Posts Made By: Rod Kaufman

Originally Posted by James Brown

I think this is a strong and proper separation of powers ruling. Regarding Clarence and Sammy, Rod, I only have one thing to add. This case is not unlike the student loan forgiveness cases where Biden clearly overstepped his authority and the court reined him in.

In the student loan cases, the three liberals on the court supported Biden‘s “creative” reading of the scope of executive authority under the appropriate statutes.   the three liberals on the court supported Biden‘s illegal power grab.  of course, Clarence and Sammy were in the majority that time appropriately arguing for a limitation on executive authority. The liberals on the court and Clarence/Sammy flipped in this case, Gorsuch called them to task in a separate opinion for their inconsistency.

So, in this one instance, if you want to call Clarence, Sammy, Keegan, Sotomayor, Ketanji-Brown, and Kavanaugh “political hacks” for their flip-flop on very similar executive authority cases. I am not going to argue with you.   You gotta call ‘em all out though.

This case is nothing like the student loan case decided by SCOTUS:
 
Key Legal Reasoning of the Dissent (Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson):
"Lack of Standing: The dissent argued that the state of Missouri failed to show it was directly injured by the plan, noting that the state entity, MOHELA, is separate from the state government.
Clear Statutory Authority: They argued that the HEROES Act specifically gives the Secretary of Education broad, "sweeping" authority to manage student loans during emergencies, and that "modifying" the loans to include forgiveness falls within this power.
Misapplication of the Major Questions Doctrine: Justice Kagan argued that the majority was applying a "made-up" doctrine to invalidate a policy they simply disagreed with, rather than a genuine case of statutory ambiguity.
Separation of Powers: The dissenters argued that the majority was overstepping its judicial role and "exceeding its proper limited role in our nation's governance" by overriding the combined actions of the executive and legislative branches.
Contextual Interpretation: They emphasized that the COVID-19 pandemic was precisely the type of "national emergency" the 2003 HEROES Act was intended to cover."
SCOTUSblog

In the tariff case, also as per SCOTUSblog:

"Justice Thomas separately added that "neither statutory text nor the Constitution provide a basis for ruling against the President".    

(That's plainly wrong and all he had to do is read the constitution before making such an asinine  statement) .

"Broad Interpretation of IEEPA: The dissenters argued that the phrase "regulate... importation" in IEEPA (International Emergency Economic Powers Act) authorizes the president to impose tariffs, which they described as a "traditional and common tool" to manage imports during national emergencies, similar to quotas or embargoes."

(What "national emergency"??? There is no nation emergency as claimed by Trump).

"Text, History, and Precedent: Kavanaugh’s dissent, supported by Thomas and Alito, stated that as a matter of text, history, and precedent, the tariffs were clearly lawful."

(Once again, plainly wrong by merely reading the constitution which reserves the power on tariffs to congress.)

Originally Posted by James Brown

You are simply wrong. Each case involves a president interpreting a statute to give him authority that is beyond the most reasonable interpretation of the statute. The major cases doctrine is the same in each instance. The separation of powers questions are identical.

Ok, you're right as I looked into it a bit more and beyond that in the SCOTUS blog. HOWEVER, "The Supreme Court did not overrule tariffs. They merely overruled a particular use of IEPPA tariffs," Trump said. 
https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-overturn-trump-tariffs-biden-student-loan-forgiveness-2026-2

Now, go argue with Trump!

PS: It is axiomatic that Clarence and Sammy are still hacks...

"US stock market on the verge of largest loss today: Dow, S& 500, Nasdaq 100 wiped out over 1.5%"
 
This wipeout courtesy of Trump's tariff tantrum.

"The sell-off intensified after President Donald Trump warned of higher tariffs following a Supreme Court decision that struck down his sweeping tariff policy. Investors are reacting to renewed trade war volatility, rising geopolitical risk, and mounting concerns over Big Tech earnings and AI spending."

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/us/us-stock-market-on-the-verge-of-largest-loss-today-dow-sp-500-nasdaq-100-wiped-out-over-1-5-as-losses-accelerate-magnificent-seven-stocks-take-trump-tariff-toll-check-the-biggest-losers-here/articleshow/128721785.cms?from=mdr


"Trump continued to assert his ability to increase tariffs, warning of higher duties for countries that want to “play games” after the high court’s ruling."

“Any Country that wants to ‘play games’ with the ridiculous supreme court decision, especially those that have ‘Ripped Off’ the U.S.A. for years, and even decades, will be met with a much higher Tariff, and worse, than that which they just recently agreed to,” he wrote in a post on Truth Social on Monday. “BUYER BEWARE!!!”


https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/22/stock-market-today-live-updates.html

Dementia Don on parade...

Originally Posted by James Brown

I am sure there are certain specific statutes which give the president some limited tariff authority in certain circumstances. Just like there may be some statute out there that gives the president limited authority to cancel student loan debt in certain circumstances. The key point is that the authority of the executive is limited by the scope of the statute. 

This dovetails nicely with our conversation with Russ the other day.   If we the people want our president to be able to cancel student loans in a broad and general manner, or if we want our president to have the authority to impose tariffs in a broad and general manner, it is our obligation to elect a federal legislature that will pass a broad statute specifically giving the president those powers.   These cases are brilliant examples of the legislature acting as a curb to executive overreach, enforced by the Court.   The system works.

Jim, what's your take on what Gorsuch has to say about the ruling:

https://thehill.com/homenews/5751497-gorsuch-criticizes-fellow-justices/

"President Trump slammed the Supreme Court justices who struck down his tariffs on Friday, which included two justices he nominated, saying he was “ashamed of certain members of the court.”


“They’re very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution. It’s my opinion that the court has been swayed by foreign interests and a political movement that is far smaller than people would ever think. It’s a small movement,” Trump


https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5747841-trump-criticizes-court-justices/

I KNEW Clarence and Sammy would rule in Trump's favor. If it had been Biden instead of Trump, they would have been their proverbial "originalists" that noted the tariffs issue, as per the constitution, resides in the purview of the congress in this case, and would have sided with the majority opinion.

Originally Posted by James Brown

I really, truly, want to know what you guys think about Iran. I realize this is not an easy left wing v. right wing “we all hate Trump” kind of event.   It is terribly complicated.  I suppose all of us would love to see something other than a brutal, murderous theocracy in Iran. So, my reflex is to support the US and Israel. But, is it likely any meaningful change can be made? I would love to see your comments, or read links to authors whom you think have special insight.   Jim

While it's quite obvious Iran proceeded with a rebuild of its nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities, including the use of cluster munitions on civilian centers, and thus posing an existential threat to the state of Israel, the conflicting explanations from Trump and his cabinet for going to war in Iran are confounding the issue.

At first, we had had the Rubio version:  Israel was about to attack Iran in a preemptive strike so the US was compelled to engage in order to prevent relatilatory attacks on US installations in the middle east. Then, a short time afterwards, the Trump version:  The US acted first and compelled Israel to engage in a joint attack. Trump's varying reasons to do so included attacking Iran's nuclear capabilities which he had previously described as "obliterated" in last year's bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities. Additional reasons from the Trump administration include regime change and its brutal crackdown on civilian dissenters. 

As far any "meaningful change" occurring in the issue:  From the standpoint of reducing or severely limiting Iran's capabilities as an existential threat to Israel or our interests in the middle east, it appear likely to be the case. Conversely, from the standpoint of altering the status quo in Iran, it seems to be a pipe-dream as evidenced in this recent and timely article in Al Jazeera: 

"The selection of Ayatollah Seyed Mojtaba Khamenei as the third supreme leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran by the Assembly of Experts is a clear indicator of this commitment to independence."

"Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz, a route for approximately 20 percent of global oil exports, carries direct strategic consequences, demonstrating the Iranian capacity for effective economic and geopolitical deterrence against external pressures."

"This crisis demonstrates that for my country, military deterrence, proactive diplomacy, national security guarantees, and crisis management are fundamental pillars for countering complex threats. Coordinated interaction between defensive capabilities and diplomacy can prevent the recurrence of aggressive acts and enable crisis management at regional and global levels."

"Past experiences emphasise the necessity of genuine guarantees in negotiations and international diplomacy, and the role of operational deterrence."

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2026/3/10/geopolitical-analysis-of-the-imposed-war-against-iran

My take on the above article:  First the notion that there's some sort of "self-determination" in the selection of Iranian leadership is absurd. Iran is ruled by a theocracy, and like the one in Afghanistan, can't be reasoned with or expected to honor its agreements with other nations. About the best that can be hoped for is that Iran, like the taliban in Afghanistan, can be isolated and prevented from engaging in future regional conflicts. The article does, IMO, correctly state the issue on the strait of Hormuz, which needs to be addressed and resolved by the Trump administration now, lest we have a repeat of future conflicts with Iran if its left with its present control over the strait intact. If we're all in this thing now, it's time to end Iranian control in the area once and for all.

Originally Posted by James Brown

I really do appreciate the thoughtful replies posted here. you guys have some really good insights.

I read Richard’s first reply, I didn’t read the second one where it was obvious from his opening sentence that he was going to spend a lot of time misinterpreting my opening statement.  Life is too short to spend engaged with those who insist on dishonestly putting words in your mouth.

Jim, 

I was wondering when you were going to chime in on the thread you started and I thought to myself you better have a goshdarn good reason for not participating such as:

1. You got called up as a reserve JAG officer to investigate and sue anyone opposing anything the administration says or does in the war, similar to the civilian roles Pam Bondi and Jeanine Pirro play in serving the whims of Donald Trump.

2. You were out observing at a dark sky site, like I was and, in which case, you get a hard pass on participating in the thread with the only really valid reason for not doing so.

3. You began reading Richard's posts, then stopped because you, like the rest of us, couldn't take it anymore and said, "Ah the hell with it!":'(

4. You're so besides yourself with the administration for not having the navy in place to keep the strait open despite the pentagon planning for this for years with the administration failing to execute on it. 

5. You just want this whole business of the war over and done with so we can go back to some sense of normality and the sooner the better.

Originally Posted by David Cotterell

Excellent summary of where things will go by US Senator Chris Murphy.  He posted all this on Bluesky which I have copy/pasted here.

"It’s crystal clear now that Trump has lost control of this war. He badly misjudged Iran’s ability to retaliate. The region is on fire.

1/ I’m going to explain to you in this what I’ve learned - in part from closed door briefings - about the biggest current crises.


2/ Trump believed Iran would not close the Strait of Hormuz. He was wrong. And now oil prices are spiking.
If the Strait stays closed, a global recession will result. It actually may already be too late. Gas prices are the first to spike, but food prices are next.


3/ Right now, Trump has no plan to reopen the Strait. And a plan may not exist.
The assets Iran uses to harass and attack tankers - thousands of small drones, speed boats and mines - cannot be eliminated. They are too numerous, too spread out and hidden.


4/ What about naval escorts for tankers? This is a possibility, but it’s harder than you think.
First, it would require our entire navy. 100 tankers need escorting each day. 
Second, if we can’t destroy the mines and drones, our ships are at risk too.


5/  We can destroy Iran’s missiles but not all their drones, and war today is drone war.
Iran can hit oil sites in the region indefinitely because they posses so many cheap, weaponized drones.
And they are. They blew up a critical Oman oil depot two days ago.


6/ If Trump paid any attention to the Ukraine War he would have noticed how warfare has changed. But he didn’t. And he blundered.
Worse, the Gulf states are running out of interceptors to stop Iranian missiles and drones - meaning that soon more oil sites will be vulnerable.


7/  A broader, regional war is breaking out as Iranian proxies in Lebanon hit Israel and those in Iraq target the U.S.. Israel is now threatening a massive ground invasion of Lebanon, which could become its own new crisis.

8/ Other potential flash points lurk. So far, the Houthis in Yemen have been relatively quiet. Probably not for long. They can project power into the Red Sea.
For Syria, this is the worst time for Trump to strike Iran. Syria could explode again.


9/  Trump has no endgame. Iran and its proxies can create chaos indefinitely.
So what’s next? A ground invasion?This would be Armageddon. Thousands of dead Americans.
Declare false victory? Then the new Iranian hardliners in charge just rebuild what we destroyed.


10/ All of this was totally foreseeable. Frankly, it’s why previous presidents weren’t so stupid to start a war like this.
Trump has lost control of the war. His best course now is to cut his losses and end it. That’s the only way to prevent an even bigger disaster.

What do you all think?

Dave

"What do you all think?"

It's not what we think that matters, it's what Trump said that does: "The war will end when I feel it in my bones"(spurs)...

That said, what senator Murphy said is correct and that's why Trump is now asking virtually every US aligned or semi-aligned country to send their navies to the strait...

"Iran's military 'totally destroyed' with around 21% missile capacity remaining, Trump claims"

"When asked if he knew exactly how many missiles and drones Iran still holds, Trump said that he knows “almost to the number” how many of such weapons remain in Tehran’s hands."

https://www.jpost.com/international/article-898509

Wow! Among his many attributes, he  must be clairvoyant, too!

While I see both sides of the following argument in the comment section,  until we know what the actual "deal" is, if any, that finally emerges out of all of this, this guy isn't off-base in his analysis:

"21% of missiles remaining is not "totally destroyed". Decimated maybe."

"When the figure reaches 0% remaining, Trump can trundle out "totally destroyed".

"And there is still time to achieve that number."

"Neglecting it means that that the mullahs will have the capacity to return the figure to 100%, just as they did before, and we are back to square 1, having wasted a perfectly good war."

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"Iran's military 'totally destroyed' with around 21% missile capacity remaining, Trump claims"

"When asked if he knew exactly how many missiles and drones Iran still holds, Trump said that he knows “almost to the number” how many of such weapons remain in Tehran’s hands."

https://www.jpost.com/international/article-898509

Wow! Among his many attributes, he  must be clairvoyant, too!

While I see both sides of the following argument in the comment section,  until we know what the actual "deal" is, if any, that finally emerges out of all of this, this guy isn't off-base in his analysis:

"21% of missiles remaining is not "totally destroyed". Decimated maybe."

"When the figure reaches 0% remaining, Trump can trundle out "totally destroyed".

"And there is still time to achieve that number."

"Neglecting it means that that the mullahs will have the capacity to return the figure to 100%, just as they did before, and we are back to square 1, having wasted a perfectly good war."

Hmm:    "The US government will attempt to redirect Iranian assets to Gulf states for rebuilding and repairs of future damage caused by Iran, a source familiar with the matter said on Saturday, a day after a wave of attacks by Iran against Kuwait and Bahrain."

"US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has also directed a team to assess costs for damage already inflicted on Gulf allies by Iran, the source said, adding that the US will consider using Iranian assets for those repairs as well."

"The disclosure came a day after Mohsen Rezaei, an adviser to Iran's supreme leader, told CNN that a peace deal hinged on the release of $24 billion in Iranian assets frozen by the United States."

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/us-eyes-iranian-assets-gulf-allies-reconstruction-source-says-2026-06-06/