This is CBSI in the world. I'm John Batchelor. Tariffs. Before the Supreme Court, within these last

hours, tariffs. And I welcome Alan Tonneson, my guide on trade in manufacturing these many years to comment

on what appears to be the three trenches evident in the court hearing the arguments by the

administration and by those

who oppose the administration's interpretation of the word tariffs and the authority of the

president to impose or withdraw tariffs on certain states. It turns on a law passed in

1977 by the U.S. Congress, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which pronounces with difficulty as EPA.

The Solicitor General, John Sauer, argued that Mr. Trump is using EPA in an emergency fashion because of the threat of fentanyl coming from China and Mexico

and other parts of the Caribbean and also the matter of reciprocal tariffs to defend America

against adversaries. That is the argument for the administration. The nine justices broke into three pieces.

The so-called liberal justices, Jackson, Sotomayor, and Kagan, cannot find the word

tariffs in the word in the IPA Act.

In fact, Justice Kagan counted the verbs in the act, nine of them,

and could not find anything to do with imposing terrorists.

The conservative justices who were skeptical included the Chief Justice John Roberts,

Mr. Kavanaugh, and Ms. Barrett.

Significantly, the Chief Justice said that the major questions doctrine,

which advises the court not to find laws inside language that isn't explicit from Congress,

and that Congress in general has the authority here, not the court, to correct Congress.

Those three voices were skeptical.

Three in favor are the remaining Gorsuch perceived in favor.

These are oral arguments.

...