Call Balls And Strikes Consistenly!

One of my beloved late boss’ frequent sayings was repeating Ralph Waldo Emerson’s famous admonition that “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.”  I think of my late boss almost as often as my late father, and I believe he would understand and likely agree with my abandonment of Emerson’s admonition in today’s blog.

As a conservative, I was in complete agreement with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in which the Court decided that the Biden Administration did not have Congressional authorization to impose a nationwide eviction moratorium during the coronavirus pandemic. Another decision I fully endorsed was the Court decision in 2021 that determined that the Biden Administration did not have Congressional authorization to impose a coronavirus vaccine mandate for on-site employees of corporations with at least 100 people on the payroll. Please raise your hand if you were required to upload your covid vaccination card to a corporate HR department proving your covid vaccination so that you could keep your job!

  I also fully agreed with the Court’s 2023 decision in which the Court determined that the Biden Administration did not have Congressional authorization to cancel $430 billion in federal student loan debt.  President Biden and the Progressive left criticized these decisions, but, in my view, had the Court decided these cases differently, there would have been a significant, unwarranted, and unconstitutional expansion of Executive Branch power.

Fast forward to Friday February 20, 2026, and the Court’s majority opinion in Learning Resources v. Trump held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) did not provide Congressional authorization for the Trump Administration to impose wide ranging tariffs on other nations in response to a declared emergency by the Trump Administration. Frankly, I do not believe the Court’s decision was a surprise to most Court observers. In writing for the Court’s majority, Chief Justice John Robert’s relied on the Court’s “Major Questions Doctrine” from a 2022 case where the Court decided that major substantive Executive Branch policy actions require specific Congressional authorization, and IEEPA did not specifically authorize the imposition of tariffs.

Just as in the case of eviction moratorium, coronavirus vaccine mandate, and forgiveness of student loan debt, I believe the Court got it right on tariffs. The Court was consistent in each case in upholding the law and the constitution, and I applaud them for doing so. While surely not the rationale of the conservative Justices in deciding the Lincoln Resources case, the conservatives Justices certainly made clear to the Progressive left that they call “balls and strikes” as they see them even if the President is displeased with the “call.” To be sure, deciding important constitutional law cases “cafeteria style” depending on whose “political ox will be gored” should not be an option for the Court, and especially its conservative Justices. Had the Court decided in favor of the Trump Administration’s use of tariffs under IEEPA, a future President Newsome or Pritzker may have issued a Climate Change Emergency Executive Order under IEEPA to ban the sale of gas-powered vehicles following 2035! Would any conservative welcome that possibility? Thank the conservative Justices for making this possibility far more unlikely with the Lincoln Resources decision.

 Predictably, President Trump excoriated the Court for its decision with strongly worded vitriol directed at Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justices Gorsuch, and Barrett. At the same time, he assured supporters and opponents that he had existing legislative levers to pull to ensure continuation of his tariff regime. One could probably be forgiven for wondering why the President was so reliant on IEEPA if other legislative avenues were so readily available!

Just a few random thoughts for President Trump’s consideration. Are you concerned that any of the conservative Justices will have a “long memory” for your harsh criticism in the Learning Resources case? You are surely aware that you are not able to “Primary” or fire these conservative Justices and you will likely need their good will and support in future cases coming before the Court involving your Executive Orders. Do you have any measure of gratitude for these same conservative Justices who decided in your favor in cases involving Presidential immunity and several important Executive Orders issued by you earlier in your second term? Since you have alleged that these conservative Justices were influenced by foreign governments in deciding the Lincoln Resources case, were these same conservative Justices also influenced by foreign governments when they decided in your favor on Presidential immunity and your prior Executive Order cases?  Do you think the old country saying that “discretion is the better part of valor” might be of some value to you right now? Given your outrage and anger at the Learning Resources decision, would it have made sense to have delayed your news conference until the next day to give your anger the opportunity to cool?

I have never had particularly strong feelings for or against tariffs. While I recognize the value of tariffs as a tool to address unfair trade barriers imposed by other nations and national security concerns, I see no reason to levy tariffs on imported products not produced in the U.S. I also find it very troubling that soybean farmers are bearing the brunt of tariff retaliation from China. The China market has basically dried up for farmers as China has pivoted to other countries for soybeans. Farmers are always at the risk of weather, crop disease, and market forces.  Tariffs are yet another difficult challenge. I believe most farmers who have been adversely impacted by tariffs would conclude that the measure of compensation relief received from the Trump Administration is just too little and too late!

So where do we go from here on tariffs? I would argue that tariffs are here to stay considering the billions of dollars raised and both political parties need for revenue to satisfy their insatiable desire to spend. While the Trump Administration maintains that tariffs are not a tax, a recent Federal Reserve Bank of New York survey determined that consumers and businesses bore 90% of the cost of current tariffs. As the Oracle of Omaha, Warren Buffet, observed, someone must pay for tariffs and it’s not the tooth fairy! With the Court’s decision in Lincoln Resources, there should be more predictability on tariffs since the Trump Administration’s use of tariffs will be governed by existing legislation regarding tariffs instead of at the whim of Presidential Executive Orders. Moreover, it would not be a great surprise if Republicans in swing Congressional districts were a little less enthusiastic regarding tariffs as the mid term elections approach.

God bless you and thank you for the privilege of your time in reading my blog.