正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

When people ask whether the Supreme Court will strike down President Trump’s ability to collect tariffs, my answer is simple: I don’t see it happening. The executive needs the authority to set trade policy, whoever is in office. You can debate the tariff levels themselves, but removing that power...

kevinolearytv's profile picture

Kevin O'Leary aka Mr. Wonderful

1,205,902 subscribers

45,528 次观看 • 9 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

新闻政治教育财经
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

🚨 JUST IN: Treasury Sec. Scott Bessent says he listened to the oral arguments and believes the Supreme Court will UPHOLD President Trump's sweeping tariffs AWESOME! We're on the verge of a huge WIN! 🇺🇸 "It is very unlikely that the Supreme Court will overrule a president's signature economic policy. They did not overrule Obamacare." "I believe that the Supreme Court does not want to create chaos. We have set these trade deals. And it is very good for the United States." "We are balancing our trade deficit. You look, Europe is being overrun with Chinese goods. There is now an emergency in Europe." "There's going to be an economic emergency. The Europeans will follow us. So President Trump is preempting this." "If we go back to emergencies, he put a fentanyl tariff in Mexico, Canada, China. Guess what's happened to fentanyl deaths? If that's an emergency, I don't know what it was!" "October 8th, when the Chinese threatened to put rare earth export controls in the entire world, President Trump threatened a 100% tariff. And the Chinese came to the table, and we negotiated on behalf of the whole world!" 💯💯💯
1:25

🚨 JUST IN: Treasury Sec. Scott Bessent says he listened to the oral arguments and believes the Supreme Court will UPHOLD President Trump's sweeping tariffs AWESOME! We're on the verge of a huge WIN! 🇺🇸 "It is very unlikely that the Supreme Court will overrule a president's signature economic policy. They did not overrule Obamacare." "I believe that the Supreme Court does not want to create chaos. We have set these trade deals. And it is very good for the United States." "We are balancing our trade deficit. You look, Europe is being overrun with Chinese goods. There is now an emergency in Europe." "There's going to be an economic emergency. The Europeans will follow us. So President Trump is preempting this." "If we go back to emergencies, he put a fentanyl tariff in Mexico, Canada, China. Guess what's happened to fentanyl deaths? If that's an emergency, I don't know what it was!" "October 8th, when the Chinese threatened to put rare earth export controls in the entire world, President Trump threatened a 100% tariff. And the Chinese came to the table, and we negotiated on behalf of the whole world!" 💯💯💯

Eric Daugherty

29,758 次观看 • 8 个月前

Pierre Poilievre message to the US is that we can work together when the US wants to have tariff free trade but we are moving on with other markets. "It will really come down to whether the administration and Congress want to get back to tariff free trade. As soon as that happens, I think we can work together." After all the dog and pony show by the CPC, it is completely aligned with Mark Carney. I'm glad to see him publicly take the tariff free trade position.
0:20

Pierre Poilievre message to the US is that we can work together when the US wants to have tariff free trade but we are moving on with other markets. "It will really come down to whether the administration and Congress want to get back to tariff free trade. As soon as that happens, I think we can work together." After all the dog and pony show by the CPC, it is completely aligned with Mark Carney. I'm glad to see him publicly take the tariff free trade position.

Kirk Lubimov

19,170 次观看 • 20 天前

“Mr. President, this month in September you will be going to the USA for UNGA. The international press will confront you about the hunger in Nigeria, and it is not something you can hide; they are seeing it. Your economic policy needs to be human; it is not. You need to govern with the milk of human kindness; I don’t see that.” - Professor Yusuf Usman speaks to President Tinubu.
2:00

“Mr. President, this month in September you will be going to the USA for UNGA. The international press will confront you about the hunger in Nigeria, and it is not something you can hide; they are seeing it. Your economic policy needs to be human; it is not. You need to govern with the milk of human kindness; I don’t see that.” - Professor Yusuf Usman speaks to President Tinubu.

Mal. Imran U. Wakili (PULLO) 👑 #iSTANDWITHELRUFAI

51,798 次观看 • 1 年前

Liberation Day was an unforced error. There was no reason to do it. And then the Supreme Court ruled it was illegal. He did it anyway. We are now collecting tariff revenues that a court said cannot be collected. That is an illegal tax on the American people. And I need everyone to understand something the president keeps getting wrong deliberately: The foreign country does not pay the tariff. You pay the tariff. The American consumer pays the tariff. Every single time. This is poor management. Plain and simple. When you have genuinely good executive leadership — clear policy, defined objectives, competent execution — you get peace and prosperity. When you have policy where nobody can tell you what the end game is — where nobody in the room can draw you a straight line from here to there — you get chaos.
0:42

Liberation Day was an unforced error. There was no reason to do it. And then the Supreme Court ruled it was illegal. He did it anyway. We are now collecting tariff revenues that a court said cannot be collected. That is an illegal tax on the American people. And I need everyone to understand something the president keeps getting wrong deliberately: The foreign country does not pay the tariff. You pay the tariff. The American consumer pays the tariff. Every single time. This is poor management. Plain and simple. When you have genuinely good executive leadership — clear policy, defined objectives, competent execution — you get peace and prosperity. When you have policy where nobody can tell you what the end game is — where nobody in the room can draw you a straight line from here to there — you get chaos.

Anthony Scaramucci

56,222 次观看 • 6 个月前

Warnock on SCOTUS: First of all, no one elected this Court—to decide what kind of remedies we need in this moment. It’s really not up to the Supreme Court to say, “Well, we have reached the threshold where this issue around race and inclusion is no longer necessary.” That is not the job of the Court. And I’m struck, quite frankly, by the very easy and nonchalant way in which this extreme, activist Court knocks down precedent after precedent. The bar for doing that ought to be high, but we’re seeing with this Court—whether we’re talking about voting rights or a woman’s bodily autonomy, the right to decide with respect to her own body—they just strike down things they don’t like. They don’t have any respect, in the ways that we expect courts traditionally to, for precedent. And when precedents are torn down, you need a darn good reason to do it—and they are an activist court.
2:41

Warnock on SCOTUS: First of all, no one elected this Court—to decide what kind of remedies we need in this moment. It’s really not up to the Supreme Court to say, “Well, we have reached the threshold where this issue around race and inclusion is no longer necessary.” That is not the job of the Court. And I’m struck, quite frankly, by the very easy and nonchalant way in which this extreme, activist Court knocks down precedent after precedent. The bar for doing that ought to be high, but we’re seeing with this Court—whether we’re talking about voting rights or a woman’s bodily autonomy, the right to decide with respect to her own body—they just strike down things they don’t like. They don’t have any respect, in the ways that we expect courts traditionally to, for precedent. And when precedents are torn down, you need a darn good reason to do it—and they are an activist court.

Acyn

160,590 次观看 • 5 个月前

Martha Koome: It is regrettable that the leadership of the Executive and the Legislature in the recent public declarations have threatened not to obey court orders because of corruption. These threats and declarations are extremely serious and a monumental assault to the Constitution. It is also an assault to the rule of law and the ability of the nation and can lead to chaos and anarchy in our mother land
0:42

Martha Koome: It is regrettable that the leadership of the Executive and the Legislature in the recent public declarations have threatened not to obey court orders because of corruption. These threats and declarations are extremely serious and a monumental assault to the Constitution. It is also an assault to the rule of law and the ability of the nation and can lead to chaos and anarchy in our mother land

Citizen TV Kenya

161,189 次观看 • 2 年前

'President Trump’s election is a shift in power, and that means you’re going to get a restoration of a traditional direction when it comes to immigration, tariffs and trade, and global governance.' @MichaelJKnowles on the ‘dizzying pace’ so far of Trump’s 2nd Administration.
2:05

'President Trump’s election is a shift in power, and that means you’re going to get a restoration of a traditional direction when it comes to immigration, tariffs and trade, and global governance.' @MichaelJKnowles on the ‘dizzying pace’ so far of Trump’s 2nd Administration.

GB News

44,807 次观看 • 1 年前

Sen. Bennet: “Can you commit that American farmers will not lose market access in Canada or Mexico?…How are you approaching the risk of retaliatory tariffs?” Greer: “When President Trump left office his first term, we had an ag trade surplus. By the time Biden left, we had an ag trade deficit.” Sen. Bennet: “That is not an answer to my question nor is it an answer to the crisis that our farmers and ranchers are facing...That is irrelevant.”
1:41

Sen. Bennet: “Can you commit that American farmers will not lose market access in Canada or Mexico?…How are you approaching the risk of retaliatory tariffs?” Greer: “When President Trump left office his first term, we had an ag trade surplus. By the time Biden left, we had an ag trade deficit.” Sen. Bennet: “That is not an answer to my question nor is it an answer to the crisis that our farmers and ranchers are facing...That is irrelevant.”

The Bulwark

113,068 次观看 • 2 个月前

Sen. John Kennedy on the SCOTUS tariff ruling: "If you listened to the oral argument in this case, Stevie Wonder could see this decision coming. What's the end result? Here's the end result: for 13 months, President Trump assumed tariff authority...Now, the President didn't just sit around admiring that trade authority, that tariff authority, sucking on his teeth; he used it, and he used it to negotiate trade agreements. India, Japan, South Korea, Europe. Those countries are not going to rescind those trade agreements. Not in your or my natural lifetime. And he would not have been able to do those trade agreements had he not assumed this authority."
1:21

Sen. John Kennedy on the SCOTUS tariff ruling: "If you listened to the oral argument in this case, Stevie Wonder could see this decision coming. What's the end result? Here's the end result: for 13 months, President Trump assumed tariff authority...Now, the President didn't just sit around admiring that trade authority, that tariff authority, sucking on his teeth; he used it, and he used it to negotiate trade agreements. India, Japan, South Korea, Europe. Those countries are not going to rescind those trade agreements. Not in your or my natural lifetime. And he would not have been able to do those trade agreements had he not assumed this authority."

Julia 🇺🇸

501,786 次观看 • 7 个月前

Former President Goodluck Jonathan Could Not Rise Up to the Challenge of Removing Fuel Subsidy – Enoh Political leadership comes with the ability to be courageous enough to rise up to a challenge. When Tinubu took that decision, it wasn’t contained in his speech; that is leadership. John Owan Enoh, Minister of State for Trade, Industry and Investment
3:03

Former President Goodluck Jonathan Could Not Rise Up to the Challenge of Removing Fuel Subsidy – Enoh Political leadership comes with the ability to be courageous enough to rise up to a challenge. When Tinubu took that decision, it wasn’t contained in his speech; that is leadership. John Owan Enoh, Minister of State for Trade, Industry and Investment

ARISE NEWS

30,618 次观看 • 11 个月前

🚨 JUST IN: Commerce Sec. Howard Lutnick reveals he listened to the ENTIRE Supreme Court case and believes SCOTUS will uphold President Trump's tariffs "We're gonna win the case...I listened to the whole case. I think we win 5-4 or 6-3. The president is absolutely right. He's allowed to regulate importation...he can do it with a fee and a tariff." "However, we have other tools as well...if the SCOTUS does not side with us, which I think they will, we have other tools to put them right in place." "Tariffs are here to stay. Deals are here to stay!" DO THE RIGHT THING, SCOTUS!
1:13

🚨 JUST IN: Commerce Sec. Howard Lutnick reveals he listened to the ENTIRE Supreme Court case and believes SCOTUS will uphold President Trump's tariffs "We're gonna win the case...I listened to the whole case. I think we win 5-4 or 6-3. The president is absolutely right. He's allowed to regulate importation...he can do it with a fee and a tariff." "However, we have other tools as well...if the SCOTUS does not side with us, which I think they will, we have other tools to put them right in place." "Tariffs are here to stay. Deals are here to stay!" DO THE RIGHT THING, SCOTUS!

Eric Daugherty

202,732 次观看 • 10 个月前

HERE WE GO!!! 🚨 Supreme Court Justices Grill Trump's Tariff Authority in Oral Arguments Given what I just heard and following this case, I believe The Supreme Court is LIKELY to UPHOLD the President's authority to impose tariffs. 🔻 Breakdown: - Justice Kavanaugh questions the "odd donut hole" in the statute: why the President can shut down all trade or impose quotas with every country but not a 1% tariff, arguing it lacks common sense. - Benjamin Gutman argues tariffs are a fundamentally different power—akin to taxation for revenue—while the statute authorizes controlling or freezing trade, like embargoes, not revenue-raising measures. - Gutman emphasizes context matters; no other federal statute uses "regulate" to authorize tariffs or taxes, and tariffs fall under commerce power, not taxation, citing historical figures like John Marshall and Joseph Story. - Justice Barrett notes the interpretation allows embargoes on global trade but bars minor tariffs, probing if tariffs undermine the statute's goal of controlling transactions during emergencies. - Gutman clarifies embargoes ensure hard limits (e.g., no more than 1,000 units imported), while tariffs only add costs without guaranteeing control, potentially allowing trade to continue. - Justice Jackson challenges why blocking all trade isn't a bigger deal than a small tariff, and questions reliance on the Algonquin case, which was statutory interpretation, not constitutional. - Gutman responds that Algonquin looked at text, context, and legislative history, suggesting Congress intended emergency powers for stopping trade, not revenue generation. - Justices discuss framers' concerns: revenue-raising powers were core to Article I, posing different risks than trade controls, and tariffs might create incentives misaligned with emergency goals. 🔻Overall Lean of SCOTUS Judges: Remember, this is a bite sized morsel of the entire argument. - Conservative Justices (e.g., Kavanaugh, possibly Alito based on related reports) appear more open to the administration's interpretation, questioning the limitations on presidential tariff authority and expressing concern about removing it from the "suite of tools" for economic emergencies. - Liberal Justices (e.g., Jackson, possibly others) seem to be probing the breadth of presidential power, potentially leaning towards a narrower interpretation that aligns with historical and constitutional concerns about revenue-raising authorities. 🔻 My Educated Guess on the Decision: Given the current composition of the Supreme Court and the oral arguments, it is likely that the majority WILL SIDE with the administration, upholding the President's authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The conservative majority, particularly Kavanaugh and possibly Alito, seem concerned about limiting presidential tools in economic emergencies, and the historical and contextual arguments presented by Gutman may resonate with them. However, the end decision might be narrow, focusing on the specific statutory interpretation rather than broadly expanding presidential power, to garner a majority that includes some swing votes like Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Barrett. 🔻 When to Expect an Answer? Given that oral arguments occurred on today, we can expect a decision sometime between late May and early July 2026, likely closer to June 2026, as is customary for major cases. May even be earlier given the importance. I’m feeling very good about this. Don’t pay attention to the doom and gloomers. This is destiny!
7:33

HERE WE GO!!! 🚨 Supreme Court Justices Grill Trump's Tariff Authority in Oral Arguments Given what I just heard and following this case, I believe The Supreme Court is LIKELY to UPHOLD the President's authority to impose tariffs. 🔻 Breakdown: - Justice Kavanaugh questions the "odd donut hole" in the statute: why the President can shut down all trade or impose quotas with every country but not a 1% tariff, arguing it lacks common sense. - Benjamin Gutman argues tariffs are a fundamentally different power—akin to taxation for revenue—while the statute authorizes controlling or freezing trade, like embargoes, not revenue-raising measures. - Gutman emphasizes context matters; no other federal statute uses "regulate" to authorize tariffs or taxes, and tariffs fall under commerce power, not taxation, citing historical figures like John Marshall and Joseph Story. - Justice Barrett notes the interpretation allows embargoes on global trade but bars minor tariffs, probing if tariffs undermine the statute's goal of controlling transactions during emergencies. - Gutman clarifies embargoes ensure hard limits (e.g., no more than 1,000 units imported), while tariffs only add costs without guaranteeing control, potentially allowing trade to continue. - Justice Jackson challenges why blocking all trade isn't a bigger deal than a small tariff, and questions reliance on the Algonquin case, which was statutory interpretation, not constitutional. - Gutman responds that Algonquin looked at text, context, and legislative history, suggesting Congress intended emergency powers for stopping trade, not revenue generation. - Justices discuss framers' concerns: revenue-raising powers were core to Article I, posing different risks than trade controls, and tariffs might create incentives misaligned with emergency goals. 🔻Overall Lean of SCOTUS Judges: Remember, this is a bite sized morsel of the entire argument. - Conservative Justices (e.g., Kavanaugh, possibly Alito based on related reports) appear more open to the administration's interpretation, questioning the limitations on presidential tariff authority and expressing concern about removing it from the "suite of tools" for economic emergencies. - Liberal Justices (e.g., Jackson, possibly others) seem to be probing the breadth of presidential power, potentially leaning towards a narrower interpretation that aligns with historical and constitutional concerns about revenue-raising authorities. 🔻 My Educated Guess on the Decision: Given the current composition of the Supreme Court and the oral arguments, it is likely that the majority WILL SIDE with the administration, upholding the President's authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The conservative majority, particularly Kavanaugh and possibly Alito, seem concerned about limiting presidential tools in economic emergencies, and the historical and contextual arguments presented by Gutman may resonate with them. However, the end decision might be narrow, focusing on the specific statutory interpretation rather than broadly expanding presidential power, to garner a majority that includes some swing votes like Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Barrett. 🔻 When to Expect an Answer? Given that oral arguments occurred on today, we can expect a decision sometime between late May and early July 2026, likely closer to June 2026, as is customary for major cases. May even be earlier given the importance. I’m feeling very good about this. Don’t pay attention to the doom and gloomers. This is destiny!

MJTruthUltra

1,340,073 次观看 • 10 个月前