HERE WE GO!!!

🚨 Supreme Court Justices Grill Trump's Tariff Authority in Oral Arguments

Given what I just heard and following this, I believe The Supreme Court is LIKELY to UPHOLD the President's authority to impose tariffs.

🔻 Breakdown:

- Justice Kavanaugh questions the "odd donut hole" in the statute: why the President can shut down all trade or impose quotas with every country but not a 1% tariff, arguing it lacks common sense.

- Benjamin Gutman argues tariffs are a fundamentally different power—akin to taxation for revenue—while the statute authorizes controlling or freezing trade, like embargoes, not revenue-raising measures.

- Gutman emphasizes context matters; no other federal statute uses "regulate" to authorize tariffs or taxes, and tariffs fall under commerce power, not taxation, citing historical figures like John Marshall and Joseph Story.

- Justice Barrett notes the interpretation allows embargoes on global trade but bars minor tariffs, probing if tariffs undermine the statute's goal of controlling transactions during emergencies.

- Gutman clarifies embargoes ensure hard limits (e.g., no more than 1,000 units imported), while tariffs only add costs without guaranteeing control, potentially allowing trade to continue.

- Justice Jackson challenges why blocking all trade isn't a bigger deal than a small tariff, and questions reliance on the Algonquin case, which was statutory interpretation, not constitutional.

- Gutman responds that Algonquin looked at text, context, and legislative history, suggesting Congress intended emergency powers for stopping trade, not revenue generation.

- Justices discuss framers' concerns: revenue-raising powers were core to Article I, posing different risks than trade controls, and tariffs might create incentives misaligned with emergency goals.

🔻Overall Lean of SCOTUS Judges:

Remember, this is a bite sized morsel of the entire argument.

- Conservative Justices (e.g., Kavanaugh, possibly Alito based on related reports) appear more open to the administration's interpretation, questioning the limitations on presidential tariff authority and expressing concern about removing it from the "suite of tools" for economic emergencies.

- Liberal Justices (e.g., Jackson, possibly others) seem to be probing the breadth of presidential power, potentially leaning towards a narrower interpretation that aligns with historical and constitutional concerns about revenue-raising authorities.

🔻 My Educated Guess on the Decision:

Given the current composition of the Supreme Court and the oral arguments, it is likely that the majority WILL SIDE with the administration, upholding the President's authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

The conservative majority, particularly Kavanaugh and possibly Alito, seem concerned about limiting presidential tools in economic emergencies, and the historical and contextual arguments presented by Gutman may resonate with them.

However, the end decision might be narrow, focusing on the specific statutory interpretation rather than broadly expanding presidential power, to garner a majority that includes some swing votes like Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Barrett.

🔻 When to Expect an Answer?

Given that oral arguments occurred today, we can expect a decision sometime between late May and early July 2026, likely closer to June 2026, as is customary for major cases. Totally possible it will be sooner given the importance.

I’m feeling very good about this. Don’t pay attention to the doom and gloomers. This is destiny!

https://rumble.com/v71a17m-supreme-court-justices-grill-trumps-tariff-authority-in-oral-arguments.html

📱 ReTWEET

Tucker Carlson explains why he interviewed Nick Fuentes

You can listen to his explanation yourself, but I want to say this..

The core duty of a journalist is to pursue truth through direct engagement with sources—especially those who challenge prevailing narratives, hold power, or represent fringe views.

Interviewing controversial figures, even ones you personally despise or whose ideas you reject, is not endorsement; it's investigation. It exposes audiences to unfiltered perspectives, allows for real-time scrutiny, and prevents the media from becoming a gatekeeper that decides what the public is "allowed" to hear.

Mainstream outlets prove this double standard daily. CNN, MSNBC, and The New York Times routinely platform politicians who are legit criminals and some of the SCUMMIEST people on earth—without ever facing legit questioning of their criminality.

Yet when Tucker Carlson sat down with Nick Fuentes, a young provocateur whose views on race and history are radioactive to many, the reaction wasn't demands for better questions or follow-ups; it was outright cancellation. THAT is not America.

The same happened after his Putin interview: EU officials tried to sanction him, tech platforms throttled him, and pundits screamed he was "giving oxygen" to a “dictator”. This isn't about consistency—it's about control.

Refusing to interview someone like Fuentes doesn't erase his influence; it drives it underground, where it festers without challenge. A skilled journalist (Tucker, in these cases) uses the platform to probe, contradict, and reveal contradictions in real time.

Audiences aren't children—they can judge for themselves when a guest dodges, lies, or self-destructs. The alternative is a media ecosystem where only pre-approved voices get airtime, and "controversial" becomes whatever threatens the dominant consensus.

If your job is to inform, not indoctrinate, you talk to everyone. The moment you start picking sides on who deserves a microphone, you've stopped being a journalist and started being a propagandist.

I applaud Tucker for that.

https://rumble.com/v71byoc-tucker-carlson-explains-why-he-interviewed-nick-fuentes.html

📱 ReTWEET
📱 ReTRUTH

Tucker Carlson:

“I love Trump. I campaigned for him. I spoke to him the other day.. but the second he gets elected, who’s the first person to visit? Bibi Netanyahu… then he comes again, and again, and again.

I’m not mad at Israel, I’m mad at our leaders for spending their time and my money focusing on someone else’s country. And I’m mad because it’s a total betrayal because your government works for you because you own the government.. what the hell is going on?

And if you say anything about it, you’re a Nazi, you’re an antisemite. Actually, I’m not.”

https://rumble.com/v71c1oa-tucker-carlson-why-are-our-leaders-obsessing-over-israel.html

📱 ReTWEET
📱 ReTRUTH

Mamdani says he will tax white people more because they’re white, but because he has the correct views on Israel it’s ok, what?

“Be quiet about Israel, I don’t care, I don’t have to care, I’m not bad for caring, what I care about is MY country. I don’t care about his views on Israel because we’re not in Israel, we’re in the United States.”

https://rumble.com/v71c4gc-mamdani-wants-to-tax-white-people.html

📱 ReTWEET
📱 ReTRUTH