Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

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.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

John Roberts Sent Trump a Message

edited February 24 in Other Investing
Following are excerpts from a current report in The New York Times:

By Linda Greenhouse
Chief Justice John Roberts doesn’t waste words. His majority opinion in last week’s tariff ruling was, characteristically, a model of succinctness. In a mere 21 pages he explained why, as a matter of statutory interpretation and the constitutional separation of powers, President Trump lacked the authority he had claimed to impose a hodgepodge of tariffs on countries all over the world.

There was, however, one exception to the opinion’s conciseness: a meaty paragraph describing the roller-coaster course of Mr. Trump’s tariff regime:
Since imposing each set of tariffs, the president has issued several increases, reductions and other modifications. One month after imposing the 10 percent drug trafficking tariffs on Chinese goods, he increased the rate to 20 percent. One month later, he removed a statutory exemption for Chinese goods under $800. Less than a week after imposing the reciprocal tariffs, the president increased the rate on Chinese goods from 34 percent to 84 percent. The very next day, he increased the rate further still, to 125 percent. This brought the total effective tariff rate on most Chinese goods to 145 percent. The president has also shifted sets of goods into and out of the reciprocal tariff framework ([e.g.] exempting from reciprocal tariffs beef, fruits, coffee, tea, spices and some fertilizers). And he has issued a variety of other adjustments ([e.g.] extending “the suspension of heightened reciprocal tariffs” on Chinese imports).
For all the attention the decision in this case has received, this paragraph has gone largely unremarked. The paragraph is, in a word, gratuitous, something that can rarely be said about a passage in a Roberts opinion. So what is it doing there?

The answer, I think, is that the chief justice is sending a message, not necessarily or not only to Mr. Trump but to the waiting world. Something along the lines of: “People, this is what we’re dealing with.” The point being not that “some fertilizers” are now exempt from reciprocal tariffs, but that a reckless president is sowing chaos in America and around the globe.

Comment:   The chief justice is sending a message: “People, this is what we’re dealing with.”

Anyone here think that all of this has nothing to do with the economy or "Other Investing" ?

Comments

  • edited February 24
    Maybe we need a WTF Category

    Veteran CEO on these tariffs:

    "This is chaos reigns. President Trump missed a golden opportunity to reset his economic policy around investment in jobs instead of tariffs. The tariff policy is not working," former Medtronic CEO and veteran public company board member Bill George said on Yahoo Finance's Opening Bid (video above)."

    "George said the business community is currently frozen on what to do next, post-tariff decision.

    "If I were a CEO, I would hold off [doing anything] because I have no idea what the tariffs are," George said. "They changed six times in the weekend, so I have no idea by country what it is, so I can't even run the numbers. I don't know whether to invest in the United States or a factory overseas, how much to ship, how much to import. It's chaotic."
  • edited February 24
    Written by Ana Swanson and Tony Romm.
    Published by the NY Times today.

    "Section 122 was passed by Congress in 1974, in the years after the United States abandoned the use of gold
    as a peg for its currency. Critics say the law was directed at the kind of economic issues that would arise
    under a fixed exchange rate, which no longer exists."

    "Legal experts are now debating whether the Trump administration may have overstepped again when
    it tapped a 50-year-old law to impose a 10 percent tariff on nearly every import from around the world.
    No president has invoked Section 122 before, so it’s unclear how a court would rule on its use."
  • Did I hear someone mention "chaos" ??
  • Isn't the only question is whether there is a demonstrable economic benefit to the U.S. citizens and taxpayers. "Fairness" or "authority" seem either irrelevant or simply beside the point. Economic improvement does not seem to be evident. Since implementation of tariffs a lot of things have occurred, mostly negative.

    •Sticky inflation has driven up costs that were heading back down to 2% before tariffs.

    •Despite a relatively mild CPI print for January, Many feel that was an aberration and we are heading higher. PCE core was 3%. 3% sustained inflation is problematic. At 2%, one loses 10% of purchasing power in 5 years. At 3% it only takes 3 years. That is a big difference. Taxes (tariffs) on consumers and corporations are inflationary.

    •2023 & 2024 had ~25% S&P growth, since tariffs, it dropped to ~15%, a 40% decline.

    •Jobs have been essentially flat.

    •Manufacturing jobs have declined significantly.

    *Re-shoring does not seem to be taking place on any significant level. The only way significant re-shoring works is permanent, high tariffs, that make everything much more expensive to the U.S. consumer. Few, if any, actually desire that.

    •2025 GDP declined to 2.2% from the previous years 2.8%, a decline of ~21%.

    •2026 S&P growth is bouncing between 0-1%, not great.

    •Money is fleeing U.S. equities and debt.

    •Canada (and everyone else has some form of tariffs), no one is arguing that tariffs may not be necessary to some degree. Since Canada has a minute trade differential with the U.S., this level of aggression from us, certainly seems unwarranted. And appears to lack benefit for either party.

    •Farmers are paying a high price as markets close to them, taxpayers will soon be paying it when the government gives the farmers a bailout. More debt!

    •Arguments that there would be quick, effective trade deals, have vanished. Some small agreements have occurred, but the tariff bill keeps going up. The government has collected ~$250 billion in tax revenue, hard to see how anything has improved here.

    •Some argue, "look at the revenue we are taking in". Yes, that is what happens when you raise taxes. Why is that suddenly a good thing? It never was before. Government spending has not declined YOY.

    •Then, There is the uncertainty and chaos.
  • "...a reckless president is sowing chaos in America and around the globe."
    No shit.
  • edited February 24
    Thank you. His actions have everything to do with 'our' economy.
  • I have great respect for the reporting of Linda Greenhouse- she covered the Supreme Court for the PBS News Hour for many years.

  • a. if any new tariff routes eliminate trump's personal grift in 'deals', he will eventually lose interest.
    b. roberts continues to be in denial regarding MAGA and trump's ability to grasp all but the simplest and most direct message. he remains a 'profiles in cowardice' lifetime award winner.
  • The tariffs is far from done. Now they are looking at other laws where they can repeat the same trade policy. No doubt these cases will land in Roberts’ court again.
  • edited February 24
    I do agree that seemed to be a (not so) subtle message from Roberts. The only thing it may have accomplished is to make him feel better, though. Apparently, he and maybe a few other justices, want distance. Maybe looking like door mats doesn't suit them?
  • No president has invoked Section 122 before, so it’s unclear how a court would rule on its use

    I thought I just heard Fearless Leader say that all the statutes he's now using have been used many times before. That was wrong. As quoted above, Section 122 has not been used before for tariffs.
  • Old_Joe said:

    I have great respect for the reporting of Linda Greenhouse- she covered the Supreme Court for the PBS News Hour for many years.

    I think you're conflating Nina Totenberg (a fine reporter for NPR/ABC) and Linda Greenhouse (IMHO the best I've read, perhaps with the exception of her predecessor, Anthony Lewis).
  • edited February 24
    Marcia Coyle was a long-time PBS NewsHour regular guest who provided Supreme Court analysis.
  • Yes, perhaps I overstated "she covered the Supreme Court for the PBS News Hour", but my wife and I do remember occasional interviews on the Newshour while she was still working for the Times.
  • We haven't watched or listened to the country's head liar tonight, but I see this on a report from The Guardian:
    The president called the supreme court’s ruling “unfortunate”, as the four justices attending today’s address sat directly in the president’s eyeline.
    I can easily guess three of the four, but I'm curious about the fourth. If it wasn't Roberts, I'd think that was really sending a message. Not that El Grafto would give a damn.
  • edited February 24
    Well wrong on that one, for sure- DuckDuckGo says-
    Justices Present

    During the recent State of the Union address, several Supreme Court justices were in attendance:

    Chief Justice John Roberts
    Justice Amy Coney Barrett
    Justice Elena Kagan
    Justice Brett Kavanaugh (dissented in a recent ruling)

    Justices Who Did Not Attend

    Some justices chose to skip the event, continuing a tradition of selective attendance:

    Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson
    Justice Clarence Thomas
    Justice Samuel Alito
    Justice Sonia Sotomayor
    Not mentioned, oddly: Neil Gorsuch
  • They found Gorsuch outside stuffing shrubbery in his ears. Treated & released & relieved.
  • I understand that the Orange Crime chose not to shake hands with Coney Barrett. Childish bag of Martian meatballs.
  • edited 4:47AM
    Written by Ana Swanson and published by NY Times yesterday.

    "A new tariff on most global imports went into effect in the United States just after midnight Tuesday
    at 10 percent, despite President Trump’s pledge over the weekend to impose a 15 percent rate."

    "The 10 percent surprised executives and foreign leaders, who had been expecting the 15 percent rate
    that Mr. Trump announced in a social media post on Saturday. The change underscored the confusion
    and uncertainty of the past few days, after the Supreme Court on Friday struck down many
    of Mr. Trump’s tariffs
    and he quickly vowed to replace them."
  • A Year Ago:
    The liberal media, with hundreds of articles and posts, warned us that high inflation was imminent. Yet, the reality is quite different: we did not see the promised widespread inflation.

    Under Biden:
    Under Biden's administration, however, we experienced the highest inflation in over 40 years.

    CHAOS???

    On Trump’s Leadership:
    Critics claim Trump created chaos, but the facts tell a different story:
    Under his leadership, we saw the safest border in years, and crime rates were the lowest in 125 years.
    Cities like DC, Memphis, and New Orleans, which accepted Trump's support, saw significant reductions in crime.
    Military recruitment was way back and met satisfaction levels.
    NATO countries were paying their fair share like never before.

    The Narrative of the Left:
    Since Trump’s election, there’s been a concerted effort by the Democrats to demoralize Americans.
    They’ve been predicting constant economic collapse with talk of rising inflation, stagflation, and impending recessions, but those predictions haven’t materialized in the way they forecasted.

    Government Shutdowns:
    Democrats have repeatedly shut down the government, hurting millions who rely on essential services. Another semi-shutdown has just occurred, further proving their failure to provide stability.

    Under Biden’s administration:
    12 million illegal immigrants have entered the country, including thousands with criminal backgrounds.
    Sanctuary cities that refuse to enforce immigration laws and basic crime regulations, allowing repeat offenders with extensive criminal records to be released back onto the streets.

    Biden’s Foreign Policy and Economic Record:
    Biden has overseen the start of two major international conflicts: Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and the continued turmoil in the Middle East.
    Inflation under Biden has skyrocketed, burdening American families and the economy.
  • edited 3:27PM
    I was monitoring White House website after Friday & 15% tariff never made it there. I even commented on it in social-media.

    So, 15% tariff just remained in the Truth Socia post & in the news.

    https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7431006609775939584?commentUrn=urn:li:comment:(activity:7431006609775939584,7431013791305469952)&dashCommentUrn=urn:li:fsd_comment:(7431013791305469952,urn:li:activity:7431006609775939584)
  • edited 4:01PM
    https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/24/us/politics/trump-tariffs-global-trade.html

    "A new tariff on most global imports went into effect in the United States just after midnight Tuesday at 10 percent, despite President Trump’s pledge over the weekend to impose a 15 percent rate.

    The 10 percent surprised executives and foreign leaders, who had been expecting the 15 percent rate that Mr. Trump announced in a social media post on Saturday. The change underscored the confusion and uncertainty of the past few days, after the Supreme Court on Friday struck down many of Mr. Trump’s tariffs and he quickly vowed to replace them."

    What to make of the disconnect? Fear? The markets react badly, and we get more TACO activity?

    Did someone convince trump that his plans were going to backfire spectacularly, so they pulled back? All that 2025 brought was zero job growth, lower GDP growth and lesser market gains. And money fleeing the U.S. All this, despite lower FED rates. And huge government deficit spending. And PCE is still running just under 3%.

    If you cannot boost jobs, GDP and the markets, with higher spending and lower rates, maybe you are doing something wrong?
  • If he can declassify documents in his mind, why does there have to be a White House posting about tariffs? Even posting in Truth Social is just a courtesy. This isn't chaos. It's from the mind of a very stable genius.
  • He needs the other 5% to threaten with. Otherwise, there would be no further deals and/or payola to be found.
  • When foreign leaders complained about not receiving information on trade rule changes formally, they were told to just look at White House website. A formal letter may or may not follow through diplomatic channels.

    Even those sent were mass form letters slightly revised and some mixed up names of the leaders of countries addressed.

    So, it seems that 15% global tariff reset was floated overnight on Friday but wasn't followed through.

    I think that minimum standard now is a posting on White House website.
  • edited 5:32PM
    Jeff DeMaso, editor of The Independent Vanguard Adviser, writes about the recent tariffs.
    I added bolded text.

    "Businesses can adapt to higher costs. What they struggle with is unpredictability—shifting rules,
    temporary measures and policies that may or may not survive legal scrutiny.
    That kind of policy fog can slow hiring and delay investment.

    We’re not returning to a low-tariff, free-trade world anytime soon.
    Beyond that, the outlook is unclear.

    The U.S. economy has proven resilient.
    But when uncertainty rises, growth rarely accelerates.

    For investors, the playbook doesn’t change: When the outlook is cloudy, diversification is your edge.
    Build a portfolio that doesn’t need a perfect forecast to succeed."


    Comments: Mr. DeMaso provides a rational assessment which resonates with me.
Sign In or Register to comment.