Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
I expect this Supreme Court to drive a truck through the "imponderables."
I won't be surprised, either. The Orange Behemoth has packed that court. Nothing but a few particular deaths along with some actual leadership is going to fix this. (Is he dead yet?)
Immature, irresponsible, TDS, and posted on an investment forum. I'm surprised the owner of this site let you post hateful stuff like that.
Those who invoke and/or constantly bleat 'TDS' 'TDS' TDS' are often the ones suffering the most from it and the cult mentality ....not just here, but in other forums, media, and networks.
I don’t think so. I’m just one voice here, while many of you constantly turn investment discussions into politics. This isn’t the first time I’ve seen the same person call for the president’s death. That may not seem unusual to some, but to anyone with common sense, it crosses the line. I was hoping at least one of you would acknowledge that—but it seems not.
firmly establishing the four eBay factors would also be necessary
Agreed. Though the Circuit Court seems to be saying that before considering whether an injunction is appropriate here, we must first ask whether the remedy of an injunction is even available. If not, it is pointless to consider whether this case meets the requirements for that relief.
EBay didn't break new legal ground regarding requirements for injunctive relief. It just ensured that these requirements were applied in patent cases. The SC cited eBay in CASA not because it set new requirements but because it stated those requirements in clear (formulaic), compact form.
To obtain an injunction, plaintiffs must show that they have suffered irreparable harm, that legal remedies such as monetary damages are inadequate, that the balance of hardships favors them, and that the injunction would not disserve the public interest. These principles were reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange. Courts also consider equitable factors such as the parties’ good faith or prior conduct when fashioning the remedy.
Every court, virtually every 2L student, knows the "well-established principles" (quoting eBay) of equity. It's inconceivable that the CIT would not have considered the requirements for an injunction. It would be a waste of the CIT's time to go through this again just to then have to say, "never mind", we can't issue the injunction. Hence the main question is whether a universal (nationwide) injunction is available as a remedy.
The CIT did address that question. It said that limiting the scope of the injunction to the plaintiffs (as generally required by CASA) would be unconstitutional.
So I think there's a high probability that the District Court will connect the dots as the Circuit Court is telling it to do and come up with the same conclusion as before.
But this SC is very much result-oriented, the law be damned. In its zeal to expand presidential powers, it could weaken Constitutionally established (though limited) restrictions on Congress' abilities to delegate its powers away and read into IEEPA an implicit delegation of Congress' power to tariff. That is, it could adopt the dissent's view.
Or it might (gasp) say that since a non-universal injunction protecting only the plaintiffs is unconstitutional, no equitable relief is available even for the states suing. Though each plaintiff company such as V.O.S. Selections would still be granted injunctive relief. Then watch for a class action suit representing all importers. As we're seeing with CASA.
Is it excessive to wish the death of a person who has absolutely no compunction while killing our democracy, day by day, piece by piece? Who has never seen a line that he didn't think that he (but no one else) is allowed to cross?
@Old_Joe not only our country in the broader sense but people all over the world. As the numbers grow he will ultimately be considered a mass murderer. He has blood on his hands.
Trump v CASA - this is birthright citizenship case. The SC said that while plaintiffs can sue for citizenship, federal courts are not allowed to issue a nationwide injunction to cover all people born in the US. Rather, people born in the US will have to sue individually, or at best as a class, to claim their rights conferred via birthright citizenship. Various class action suits are now proceeding at breakneck speed.
By the court's reasoning, if someone sues to block illegal tariffs, then only that plaintiff gets relief. The government can continue to apply illegal tariffs to anyone who didn't sue. Since only a few states sued, only those states get relief from the tariffs.
The lower court, i.e. the CIT, pointed out that this would be unconstitutional because the constitution explicitly prohibits tariffing some states but not others. So it seems that if the tariffs are illegal, then either the court must be allowed to issue a universal (nationwide) injunction covering all states, or the court is prohibited from issuing an injunction to even cover the plaintiff states. And then the plaintiffs, though winning, have no remedy.
If Trump issued an executive order permitting slavery would each individual slave have to sue for their freedom?
Add>> Or substitute any other "right" guaranteed by an amendment to the Constitution. Banning the practice of some religions, banning handguns, restricting speech. OTOH, allowing the election of a president to a third term; who gets to sue in that case? The loser?
If Trump issued an executive order permitting slavery would each individual slave have to sue for their freedom?
Add>> Or substitute any other "right" guaranteed by an amendment to the Constitution. Banning the practice of some religions, banning handguns, restricting speech. OTOH, allowing the election of a president to a third term; who gets to sue in that case? The loser?
Yes. Each slave would need to sue separately in order to have standing, in the opinion of the current SCOTUS.
If Trump issued an executive order permitting slavery would each individual slave have to sue for their freedom?
Add>> Or substitute any other "right" guaranteed by an amendment to the Constitution. Banning the practice of some religions, banning handguns, restricting speech. OTOH, allowing the election of a president to a third term; who gets to sue in that case? The loser?
Yes. Each slave would need to sue separately in order to have standing, in the opinion of the current SCOTUS.
So if Barrack Obama was elected president, and I won my suit, he wouldn't be my president, but he would be your president until your suit won, or a class-action suit was won?
Or, if I understand the Supreme's reasoning, Congress could give the lower courts the power to stop violations of the Constitution and its amendments. Or would that require an amendment that could also be revoked by a stroke of the President's pen?
Since this is an investment forum . . . I can just imagine what all this supreme reasoning will do for the bond market.
Since Day One, the Orange method = we'll do whatever we want. Anyone doesn't like it? Let them sue. He asserted that very thing, as President, just last week. So... forget procedures, rules, emoluments clauses or the entire Constitution. That stuff is for OTHER people to worry about. Orange feces.
There's a theory that so long as this "each wronged person must sue individually" rule holds, Trump won't appeal losses.
That's because only the few people, or at most few states, that win in court will have their rights vindicated. So long as he doesn't get a SC loss, he'll be able to deny rights, deport people, tariff your goods, until you personally sue.
There's a theory that so long as this "each wronged person must sue individually" rule holds, Trump won't appeal losses.
That's because only the few people, or at most few states, that win in court will have their rights vindicated. So long as he doesn't get a SC loss, he'll be able to deny rights, deport people, tariff your goods, until you personally sue.
Not with this guy and the evil he inflicts. I’ll gladly and publicly acknowledge that I strongly wish for his death sooner than later. Where are you with abducting people on the street and no due process and flown to foreign concentration camps? Where are you with illegal redistricting? Illegal tariffs? And all of the other crucially important illegal actions?
You seem a reasonable guy sometimes, so you must know that the courts rule against him regularly, almost every other day in fact.
Any specific illegal redistricting you have in mind here?
Generally speaking, mid-decade redistricting is not illegal. League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006). Redistricting for political reasons is not per se illegal (Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. 684 (2019)), ostensibly so long as it does not discriminate on the basis of race.
However, even that restriction has been lessened. If gerrymandering is done for political reasons purportedly in good faith, then the fact that the redistricting correlates closely with race doesn't make it illegal. Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, 602 U.S. 1 (2024).
I'm just describing the law as it exists. I don't see Gavin's redistricting proposal as being somehow less "illegal" than any other you may have in mind.
If you're asking where I stand on what ought to be illegal, I'm with the Governator in principle. He pushed for commission redistricting in California in 2010. That's not to say that this has worked as intended. It needs to be adequately funded.
Not with this guy and the evil he inflicts. I’ll gladly and publicly acknowledge that I strongly wish for his death sooner than later. Where are you with abducting people on the street and no due process and flown to foreign concentration camps? Where are you with illegal redistricting? Illegal tariffs? And all of the other crucially important illegal actions?
You seem a reasonable guy sometimes, so you must know that the courts rule against him regularly, almost every other day in fact.
So typical, immature, dangerous, and can't accept the election results. Get used to this 3+ years to do.
My 2 cents FWIW. Not that I have any say, but this forum should be about investing, not anti-Trump rants. I have no problem with politics being discussed if it directly impacts investing, but I wish it was discussed with a dispassionate view. Trump is of course a polarizing figure, with some having strong feelings either for him or against him. When discussions venture outside of investing and talk about Trump dying, this forum becomes something that is not much different from cesspool forums such as Facebook. I am not meaning to insult anybody, as there are many posters who share very useful information, but when the conversations deviate into anti-Trump or anti-Republican statements and demonstrate emotion outside the direct scope of investing, it becomes boring, predictable, and bush league. The criticism is not about whether or not one approves of Trump, I can understand why many dislike him, it is about sticking to discussions about investing. I suppose I am in the minority.
I am all for freedom of speech, but IMHO a more appropriate place for the blatant anti-Trump statements should be a political forum, not an investing forum.
Granted, capitalism is a ravenous beast that needs to be regulated. Yet the bad guys will always find loopholes. The political climate is always impacting upon the world of investing. EVERYTHING is political, by the way. I can recall learning a lot from watching Louis Rukeyser's show on PBS, before I even had any money to invest. The first thing I noticed is that the ethical and political impacts upon stock selection, or whether to avoid particular countries, was always loudly soft-pedaled and euphemized. But that doesn't mean issues of ethics and integrity don't matter. There are always differences of opinion, but the current Orange regime is just simply utterly lawless and unethical without any boundaries. "Rose Garden Club???" The roses were all removed. It looks like a Mar-A-Lago patio. That's a very insignificant example. But you and I paid for it all.
Another good one from crash. Capitalism left to its own devices will destroy itself from greed and corruption. The current political regime clearly has the enrichment of the very few at the expense of the many in the most extreme ways. Never before in the history of this nation has the political power been so totally corrupt and self interested. Anyone who can’t see this is blind or thinks they can ride the wave to a few more bucks before the whole thing goes down.
Not with this guy and the evil he inflicts. I’ll gladly and publicly acknowledge that I strongly wish for his death sooner than later. Where are you with abducting people on the street and no due process and flown to foreign concentration camps? Where are you with illegal redistricting? Illegal tariffs? And all of the other crucially important illegal actions?
You seem a reasonable guy sometimes, so you must know that the courts rule against him regularly, almost every other day in fact.
So typical, immature, dangerous, and can't accept the election results. Get used to this 3+ years to do.
You didn’t answer any of the questions about due process and all that good stuff
No, this is the usual pattern. Deflections and no accountability. He attacks others, then blusters about "immaturity".
If Trump doesn't care about due process, or the First Amendment, or ethical behavior, then his supporters do not either. Until, it is their turn, of course. Then they play the victim.
Anyhow, back to tariffs - Per the WSJ, OECD is forecasting that the impact of tariffs will be hitting hard in 2026, as the U.S. economy slows. What we seem to be facing is an overvalued stock market, slowing economy, slow hiring, inflation, and latent tariff headwinds - the perfect storm.
Once again, I am eyeing new market highs to pull back on equity positions. Maybe raise some cash for some bottom fishing in the future.
Comments
Agreed. Though the Circuit Court seems to be saying that before considering whether an injunction is appropriate here, we must first ask whether the remedy of an injunction is even available. If not, it is pointless to consider whether this case meets the requirements for that relief.
EBay didn't break new legal ground regarding requirements for injunctive relief. It just ensured that these requirements were applied in patent cases. The SC cited eBay in CASA not because it set new requirements but because it stated those requirements in clear (formulaic), compact form.
The EBay unanimous ruling is so short (just two pages) that it is a quick read.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2005/05-130 (Summary)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/547/388/#tab-opinion-1962095 (opinion)
Emphasis added. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/injunction
Every court, virtually every 2L student, knows the "well-established principles" (quoting eBay) of equity. It's inconceivable that the CIT would not have considered the requirements for an injunction. It would be a waste of the CIT's time to go through this again just to then have to say, "never mind", we can't issue the injunction. Hence the main question is whether a universal (nationwide) injunction is available as a remedy.
The CIT did address that question. It said that limiting the scope of the injunction to the plaintiffs (as generally required by CASA) would be unconstitutional.
So I think there's a high probability that the District Court will connect the dots as the Circuit Court is telling it to do and come up with the same conclusion as before.
But this SC is very much result-oriented, the law be damned. In its zeal to expand presidential powers, it could weaken Constitutionally established (though limited) restrictions on Congress' abilities to delegate its powers away and read into IEEPA an implicit delegation of Congress' power to tariff. That is, it could adopt the dissent's view.
Or it might (gasp) say that since a non-universal injunction protecting only the plaintiffs is unconstitutional, no equitable relief is available even for the states suing. Though each plaintiff company such as V.O.S. Selections would still be granted injunctive relief. Then watch for a class action suit representing all importers. As we're seeing with CASA.
The CIT ruling: https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/25-66.pdf
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/08/the-perils-of-using-class-actions-as-a-replacement-for-universal-injunctions/
By the court's reasoning, if someone sues to block illegal tariffs, then only that plaintiff gets relief. The government can continue to apply illegal tariffs to anyone who didn't sue. Since only a few states sued, only those states get relief from the tariffs.
The lower court, i.e. the CIT, pointed out that this would be unconstitutional because the constitution explicitly prohibits tariffing some states but not others. So it seems that if the tariffs are illegal, then either the court must be allowed to issue a universal (nationwide) injunction covering all states, or the court is prohibited from issuing an injunction to even cover the plaintiff states. And then the plaintiffs, though winning, have no remedy.
Add>> Or substitute any other "right" guaranteed by an amendment to the Constitution. Banning the practice of some religions, banning handguns, restricting speech. OTOH, allowing the election of a president to a third term; who gets to sue in that case? The loser?
Or, if I understand the Supreme's reasoning, Congress could give the lower courts the power to stop violations of the Constitution and its amendments. Or would that require an amendment that could also be revoked by a stroke of the President's pen?
Since this is an investment forum . . . I can just imagine what all this supreme reasoning will do for the bond market.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/02/what-trump-court-loss-means-for-billions-in-tariffs-paid-to-government.html
Since Day One, the Orange method = we'll do whatever we want. Anyone doesn't like it? Let them sue. He asserted that very thing, as President, just last week. So... forget procedures, rules, emoluments clauses or the entire Constitution. That stuff is for OTHER people to worry about. Orange feces.
That's because only the few people, or at most few states, that win in court will have their rights vindicated. So long as he doesn't get a SC loss, he'll be able to deny rights, deport people, tariff your goods, until you personally sue.
You seem a reasonable guy sometimes, so you must know that the courts rule against him regularly, almost every other day in fact.
Any specific illegal redistricting you have in mind here?
Generally speaking, mid-decade redistricting is not illegal. League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006). Redistricting for political reasons is not per se illegal (Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. 684 (2019)), ostensibly so long as it does not discriminate on the basis of race.
However, even that restriction has been lessened. If gerrymandering is done for political reasons purportedly in good faith, then the fact that the redistricting correlates closely with race doesn't make it illegal. Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, 602 U.S. 1 (2024).
I'm just describing the law as it exists. I don't see Gavin's redistricting proposal as being somehow less "illegal" than any other you may have in mind.
If you're asking where I stand on what ought to be illegal, I'm with the Governator in principle. He pushed for commission redistricting in California in 2010. That's not to say that this has worked as intended. It needs to be adequately funded.
https://www.propublica.org/article/how-democrats-fooled-californias-redistricting-commission
IMHO nonpartisan commissions ought to be used nationwide for redistricting.
However ...
Get used to this 3+ years to do.
And @FD1000 IS PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN !!!
If Trump doesn't care about due process, or the First Amendment, or ethical behavior, then his supporters do not either. Until, it is their turn, of course. Then they play the victim.
Anyhow, back to tariffs - Per the WSJ, OECD is forecasting that the impact of tariffs will be hitting hard in 2026, as the U.S. economy slows. What we seem to be facing is an overvalued stock market, slowing economy, slow hiring, inflation, and latent tariff headwinds - the perfect storm.
Once again, I am eyeing new market highs to pull back on equity positions. Maybe raise some cash for some bottom fishing in the future.
And a nice bump to a very interesting thread.