WEBVTT - Detailed Prediction: Trump's Tariffs before the Supreme Court-What's Going to Happen 0:00:00.280 --> 0:00:03.320 Welcome. It is Verdic with Center, Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson 0:00:03.400 --> 0:00:05.280 with you. Center. It's nice to be with you. 0:00:05.400 --> 0:00:08.320 If you're watching this on video, I'm in nash Vegas 0:00:08.400 --> 0:00:11.840 right now, not Las Vegas, Nashville. You're in Washington, DC, 0:00:12.240 --> 0:00:14.200 and we've got a lot to talk about. It deals 0:00:14.240 --> 0:00:15.160 with the Supreme Court. 0:00:15.720 --> 0:00:16.480 Well, that's right. 0:00:16.520 --> 0:00:19.280 We are expecting any day now the Supreme Court decision 0:00:19.320 --> 0:00:22.520 on President Trump's tariffs, his imposition of tariffs. They've been 0:00:22.520 --> 0:00:25.080 a major element of his foreign policy, a major element 0:00:25.120 --> 0:00:27.960 of his economic policy. We're going to do a deep 0:00:28.120 --> 0:00:31.400 dive breakdown of the Supreme Court case, what is likely 0:00:31.480 --> 0:00:34.120 to happen, what we know about, what was argued, and 0:00:34.600 --> 0:00:36.199 what the outcome is likely to be. 0:00:36.560 --> 0:00:38.080 We're going to give you that as well. 0:00:38.280 --> 0:00:39.080 Yeah, definitely. 0:00:39.360 --> 0:00:41.159 Well, if you've got a dog, I gotta tell you, 0:00:41.479 --> 0:00:44.199 rough greens is something you need to know about. I've 0:00:44.240 --> 0:00:46.919 got a new puppy and I've got a thirteen year 0:00:46.920 --> 0:00:50.360 old dog, and both of them are getting rough greens. 0:00:50.840 --> 0:00:54.240 I've been telling you about my older dog and some 0:00:54.320 --> 0:00:57.040 of the symptoms that he was having, slowing down and 0:00:57.120 --> 0:01:00.760 itching and having bad breath, losing interest in play, time 0:01:01.360 --> 0:01:04.080 that is just part of the aging process, but it 0:01:04.120 --> 0:01:06.600 doesn't have to be. And after just a few weeks 0:01:06.640 --> 0:01:09.520 of rough Greens we start to see a real difference. 0:01:09.600 --> 0:01:12.840 This stuff is truly amazing, and if you have a 0:01:12.880 --> 0:01:16.160 dog you love, you've got to try rough Greens for 0:01:16.319 --> 0:01:19.479 your dog for life. It not only supports long term 0:01:19.520 --> 0:01:25.839 health by providing live, bioavailable nutrients including essential vitamins, minerals, probiotics, 0:01:25.880 --> 0:01:29.640 and digestive enzymes, as well as omega oils. The ingredients 0:01:29.720 --> 0:01:33.440 work together to improve nutrition absorption and maintain joint and 0:01:33.560 --> 0:01:37.400 muscle health and enhance overall vitality and you can witness 0:01:37.440 --> 0:01:41.040 it happen over weeks. So if you love your dog 0:01:41.240 --> 0:01:43.680 and you are ready to get your dog back to 0:01:43.720 --> 0:01:46.319 the way maybe he used to be and was more playful, 0:01:46.800 --> 0:01:48.680 then check out rough Greens. 0:01:48.960 --> 0:01:49.880 It's so easy. 0:01:50.000 --> 0:01:52.320 You just put it on top of your traditional dog 0:01:52.360 --> 0:01:55.960 food and that is it, and dogs absolutely love it. 0:01:56.360 --> 0:02:02.080 Go to roughcreens dot com. That's ruff greens dot com. 0:02:02.480 --> 0:02:06.360 Use the promo code Verdict and you're going to get 0:02:06.680 --> 0:02:10.600 a free Jumpstart trial bag. All you got to do 0:02:10.919 --> 0:02:14.359 is add Roughcreens to your dog's food so you cover 0:02:14.440 --> 0:02:17.919 the shipping. That's it promo code verdict to claim you're 0:02:18.040 --> 0:02:22.079 free jumpstart trial bag at roughcreens dot com. That's r 0:02:22.160 --> 0:02:25.480 U F F G R E E n S dot 0:02:25.520 --> 0:02:30.400 com promo code verdict. All right, So, Senator, tariffs have 0:02:30.520 --> 0:02:34.080 been something that the President, like many other presidents, have used. 0:02:34.680 --> 0:02:36.680 The President used him in a very big way when 0:02:36.720 --> 0:02:38.840 he got re elected, and he made it clear when 0:02:38.840 --> 0:02:41.280 he was campaigning he was going to use tariffs for leverage. 0:02:41.400 --> 0:02:43.360 He was going to get better deals he thought America 0:02:43.400 --> 0:02:46.200 was being taken advantage of. And he has been very 0:02:46.280 --> 0:02:49.880 successful in many of these tariffs. But now tariffs have 0:02:49.919 --> 0:02:53.880 made its way to the Supreme Court. Explain, first of all, 0:02:53.919 --> 0:02:55.919 just to remind you how did we get to where 0:02:55.960 --> 0:02:59.240 we are now, who was challenging it, and what are 0:02:59.240 --> 0:03:00.760 they actually looking at ruling on. 0:03:01.639 --> 0:03:05.600 Well, the case is a case called Trump versus Vos Selections. 0:03:05.639 --> 0:03:09.520 It was argued on November fifth of twenty twenty five, 0:03:09.600 --> 0:03:13.200 and we're expecting a decision relatively soon. It could be 0:03:13.720 --> 0:03:15.520 this week, it could be in the next month, but 0:03:15.560 --> 0:03:16.760 it's expected to be soon. 0:03:17.800 --> 0:03:19.280 And it is a challenge. 0:03:18.880 --> 0:03:21.400 From a number of small businesses who are challenging the 0:03:21.440 --> 0:03:25.080 imposition of tariffs that Trump is put in place. This is, 0:03:25.160 --> 0:03:27.040 I believe going to be a close case. I'm going 0:03:27.080 --> 0:03:28.800 to break down the arguments. I'm going to give you 0:03:28.800 --> 0:03:31.880 the legal issues that are at issue, and then I'm 0:03:31.880 --> 0:03:33.720 going to make a prediction. I'm going to predict what 0:03:33.880 --> 0:03:36.280 the Supreme Court is going to do. But first of all, 0:03:36.360 --> 0:03:40.280 let's talk about where we are. So today, one hundred 0:03:40.320 --> 0:03:44.360 and thirty three billion dollars have been collected during the 0:03:44.840 --> 0:03:51.080 Trump administrations. This is through February of twenty twenty six, 0:03:51.240 --> 0:03:56.000 and the tariffs have been imposed using a statute called AEPA, 0:03:56.640 --> 0:03:59.960 which is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. 0:04:00.760 --> 0:04:02.200 Now what does AIPA say. 0:04:03.040 --> 0:04:09.240 AIPA says that if the President declares a national emergency 0:04:09.400 --> 0:04:13.960 with respect to a foreign threat, the President may quote 0:04:15.040 --> 0:04:21.359 regulate importation or exportation of any property in which a 0:04:21.400 --> 0:04:24.680 foreign country or a national thereof has any interest by 0:04:24.720 --> 0:04:29.760 any person. Central to this case is what that phrase 0:04:30.360 --> 0:04:35.560 regulate importation means. So the president has declared an emergency, 0:04:35.560 --> 0:04:38.840 there's notice bee it about that, and IIPA says, once 0:04:38.880 --> 0:04:39.760 he does so. 0:04:39.920 --> 0:04:41.760 And by the way, that's his right. I want to 0:04:41.760 --> 0:04:43.760 be clear about that, So be understand. That's what liberals 0:04:43.800 --> 0:04:45.279 have said. No, no, you don't have a right to The 0:04:45.320 --> 0:04:46.719 president has a right to do that. 0:04:46.800 --> 0:04:49.720 Correct, So it's not an inherent constitutional right. 0:04:49.800 --> 0:04:52.279 It's not just like any president can stand up and 0:04:52.279 --> 0:04:56.040 say there's an emergency. AIPA, which is a statute Congress's 0:04:56.080 --> 0:04:59.880 passed has given the president the authority declared emergency, and 0:05:00.000 --> 0:05:02.960 and then it is given to him the power once 0:05:03.000 --> 0:05:07.960 he declares an emergency to regulate importation of any property 0:05:07.960 --> 0:05:11.680 from a foreign country. That is the entire basis of 0:05:11.720 --> 0:05:16.520 the Trump tariffs that have been imposed. And the question 0:05:16.720 --> 0:05:23.159 is does the power to regulate imports include the power 0:05:23.160 --> 0:05:27.800 to impost tariffs. Now, on the other side, the constitutional 0:05:27.839 --> 0:05:30.640 provision says Article one, Section eight, Article one. 0:05:30.880 --> 0:05:31.359 So wake up. 0:05:31.400 --> 0:05:34.920 The constitution is structured. Article one lays out the powers 0:05:35.240 --> 0:05:38.760 of Congress. Article two lays out the powers of the 0:05:38.800 --> 0:05:42.680 President and the executive and Article three lays out and 0:05:42.720 --> 0:05:47.880 creates the judiciary. Article one, section eight enumerates the powers 0:05:47.920 --> 0:05:51.760 of Congress, and in particular, it says, as relevant here, 0:05:52.440 --> 0:05:59.239 the Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, 0:05:59.279 --> 0:06:03.160 and excise And it also says later on in Article one, 0:06:03.200 --> 0:06:06.400 Section eight that Congress shall have the power quote to 0:06:06.520 --> 0:06:12.400 regulate commerce with foreign nations, and so tariffs are at 0:06:12.440 --> 0:06:17.920 the intersection of laying, collecting taxes, duties in posts and exercises, 0:06:17.960 --> 0:06:24.760 in other words, taxing and regulating commerce with foreign nations. Historically, 0:06:25.760 --> 0:06:30.720 tariffs have been a traditional tool for regulating imports and 0:06:30.800 --> 0:06:35.039 international trade. On the other hand, tariffs are literally taxes 0:06:35.080 --> 0:06:39.600 their duties. It's the oldest and most classic form of taxation. 0:06:40.440 --> 0:06:44.120 And so the dispute is whether Congress, when it used 0:06:44.120 --> 0:06:47.240 the language in a EPA, which is a statute to 0:06:47.520 --> 0:06:51.360 giving the President the power to regulate imports, whether it 0:06:51.880 --> 0:06:58.880 clearly and constitutionally delegated tariff authority to the executive and 0:06:59.320 --> 0:07:02.080 that raises yet another issue. One of the arguments the 0:07:02.120 --> 0:07:06.839 plaintiffs are raising here is something called the non delegation principle. 0:07:07.440 --> 0:07:11.800 The non delegation principle says it limits how much Congress 0:07:11.800 --> 0:07:16.720 can transfer its own lawmaking authority to the executive branch. 0:07:17.600 --> 0:07:20.440 Congress is a general matter, it can delegate the authority 0:07:20.480 --> 0:07:24.680 to implement and administer the law, but Congress has to 0:07:24.720 --> 0:07:28.320 make the key policy choices, and so that is a 0:07:28.440 --> 0:07:29.280 major argument. 0:07:29.280 --> 0:07:30.240 The plaintiffs are using. 0:07:30.240 --> 0:07:33.720 A second major argument the plantiffs are using is something 0:07:33.840 --> 0:07:39.080 called the major questions doctrine, and the major questions doctrine 0:07:39.640 --> 0:07:43.400 says it focuses on statutory clarity, and it says, when 0:07:43.400 --> 0:07:46.800 the executive branch claims authority to take an action of 0:07:47.040 --> 0:07:52.760 vast economic or political significance, courts require a clear and 0:07:52.840 --> 0:07:56.720 specific authorization from Congress. And so one of the challenges 0:07:56.760 --> 0:07:59.640 the plaintiffs are making here is this does not meet 0:07:59.720 --> 0:08:03.120 the major your questions doctrine. Those are the two central 0:08:03.160 --> 0:08:04.119 issues in this case. 0:08:05.000 --> 0:08:07.640 When there's when people hear this and some of this 0:08:07.720 --> 0:08:11.960 seems like this is Donald Trump being harassed by the 0:08:12.040 --> 0:08:15.480 left and by Democrats, He's not getting to do his job. 0:08:16.320 --> 0:08:19.480 Is that an argument that is that for many Americans 0:08:19.560 --> 0:08:23.520 is legitimate or is this a grand argument that hey, 0:08:23.560 --> 0:08:25.920 we should have this out at the Supreme Court, Or 0:08:26.040 --> 0:08:27.960 is he just being harassed because he's Donald Trump and 0:08:28.000 --> 0:08:30.000 he want an election Democrats don't like that he's in 0:08:30.080 --> 0:08:32.000 charge because the American people chose him. 0:08:32.480 --> 0:08:36.240 Listen, there's no doubt that every decision President Trump is making, 0:08:36.280 --> 0:08:39.520 every policy is putting in place, results in a lawsuit. 0:08:39.679 --> 0:08:44.199 And the Democrats Democrats, state attorneys general, left wing interest 0:08:44.280 --> 0:08:45.680 groups are suing every. 0:08:45.480 --> 0:08:47.400 Step, and much of that is harassment. 0:08:47.960 --> 0:08:51.679 That being said, this legal issue is real, and I'm 0:08:51.720 --> 0:08:55.040 going to make a prediction. My prediction right now is 0:08:55.080 --> 0:08:58.960 the US Supreme Court is going to uphold President Trump's 0:08:59.000 --> 0:09:04.079 imposition of terror. I'm going to further predict really that 0:09:04.120 --> 0:09:07.360 the Supreme Court is going to uphold it by a 0:09:07.440 --> 0:09:09.840 vote of five to four. That it is going to 0:09:09.880 --> 0:09:12.520 be close, and I'm going to break it down in 0:09:12.559 --> 0:09:17.240 a moment. But what I will say if this case 0:09:17.280 --> 0:09:19.719 had been decided a year ago, if it had been 0:09:19.720 --> 0:09:24.680 decided at the outset of the president's term, I think 0:09:24.720 --> 0:09:27.960 the Court would have ruled that Trump cannot impose these 0:09:28.000 --> 0:09:32.120 tariffs if it were addressing the legal issue in the abstract. 0:09:32.840 --> 0:09:36.280 Here's why I believe the Court is going to allow 0:09:36.400 --> 0:09:39.040 the tariffs to stay in place. And it's a basic 0:09:39.120 --> 0:09:42.800 principle of reliance. We've had one hundred and thirty three 0:09:43.080 --> 0:09:47.360 billion dollars in tariffs imposed already and collected. It has 0:09:47.480 --> 0:09:52.760 been central to President Trump's foreign policy, and the Court 0:09:53.000 --> 0:09:59.079 institutionally is very reluctant to do something that dramatically upsets 0:09:59.120 --> 0:10:02.200 the status quo. So a year ago, I think the 0:10:02.240 --> 0:10:06.640 court probably would have ruled differently, But I think today 0:10:07.440 --> 0:10:09.920 you're going to get five justices to say we're too 0:10:09.920 --> 0:10:13.040 far down the road. Too much has been implemented. And 0:10:13.080 --> 0:10:17.480 this is two core to how this president is implementing 0:10:17.520 --> 0:10:21.320 foreign policy, because foreign policy under the Constitution is given 0:10:21.520 --> 0:10:25.160 principally to the president. So that's my prediction is five 0:10:25.200 --> 0:10:28.080 to four the Court is going to upheld President Trump's 0:10:28.120 --> 0:10:29.880 terrorf authority. 0:10:30.679 --> 0:10:33.240 What does this also do for the future, and it 0:10:33.280 --> 0:10:35.680 does this protect in essence the presidency. If it is 0:10:35.720 --> 0:10:38.839 a five to four ruling, that look, we're going to 0:10:38.880 --> 0:10:42.560 lose an election again, I think based on history where 0:10:42.559 --> 0:10:45.160 a Democrats in the White House. But what I don't 0:10:45.200 --> 0:10:48.680 want to see is every time someone's there, we're playing 0:10:48.720 --> 0:10:51.920 these games. Like I want the president if he's chosen 0:10:52.000 --> 0:10:54.960 by the people and the majority of the people decide 0:10:55.040 --> 0:10:57.959 Bill Clinton's the president United States of America, that he 0:10:58.000 --> 0:11:00.959 can do his job because that's through the people who chose. 0:11:01.320 --> 0:11:03.520 I don't like presidents when they're being harassed or trying 0:11:03.559 --> 0:11:04.200 to do their job. 0:11:04.960 --> 0:11:08.600 Look for the foreseeable future, every president that comes into power, 0:11:08.640 --> 0:11:10.720 you're going to have lawsuits challenging what they're doing. 0:11:10.800 --> 0:11:12.920 That's just the reality of a divided country. 0:11:14.760 --> 0:11:18.160 I will say this one thing where Donald Trump has 0:11:18.440 --> 0:11:23.880 genuinely changed my mind concerns tariffs and trade policy. Now listen, 0:11:23.880 --> 0:11:25.920 I'm a free trader. I still believe in free trade. 0:11:26.160 --> 0:11:28.160 I think free trade is good for America. I think 0:11:28.200 --> 0:11:31.600 it generates jobs. I think it generates economic growth. But 0:11:31.880 --> 0:11:33.040 and this is a big, big. 0:11:33.000 --> 0:11:34.680 Let me ask you for people listening, I want to, 0:11:35.040 --> 0:11:37.920 I want to be clear explain free trade. And I 0:11:37.960 --> 0:11:40.320 do this because people hear words and they don't exactly 0:11:40.360 --> 0:11:42.720 know what means, and I get messages afterwards going I 0:11:42.760 --> 0:11:44.600 wish you guys would have explained free trade. So when 0:11:44.640 --> 0:11:47.560 you say you're a free trader, explain the definition of 0:11:47.600 --> 0:11:48.080 that quickly. 0:11:48.760 --> 0:11:53.040 So historically there have been two broad economic views of trade, 0:11:53.679 --> 0:11:58.320 free traders and protectionists. Free traders believe that if you 0:11:58.440 --> 0:12:01.880 expand trade and commerce between the United States and other countries, 0:12:02.720 --> 0:12:07.280 that America benefits. That are farmers sell more goods, sell 0:12:07.360 --> 0:12:11.600 more crops, sell more livestock into foreign countries. That are 0:12:11.640 --> 0:12:15.200 manufacturers sell more products that are manufactured here. That are 0:12:15.240 --> 0:12:20.559 service providers sell more services, and that the aggregate economic 0:12:20.679 --> 0:12:26.040 impact is positive for the United States. Protectionists historically believed 0:12:27.200 --> 0:12:32.240 you enact really high tariffs on imports, you discourage imports. Now, 0:12:32.240 --> 0:12:34.839 by the way, when you do that, foreign countries enact 0:12:34.920 --> 0:12:39.160 really high tariffs on imports to their countries, and you 0:12:39.320 --> 0:12:42.439 end up principally selling goods into your own market. It 0:12:42.440 --> 0:12:45.920 would mean the United States produces goods but mostly sells 0:12:45.960 --> 0:12:48.160 them to America and doesn't sell them to the world. 0:12:49.120 --> 0:12:53.440 I believe between the two that free trade has produced 0:12:53.600 --> 0:12:55.880 far better economic growth. Now I'm going to give you 0:12:55.920 --> 0:12:59.440 the caveat and where Trump has changed my mind. 0:13:01.240 --> 0:13:02.800 I think President Trump. 0:13:02.600 --> 0:13:08.199 Is deustrated that the thread of tariffs or the temporary 0:13:08.240 --> 0:13:14.440 imposition of tariffs, is one of, if not the most 0:13:14.640 --> 0:13:20.800 potent diplomatic and negotiating tool the president has. And what 0:13:20.880 --> 0:13:23.760 we have seen is the President has used the thread 0:13:23.800 --> 0:13:28.360 of tariffs to incredible effect and it has worked. So 0:13:28.600 --> 0:13:33.319 let's rewind to last year April second, President Trump announced 0:13:33.840 --> 0:13:37.240 a whole list of very high tariffs on the world. 0:13:37.520 --> 0:13:39.640 I gotta say, ten years ago, Ben I would not 0:13:39.679 --> 0:13:41.440 have liked that. I would have been very unhappy with that. 0:13:41.480 --> 0:13:43.599 I would have said, look that this is going to 0:13:43.679 --> 0:13:46.720 hurt the people of America because tariffs are taxes, and 0:13:46.720 --> 0:13:49.800 their taxes paid by consumers. Now, the way a tariff operates, 0:13:49.840 --> 0:13:52.840 and this gets down to economics. If you impose a 0:13:52.880 --> 0:13:55.920 tariff and the actual good is sold, some of that 0:13:56.000 --> 0:13:59.080 tariff is paid by the American consumers, and some of 0:13:59.120 --> 0:14:02.160 the costs of that tar tariff is paid by the 0:14:02.200 --> 0:14:05.880 foreign producer. And it depends on the particular market how 0:14:05.960 --> 0:14:09.320 much is paid by the consumer versus the producer. I 0:14:09.520 --> 0:14:12.920 was not upset though at the April second tariffs. And 0:14:12.960 --> 0:14:16.520 here's why we've talked about this before on the podcast. 0:14:16.600 --> 0:14:20.200 There is a battle within the Trump administration. There are 0:14:20.240 --> 0:14:25.880 two camps. One camp is urging the president use the 0:14:25.920 --> 0:14:30.760 tariffs you've imposed, the tariff shoe threatened as leverage to 0:14:30.960 --> 0:14:34.360 get our foreign trading partners to lower their own tariffs 0:14:34.400 --> 0:14:36.920 to open up their markets. A lot of foreign countries 0:14:36.960 --> 0:14:39.120 have what are called non tariff barriers. They make it 0:14:39.280 --> 0:14:42.600 very hard for American farmers and ranchers and manufacturers to 0:14:42.720 --> 0:14:48.760 sell their products into foreign countries. And one camp says, 0:14:48.960 --> 0:14:53.720 use the tariff's Trump is threatening to incentivize foreign countries 0:14:53.760 --> 0:14:54.920 to open up their markets. 0:14:55.040 --> 0:14:56.440 I am very much in that camp. 0:14:56.480 --> 0:14:59.840 Scott Bessont, the Treasury Secretary, is very much in that camp. 0:15:00.000 --> 0:15:02.960 Elon Musk, when he was in the administration, was very 0:15:03.080 --> 0:15:06.840 much in that camp. There's a second camp, and that 0:15:07.000 --> 0:15:11.000 is a camp that believes tariffs are great, not as 0:15:11.200 --> 0:15:14.360 a means to an end, but as an end in 0:15:14.400 --> 0:15:18.320 and of itself, and wants to see very high tariffs 0:15:18.360 --> 0:15:22.680 in perpetuity forever. I think the leading person in the 0:15:22.720 --> 0:15:25.800 administration in that camp is Peter Navarro in the White House. 0:15:26.360 --> 0:15:29.520 I think that camp is mistaken. I think those policies 0:15:29.520 --> 0:15:32.760 are harmful. I think if we have a world where 0:15:32.760 --> 0:15:35.280 America has very high tariffs and all our trading partners 0:15:35.280 --> 0:15:38.160 have very high tariffs, I think that's going to hurt 0:15:38.200 --> 0:15:40.960 Texas farmers, Texas ranchers, manufacturers. 0:15:41.240 --> 0:15:44.600 I think that's a bad outcome. And I think President Trump, 0:15:44.640 --> 0:15:45.600 in the Oval. 0:15:46.760 --> 0:15:51.680 On almost a daily basis, is listening to and deciding 0:15:51.760 --> 0:15:56.880 between a battle between the two camps. How that resolves matters. 0:15:56.920 --> 0:16:01.280 But my point the president's threat of tariffs. Listen, Donald 0:16:01.280 --> 0:16:04.840 Trump is an unorthodox negotiator. 0:16:04.880 --> 0:16:05.280 To put it. 0:16:05.240 --> 0:16:10.240 Mild, his Yeah, that's a great way of putting it. 0:16:10.960 --> 0:16:15.120 Look the way Trump negotiates, he walks up to you, 0:16:15.240 --> 0:16:17.120 he whacks inned the head with a two by four, 0:16:17.920 --> 0:16:19.040 and then he says, let's talk. 0:16:19.120 --> 0:16:22.120 Yeah. I got to say it is effective. 0:16:22.760 --> 0:16:25.840 And here's an amazing thing that I've seen, and it's 0:16:25.920 --> 0:16:29.920 why Trump has changed my mind on tariffs. I've seen 0:16:30.160 --> 0:16:33.600 over the last year and a couple of months our 0:16:33.760 --> 0:16:39.040 trading partners rushing to America saying we want to slash 0:16:39.040 --> 0:16:41.960 our tariffs and open our markets to American goods in 0:16:41.960 --> 0:16:44.840 a way that I've never seen in my life. And 0:16:45.800 --> 0:16:49.840 what I've verged the President is take yes for an answer. 0:16:50.520 --> 0:16:55.400 You've threatened tariffs, they're lowering their tariffs. Negotiated deal where 0:16:55.400 --> 0:16:58.640 everyone lowers their tariffs. That is a win win, and 0:16:59.040 --> 0:17:02.920 there is an amazing irony. There's an amazing irony, Ben 0:17:03.200 --> 0:17:06.679 in that. I think there's a real possibility Donald J. 0:17:06.880 --> 0:17:10.960 Trump could go down in history as the greatest free 0:17:10.960 --> 0:17:14.720 trade president the world has ever seen. Now that's astonishing 0:17:14.800 --> 0:17:19.040 because he is Historically he's been a skeptic, of vocal 0:17:19.080 --> 0:17:23.159 skeptic of free trade, and yet by threatening tariffs, a 0:17:23.320 --> 0:17:26.560 huge part of his argument against what was considered free 0:17:26.600 --> 0:17:28.440 trade is he said, look, this is not free. 0:17:28.480 --> 0:17:29.320 This is not fair. 0:17:30.800 --> 0:17:33.560 We have no tariffs or very low tariffs on products 0:17:33.560 --> 0:17:37.120 coming into our market, and every other country has really 0:17:37.200 --> 0:17:40.800 high tariffs and hammer our manufacturers. That's not fair. He's 0:17:40.880 --> 0:17:44.399 right about that. And so what I've verged the President's 0:17:44.440 --> 0:17:48.120 take yes for an answer and focus on reciprocity. If 0:17:48.160 --> 0:17:51.080 they lower their tariffs, we lower ours. And I got 0:17:51.119 --> 0:17:53.280 to say, I think Trump has shown that is an 0:17:53.320 --> 0:17:59.040 incredibly effective foreign policy and economic policy. 0:17:59.240 --> 0:18:02.359 There's also and added benefit that we've seen, and there 0:18:02.400 --> 0:18:04.560 was a lot of people that were skeptical, that were nervous, 0:18:05.040 --> 0:18:08.320 and that is how much money we've collected through these tariffs. 0:18:08.840 --> 0:18:11.119 That has been also I think one of those like 0:18:11.560 --> 0:18:13.880 X factors of this as well, because as the President 0:18:13.960 --> 0:18:17.280 was playing this high stakes game of chicken in essence 0:18:17.320 --> 0:18:20.480 and we keep winning, we were also collecting an awful 0:18:20.520 --> 0:18:21.000 lot of money. 0:18:21.080 --> 0:18:23.160 Yeah, that was one of the upsides of this as well. 0:18:24.200 --> 0:18:26.760 Unquestionably one hundred and thirty three billion dollars has come 0:18:26.800 --> 0:18:29.359 in already. And let's do a little bit of a 0:18:29.359 --> 0:18:32.040 breakdown of the oral argument. So at the oral argument, 0:18:32.200 --> 0:18:35.520 John Sower, who is the US Solicitor General, he argued 0:18:35.520 --> 0:18:39.280 for the United States Neil Catchall argued for the plaintiffs, 0:18:39.320 --> 0:18:42.560 the small businesses. Now I know Neil very well. Neil 0:18:43.400 --> 0:18:48.280 was Solicitor General under Obama. Neil clerked at the Supreme 0:18:48.320 --> 0:18:49.879 Court at the same time I did so when I 0:18:49.920 --> 0:18:53.280 was clerky for Chief Justice Renquist. Neil was clerky for 0:18:53.359 --> 0:18:55.960 Steven Bryer. So we're friends. We've known each other a 0:18:55.960 --> 0:19:01.760 long time. In fact, in two thousand, during the two 0:19:01.800 --> 0:19:04.840 thousand election between George W. Bush and and Al Gore, 0:19:05.920 --> 0:19:08.679 I was part of the litigation team representing Bush and 0:19:08.720 --> 0:19:12.120 Bush versus Gore. Neil was part of the litigation team 0:19:12.160 --> 0:19:15.240 representing Al Gore. And we're buddies. We're friends. So we 0:19:15.280 --> 0:19:17.320 would call each other late at night and we were like, 0:19:17.800 --> 0:19:21.440 what kind of ridiculous argument are you're making? This is stupid, 0:19:21.560 --> 0:19:24.440 I can't believe you're saying this. And it's a little 0:19:24.480 --> 0:19:26.480 bit just friends giving each other a hard time. And 0:19:26.520 --> 0:19:29.720 we actually had a wager Neil and I did on 0:19:29.840 --> 0:19:33.200 the outcome. I said, look, Bush's gonna prevail, We're gonna win. 0:19:33.320 --> 0:19:37.480 He said, no, Gore's gonna prevail. Well, obviously I won 0:19:37.560 --> 0:19:43.000 that wager, and the wager was dinner, and so Neil 0:19:43.080 --> 0:19:44.720 had to take me out to dinner. But you're gonna 0:19:44.760 --> 0:19:47.280 like this, Ben, do you know what Neil did to 0:19:47.320 --> 0:19:49.640 sort of exact his revenge as he was paying off 0:19:49.640 --> 0:19:50.120 the wager. 0:19:50.880 --> 0:19:52.160 I cannot wait to hear this. 0:19:52.800 --> 0:19:54.840 He took me to a vegetarian restaurant. 0:19:56.520 --> 0:19:59.080 Yeah, if you've ever had dinner with you, that's like 0:19:59.160 --> 0:20:01.040 taking me to to terry in restaurant. 0:20:01.080 --> 0:20:04.199 That's like the worst decision ever. So what did you 0:20:04.280 --> 0:20:04.920 even order? 0:20:05.240 --> 0:20:07.880 I don't remember. I have vegetables because they didn't have any. 0:20:07.920 --> 0:20:09.760 Meet I'm a carnivore. 0:20:10.160 --> 0:20:11.159 But I kind of laughed. 0:20:11.200 --> 0:20:13.560 I was like, all right, Neil well played Okay. So 0:20:14.200 --> 0:20:17.840 Neil is a very experienced, very capable Supreme Court lawyer. 0:20:17.920 --> 0:20:20.400 So is John Sower. So you had two excellent advocates 0:20:20.400 --> 0:20:24.960 going at it. Let's take Chief Justice Roberts. Chief Justice 0:20:25.040 --> 0:20:31.040 Roberts repeatedly tried to reframe the case away from foreign 0:20:31.040 --> 0:20:35.160 affairs and towards taxation of Americans. So, for example, Chief 0:20:35.240 --> 0:20:40.040 Justice Roberts asked, he said, tariff's and dealings with foreign powers. Yes, 0:20:40.760 --> 0:20:43.600 but the vehicle is the imposition of taxes on Americans, 0:20:43.600 --> 0:20:47.119 and that has always been the core power of Congress 0:20:47.920 --> 0:20:50.800 and John Sower tried to press back on behalf of 0:20:50.840 --> 0:20:56.680 the Trump administration, and Roberts responded, well, who pays the tariff? 0:20:57.520 --> 0:21:01.240 If a tariff is imposed on automobiles, who pays them? 0:21:01.359 --> 0:21:04.439 And the answers I said before is consumers pay some 0:21:04.480 --> 0:21:06.560 of them and the foreign producer pays some of them. 0:21:07.320 --> 0:21:12.360 Roberts went on and he highlighted the structural collision between 0:21:12.440 --> 0:21:18.520 the executive foreign affairs power and Congress's taxing authority. Roberts said, quote, 0:21:19.680 --> 0:21:23.639 to have the president's foreign affairs power Trump, that basic 0:21:23.720 --> 0:21:29.000 power of Congress seems to me at least to neutralize 0:21:29.040 --> 0:21:32.840 between the two powers, the executive power and the legislative power. 0:21:33.080 --> 0:21:36.160 And then he said, yes, of course tariffs and dealings 0:21:36.160 --> 0:21:40.199 with foreign powers, but the vehicle is the imposition of 0:21:40.280 --> 0:21:45.480 taxes on Americans. Justice Kagan, so, Justice Kagan is the 0:21:45.560 --> 0:21:48.120 smartest of the liberal justices on the Court by far. 0:21:48.200 --> 0:21:50.760 I know Justice Kagan well, she was the dean of 0:21:50.760 --> 0:21:54.800 the Harvard Law School. She was the US Solicitor General also, 0:21:55.280 --> 0:22:00.160 and she's a very very smart liberal lawyer and judge. 0:22:00.720 --> 0:22:03.560 What Justice Kagan tried to do is frame this all 0:22:03.600 --> 0:22:09.000 within the non delegation doctrine so Justice Kagan said about 0:22:09.000 --> 0:22:12.280 the taxing power, she said, quote, but not with respect 0:22:12.280 --> 0:22:16.720 to tariffs, not with respect to quintessential taxing powers, which 0:22:16.720 --> 0:22:21.160 are given by the Constitution to Congress. And she framed 0:22:21.160 --> 0:22:25.880 the case through the delegation doctrine, saying, quote in consumers' 0:22:25.960 --> 0:22:28.119 research just last year, which is the case the Supreme 0:22:28.119 --> 0:22:32.199 Court just decided, we had a tax before us. If 0:22:32.240 --> 0:22:35.520 there's no ceiling on this tax, we sort of assumed 0:22:35.600 --> 0:22:39.080 if there was no ceiling, it would raise a delegation 0:22:39.280 --> 0:22:40.320 power problem. 0:22:41.040 --> 0:22:44.320 And then she applied that logic to AEPA. 0:22:44.640 --> 0:22:47.800 She said, how does your argument fit with the idea 0:22:47.880 --> 0:22:50.400 that a tax with no sealing, a tax that can 0:22:50.440 --> 0:22:55.359 be anything the president wants, would raise a pretty deep 0:22:55.440 --> 0:23:01.280 delegation problem. And she rejected the government's argument to relabel tariff. 0:23:01.320 --> 0:23:03.760 She said, no, not with respect to tariff's, not with 0:23:03.840 --> 0:23:07.919 respect to quintessential taxing powers. Now understand what Justice Kagan 0:23:08.040 --> 0:23:11.480 is doing. The non delegation doctrine is a very important 0:23:12.080 --> 0:23:17.879 constitutional limitation on Congress giving too much power to the executive. 0:23:18.200 --> 0:23:21.119 It is also something conservatives care a great deal about. 0:23:21.160 --> 0:23:24.320 I think Justice Kagan, Justice Kagan, the three liberals are 0:23:24.320 --> 0:23:27.719