Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

Bash: "What the Supreme Court said is that it is not the executive's function to do these tariffs. It needs to go through Congress, and that is what the Constitution says." Bessent: "That is not correct."

The Bulwark

240,830 subscribers

119,382 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Nachrichten & Politik Bildung

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

CNN’s Dana Bash got embarrassed live on her own show as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent flat out rejected her entire framing on tariffs. She tried to turn it into a $134 billion reckoning, but Bessent came armed with the facts. She was left scrambling. BASH: “I do want to start with the big question. Will you refund the roughly $134 billion in revenue taken by these emergency tariffs?” BESSENT: “Well Dana that’s not the big question.” BESSENT: “Let’s just level set here what the Supreme Court did was a very narrow reading of the president’s authority under the IEEPA tariffs. BESSENT: “We have other tariff authorities which have been functioning section 232 tariffs, section 301 tariffs and Dana, when you say it’s a big question, that’s bad framing because the Supreme Court didn’t even address that.” BESSENT: “The Supreme Court remanded it down to a lower court.” BESSENT: “And we will follow what they say but that that could be weeks or months when we hear them. So the supreme court did not address refunds.” BASH: “Sure. They didn’t address refunds. That is clearly going to be up to to you, which—” BESSENT: “No, no, no Dana, it is not up to me.” BASH: “Not…not…you…” BESSENT: “It is not up to the administration. It is up to the lower court. Let’s just be clear on that.” The “big question” wasn’t so big after all.

CNN’s Dana Bash got embarrassed live on her own show as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent flat out rejected her entire framing on tariffs. She tried to turn it into a $134 billion reckoning, but Bessent came armed with the facts. She was left scrambling. BASH: “I do want to start with the big question. Will you refund the roughly $134 billion in revenue taken by these emergency tariffs?” BESSENT: “Well Dana that’s not the big question.” BESSENT: “Let’s just level set here what the Supreme Court did was a very narrow reading of the president’s authority under the IEEPA tariffs. BESSENT: “We have other tariff authorities which have been functioning section 232 tariffs, section 301 tariffs and Dana, when you say it’s a big question, that’s bad framing because the Supreme Court didn’t even address that.” BESSENT: “The Supreme Court remanded it down to a lower court.” BESSENT: “And we will follow what they say but that that could be weeks or months when we hear them. So the supreme court did not address refunds.” BASH: “Sure. They didn’t address refunds. That is clearly going to be up to to you, which—” BESSENT: “No, no, no Dana, it is not up to me.” BASH: “Not…not…you…” BESSENT: “It is not up to the administration. It is up to the lower court. Let’s just be clear on that.” The “big question” wasn’t so big after all.

Overton

245,862 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Trump essentially says that it doesn’t matter what the Constitution says because there are too many immigrants here, and that he “doesn’t know” if he needs to uphold the Constitution. Then he says it is up to the Supreme Court, all while he continues to violate a Supreme Court order.

Trump essentially says that it doesn’t matter what the Constitution says because there are too many immigrants here, and that he “doesn’t know” if he needs to uphold the Constitution. Then he says it is up to the Supreme Court, all while he continues to violate a Supreme Court order.

Ed Krassenstein

462,145 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

"There is no doubt that the Supreme Court got this decision right," says Acting AG Todd Blanche on Louisiana v. Callais. "There is also no doubt that the existing system was not consistent with our Constitution, and that's what the Supreme Court found."

"There is no doubt that the Supreme Court got this decision right," says Acting AG Todd Blanche on Louisiana v. Callais. "There is also no doubt that the existing system was not consistent with our Constitution, and that's what the Supreme Court found."

Rapid Response 47

338,426 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

#WATCH | Chandrapur | #MaharashtraElection2024 | Lok Sabha LoP and Congress MP Rahul Gandhi says, "It is written in the constitution that - it's the government's job to provide education, health care and employment to the citizens of the country. We do what is written in it. It is written in it that if wealth is distributed, it will be given to everyone equally. The first line written in it is that this country belongs to every citizen. Its first line is not that this country belongs to Adani, Ambani..."

#WATCH | Chandrapur | #MaharashtraElection2024 | Lok Sabha LoP and Congress MP Rahul Gandhi says, "It is written in the constitution that - it's the government's job to provide education, health care and employment to the citizens of the country. We do what is written in it. It is written in it that if wealth is distributed, it will be given to everyone equally. The first line written in it is that this country belongs to every citizen. Its first line is not that this country belongs to Adani, Ambani..."

ANI

35,719 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Sen. Josh Hawley SLAMS local district court judges issuing national injunctions on the Trump admin, calls for SCOTUS or Congress to intervene: "These are district courts, local federal courts, that are saying, 'I'm not just going to issue an order that says what the executive branch can or cannot do in my district, I'm going to issue an order that binds the executive branch for the entire nation.'" "That is not a power that I think district courts have... what needs to happen is one of two things: Either the Supreme Court needs to intervene and make clear there's only one court that can issue rules for the whole country, that's the Supreme Court, that's why we only have one of them. And or, if they won't do that, Congress needs to legislate and make clear that district courts do not have the ability to issue these kinds of injunctions." Subscribe for the entire discussion 👉 Josh Hawley

Sen. Josh Hawley SLAMS local district court judges issuing national injunctions on the Trump admin, calls for SCOTUS or Congress to intervene: "These are district courts, local federal courts, that are saying, 'I'm not just going to issue an order that says what the executive branch can or cannot do in my district, I'm going to issue an order that binds the executive branch for the entire nation.'" "That is not a power that I think district courts have... what needs to happen is one of two things: Either the Supreme Court needs to intervene and make clear there's only one court that can issue rules for the whole country, that's the Supreme Court, that's why we only have one of them. And or, if they won't do that, Congress needs to legislate and make clear that district courts do not have the ability to issue these kinds of injunctions." Subscribe for the entire discussion 👉 Josh Hawley

Charlie Kirk

524,379 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

BESSENT: “What the Supreme Court said is that the President cannot use IEEPA to do this, he does have other authorities. It's very interesting that the Supreme Court said that the President can't raise $1 of revenue with tariffs, but he can put on a full embargo." looks like the admin will fight very hard to keep tariffs using any justification they can legally provide

BESSENT: “What the Supreme Court said is that the President cannot use IEEPA to do this, he does have other authorities. It's very interesting that the Supreme Court said that the President can't raise $1 of revenue with tariffs, but he can put on a full embargo." looks like the admin will fight very hard to keep tariffs using any justification they can legally provide

amit

111,812 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

WATCH: Sen. Ted Cruz breaks down the 6-3 Supreme Court ruling in Louisiana v. Callais: “The court concluded is that it is not permissible for elected politicians to gerrymander based on race, to draw a black seat or a white seat or an Hispanic seat, that when government draws distinctions based on race, that is contrary to the Constitution.” Cruz explained: “The Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision. Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion. And in that opinion, the court vindicated the Constitution of the United States. And in particular the 14th Amendment that ensures that all persons in the United States are entitled to equal protection of the laws, and also the 15th Amendment which protects the right to vote regardless of race. And what the court concluded is that it is not permissible for elected politicians to gerrymander based on race, to draw a black seat or a white seat or an Hispanic seat, that when government draws distinctions based on race, that is contrary to the Constitution. I think that question is absolutely correct. Uh as Chief Justice Roberts wrote in a previous case, it is a sorted business this divying us up by race. He also said the best way to stop discriminating on race is to stop discriminating based on race. And and I think the court's decision here says our government should be blind to color. We should be colorblind. We should not discriminate in favor of or against any race. I think the Supreme Court is correct and and and that uh that is the result of decades of litigation to to to get these racial gerrymanders struck down.”

WATCH: Sen. Ted Cruz breaks down the 6-3 Supreme Court ruling in Louisiana v. Callais: “The court concluded is that it is not permissible for elected politicians to gerrymander based on race, to draw a black seat or a white seat or an Hispanic seat, that when government draws distinctions based on race, that is contrary to the Constitution.” Cruz explained: “The Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision. Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion. And in that opinion, the court vindicated the Constitution of the United States. And in particular the 14th Amendment that ensures that all persons in the United States are entitled to equal protection of the laws, and also the 15th Amendment which protects the right to vote regardless of race. And what the court concluded is that it is not permissible for elected politicians to gerrymander based on race, to draw a black seat or a white seat or an Hispanic seat, that when government draws distinctions based on race, that is contrary to the Constitution. I think that question is absolutely correct. Uh as Chief Justice Roberts wrote in a previous case, it is a sorted business this divying us up by race. He also said the best way to stop discriminating on race is to stop discriminating based on race. And and I think the court's decision here says our government should be blind to color. We should be colorblind. We should not discriminate in favor of or against any race. I think the Supreme Court is correct and and and that uh that is the result of decades of litigation to to to get these racial gerrymanders struck down.”

Steve Guest

115,581 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

"A lot of reformers are of this 'make the Supreme Court great again,' view -- like there's some little problem that we have...Even if your view is that we need a Supreme Court to control the states & make sure that they have to conform to federal law, what we do not need is the Supreme Court second guessing the legislature...Why should this institution get to invalidate what the congress wanted, with it's own view of what the constitution requires? -Samuel Moyn 🔭

"A lot of reformers are of this 'make the Supreme Court great again,' view -- like there's some little problem that we have...Even if your view is that we need a Supreme Court to control the states & make sure that they have to conform to federal law, what we do not need is the Supreme Court second guessing the legislature...Why should this institution get to invalidate what the congress wanted, with it's own view of what the constitution requires? -Samuel Moyn 🔭

Briahna Joy Gray

12,304 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

#WATCH | Kolkata, West Bengal: On BJP MP Nishikant Dubey's statement on the Supreme Court, former Supreme Court judge Ashok Kumar Ganguly says, "Our country is a secular one... The SC is tasked to safeguard the essence of our Constitution, which is why, the SC has put some questions before the government with regard to the Waqf Act. The government then went on a backfoot, and said that it would not implement certain sections of the act... According to Article 53 of the Constitution, the President is supposed to work in accordance with the Constitution; if that is not the case, the SC can direct the President... There is nothing wrong with it. It strengthens democracy... It is unfortunate. Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar needs to realise nobody is above the law..."

#WATCH | Kolkata, West Bengal: On BJP MP Nishikant Dubey's statement on the Supreme Court, former Supreme Court judge Ashok Kumar Ganguly says, "Our country is a secular one... The SC is tasked to safeguard the essence of our Constitution, which is why, the SC has put some questions before the government with regard to the Waqf Act. The government then went on a backfoot, and said that it would not implement certain sections of the act... According to Article 53 of the Constitution, the President is supposed to work in accordance with the Constitution; if that is not the case, the SC can direct the President... There is nothing wrong with it. It strengthens democracy... It is unfortunate. Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar needs to realise nobody is above the law..."

ANI

152,664 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Q: Target received a $1 billion refund for tariffs. What does that say? BESSENT: What it says is that the Democratic attorney generals who filed their ridiculous lawsuit against this administration wanted the money to go back to the payer of record. That is corporate welfare. The American people had that money.

Q: Target received a $1 billion refund for tariffs. What does that say? BESSENT: What it says is that the Democratic attorney generals who filed their ridiculous lawsuit against this administration wanted the money to go back to the payer of record. That is corporate welfare. The American people had that money.

Aaron Rupar

627,673 Aufrufe • vor 9 Tagen

Bartiromo: What is your backup plan should the supreme court decision go against you on the tariffs? Trump: If that happened, we'd have to pay back money. So if anything would happen with that, that would mean they're allowed to use tariffs, and we're not

Bartiromo: What is your backup plan should the supreme court decision go against you on the tariffs? Trump: If that happened, we'd have to pay back money. So if anything would happen with that, that would mean they're allowed to use tariffs, and we're not

Acyn

433,817 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

BIGGEST BREAKING 🚨 Congress will move to Supreme Court against the Waqf Bill Abhishek Singhvi said that they are hopeful that The SC will not tolerate this bill 🔥 Congress is firm on its ideology for minorities and constitution 🇮🇳

BIGGEST BREAKING 🚨 Congress will move to Supreme Court against the Waqf Bill Abhishek Singhvi said that they are hopeful that The SC will not tolerate this bill 🔥 Congress is firm on its ideology for minorities and constitution 🇮🇳

Amock_

128,834 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

#WATCH | On Ram Temple Pran Pratishtha ceremony, Congress MP Rahul Gandhi says, "The RSS and the BJP have made the 22nd January function a completely political Narendra Modi function. It's a RSS BJP function and I think that is why the Congress President said that he would not go to the function. We are open to all religions, all practices. Even the authorities of the Hindu religion, the biggest authorities of the Hindu religion have made their view public about what they think about the 22nd January function that it is a political function. So it is difficult for us to go to a political function which is designed around the Prime Minister of India and designed around the RSS..."

#WATCH | On Ram Temple Pran Pratishtha ceremony, Congress MP Rahul Gandhi says, "The RSS and the BJP have made the 22nd January function a completely political Narendra Modi function. It's a RSS BJP function and I think that is why the Congress President said that he would not go to the function. We are open to all religions, all practices. Even the authorities of the Hindu religion, the biggest authorities of the Hindu religion have made their view public about what they think about the 22nd January function that it is a political function. So it is difficult for us to go to a political function which is designed around the Prime Minister of India and designed around the RSS..."

ANI

349,872 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Bessent on the justification for Trump's tariffs: "The emergency is stopping the emergency" (You can see why the Supreme Court ruled that these tariffs were illegal ... )

Bessent on the justification for Trump's tariffs: "The emergency is stopping the emergency" (You can see why the Supreme Court ruled that these tariffs were illegal ... )

Aaron Rupar

67,664 Aufrufe • vor 25 Tagen

🚨MAJOR BREAKING NEWS: President Trump says that he will GO to the Supreme Court to WATCH their ruling on his Tariff Power. "That is why I'm going down to the Supreme Court to WATCH." "I have not done that, but I think it is ONE of the MOST IMPORTANT Cases EVER Brought!"

🚨MAJOR BREAKING NEWS: President Trump says that he will GO to the Supreme Court to WATCH their ruling on his Tariff Power. "That is why I'm going down to the Supreme Court to WATCH." "I have not done that, but I think it is ONE of the MOST IMPORTANT Cases EVER Brought!"

The Patriot Oasis™

1,069,678 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten