but liberal arrogance makes that impossible.

Activist liberal judges impede the right with inane decisions. Their opinions get overturned more times than Siegfried overturned Roy.

If there is moderation, it is by Republican appointees who tend to vote with the left at times. The Democrat appointees, like most Democrats, do not think issues through; they vote as they are told and in lockstep. USA Today reported that in 66 cases before the Supreme Court, the Democrat-appointed justices voted the same way 55 times (83 percent of the time), compared to the Republican appointees who voted together just 39 times, or 59 percent of the time. Think of Chief Justice Roberts, whose vote upheld important parts of ObamaCare, and now this case.

As a libertarian, I thought Associate Justice Kennedy struck the right tone in his day. He ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. He said it was not the Supreme Court’s role to judge gay men; that, of course, is the purview of the Tony Awards Committee. The Supremes rightfully decided that marriage is a states’ rights issue and is not traditionally defined as the union of two people of the opposite sex trapped in a loveless and resentful cage fight.

The first lesbian marriage was in 2003, and I wrote in favor of it. It was a national test for Massachusetts couple Hillary and Julie Goodridge, who got married. (The two lesbians did get divorced shortly thereafter. I think they cited irreconcilable similarities.)

Back to Trump. He used a thin emergency premise for imposing tariffs. He said China was “raping and pillaging” us. And if we know anything about Trump, he will not stand for pillaging.

The Supremes’ decision will keep Trump from unilaterally levying tariffs on a country. What it did not reverse is Trump’s ability to get super mad at a country’s president who does not clap hard enough for him at an economic summit.

Trump exceeded his authority when he got in a mood and slapped tariffs on steel, automobiles and, briefly, Rosie O’Donnell.

Good on the Republican appointees for voting against Trump in this case. Dems seldom vote against their party’s dogma or a Democratic president. To the Dems, politics is a blood sport. When Ruth Bader Ginsburg died during Trump’s term, they probably would have let her keep voting, citing Weekend at Bernies v. Trump.

It will kill the Dems if Trump manages to have a couple more appointees. Trump is unique in how he goes about his decision. He is the only president ever to have a swimsuit contest as a part of his vetting.

The Dems are prepared for the next confirmation hearing. CNN is already interviewing for the requirement of sexual assault victim of the Republicans’ yet-to-be-named nominee to the court.

These votes have always been contentious. I remember reporting on a case in 2010. In a closely watched 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court voted to get a cake for Justice Antonin Scalia for his birthday.

A libertarian op-ed humorist and award-winning author, Ron does radio and TV commentary. He can be contacted at [email protected] or @RonaldHart on X.