Glen Keys

@carolmswain That depends on what you mean by positive or negative. What one person views as positive, another person will view as negative.

Will President Trump’s appearance at the Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship hearing have a negative, positive or no impact on how the Justices rule?

🚨President Trump will hold a press briefing on the Supreme Court’s tariff decision at 12:45PM ET

There will be tariffs. Even without IEEPA, the existing tariff toolbox is robust. brucemehlman.substack.com/p/six-chart-su…

Time to remind everyone again: 1, The Supreme Court only ruled that the tariffs are illegal under IEEPA. 2, It did not rule that they could not be justified under other laws. 3, The reciprocal trade agreements remain in force.

The Court’s ruling applies only to tariffs imposed under IEEPA. The decision does NOT invalidate tariffs imposed under other statutes (e.g., Section 232 or Section 301). It holds only that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.

The Supreme Court majority today issued a very messy and problematic decision.  See below.  The fact is the majority agreed on an outcome but not so much on the reasoning for the outcome.  Furthermore, it struck tariffs under a single statute, yet created chaos or, actually, left it to the president to decide if and/or how to treat the revenue those tariffs already created for the federal Treasury.   The majority had a problem, which I said it would, should the Court move in this direction: tariffs are more than indirect taxes; they do, in fact, impact foreign affairs and national security matters and have been used for those specific purposes.  Therefore, the question is not who has the power to tax per se, but a more complicated question about where the separation of powers is.  The majority, apparently, chose to duck the question and stick with the indirect tax characterization and focus on a single statute, which is outrageous.  It could not figure out how to bifurcate the Congress's power of the purse from the President's foreign policy powers, so it redefined the issue to reach the outcome -- and even then, they argued over the rationale. So, we are left with even a worse ambiguity.  1. If only Congress can raise taxes, even indirectly, then how does the Court justify the entire regulatory state in the executive branch that raises indirect taxes hourly?  Congress may have delegated that power to the bureaucracy, but it does not have the power to delegate legislative power and taxation.  This goes back as far as John Locke's Second Treatise on Government.  Yet the Court is okay with that since it is okay with the massive welfare state. 2.  Putting aside the specific statute, it appears the President is still free to raise or cut tariffs under other statutes, but that will no doubt be challenged as well.  The Court succeeded only in creating confusion going forward.  3. Since the Court foolishly decided to get involved in this matter, even though the majority states it is not getting involved in policy, it has gotten into policy, and it has not drawn a clear line on separation of powers because it cannot, and it created a terrible mess -- both legally and economically. More later on radio. ROBERTS, C. J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered theopinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–A–1, and II–B, in which SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, GORSUCH, BARRETT, and JACKSON, JJ., joined, andan opinion with respect to Parts II–A–2 and III, in which GORSUCH and BARRETT, JJ., joined. GORSUCH, J., and BARRETT, J., filed concurring opinions. KAGAN, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which SOTOMAYOR and JACKSON, JJ., joined. JACKSON, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. KAVANAUGH, J., fileda dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS and ALITO, JJ., joined.

Ok… so I did some digging, and yes, it appears President Trump did have a PLAN B if SCOTUS ruled against him. The contingency plans include EXPANDED use of Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, which allows tariffs on national security grounds and has already been used to target steel, aluminum, autos, copper and lumber. And guess what SCOTUS did not rule against… Section 232 Read that again… on NATIONAL SECURITY GROUNDS. I mean, everything Trump is dealing with could be classified as National Security Grounds. Just a guess.. I imagine Trump might post his disappointment about the ruling, and he will go on to say he has no choice but to expand Section 232. Or, expand on other tariff powers yet unnamed. Have some faith. Let Trump cook. rumble.com/v71agh2-presid…

Kavanaugh points out that even if today's mess of a ruling creates all sorts of chaos for previously imposed tariffs, Trump has many other options for imposing tariffs going forward.

Send this to every single Leftist you know. It’s so very simple. Chicago PD Superintendent Larry Snelling. Thank you!

@SimulJustusEtP @cosyposter Anytime I mention that movie nobody has heard of it. It definitely lays out the direction we could be heading to with relationships.

Nobody rioted after Charlie Kirk died. The Left and the Right are not the same.

People need to understand the significance of this action. Karen Bass is not some crazy leftist mayor. She once sat at the helm of one of the U.S. government's most important foreign policy instruments: the NED, the State Department-funded NGO that replaced many of the CIA's "dark arts" during the Cold War. NED's euphemisms of "democracy promotion" mask what it really does: regime change, narrative control, and soft power warfare on behalf of Washington. Bass was Vice Chair. That meant she had real authority in shaping covert U.S. influence operations across the globe. Her hands were on the levers that affect revolutions, uprisings, and the destabilization of governments. This is a woman whose history includes openly being a Communist operative for Castro. Washington knew exactly who she was when she was put into that role. She is not a "local" politician who somehow slipped through. She represents many subversives who operate from within, formenting a color revolution here in the United States. So when Bass refuses to lower the flag for a murdered American ... it is far more than pettiness. It means the same apparatus that creates coups abroad is at work inside America, and it has no intention of showing respect for its political enemies. And YOU are their political enemy.

@WalshFreedom "They" means you. We're not speaking in code or hiding behind dog whistles. We have no hesitation in calling you out directly. You label us as existential threats to democracy simply because we disagree with you. That's what evildoers do. So stop that.

This man said when he was on the left, his right-wing friends engaged in conversations and remained friendly. But as he shifted to the center, leftists kicked him out, hurled slurs like "self-hating Black" and "self-hating gay," and sent death threats, all from the left. This destructive violence, celebrating deaths and shutting down discourse, is driving a mass exodus from the left. The response to the public assassination of Charlie Kirk proves that the left are evil!

When they call you a fascist, they're instructing the violent leftist mob to hurt you. Don't take my word for it, here's Juliette Kayyem on CNN.

This is what they took away from the world… wise beyond comprehension.. I can’t believe he was only 31 years old.

Stephen A. Smith exposes Oprah Winfrey and other Hollywood celebrities.