[Costanza]

We either going to dump to oblivion or pump.

cannot wait if we get a solid i will be selling ALL my bags

[Mewtwo]

We either going to dump to oblivion or pump.

cannot wait if we get a solid i will be selling ALL my bags

What about that Venezuela oil boiii, Trump is focus on this now

[7]

let's hope it pump glory! im hopeful

[Costanza]

let's hope it pump glory! im hopeful

Hope so man i really do . just want to get out but need a fair bit higher on my alts.

[Rahul007rhp]

Cant see more dumps , hope its all going to be good

[SUI-3183372]

Court won't make their decision today, should have a decision on the 14th.

Hassett says "there is high confidence the Supreme Court will side with Donald Trump on tariffs, adding that alternative tools are available if the ruling goes against the administration"

[Costanza]

Usual dogshit seems as if crypto is dead again. was a great pump for a few days there

[The Pact]

Usual dogshit seems as if crypto is dead again. was a great pump for a few days there

I'm a cyrpto noob but isn't only Eth down out of major coins?

[Hackers]

January 14th is when SCOTUS is scheduled to rule on IEEPA.

I got flamed for saying it a couple months ago, but the truth remains true today. Some of the tariffs are legal, some are not. For example, country wide tariffs for all industries are not legal within IEEPA, but Trump says IEEPA gives him that right.

This is why the Supreme Court is ruling because all other courts have said that Trump cannot use IEEPA for these countrywide tariffs, and unless a new law is made, it would remain illegal. Only SCOTUS can change that for Trump, so if they don't side with him on IEEPA then we'll see a few tariffs removed (while others will still be legal, under other laws).

IEEPA has never been used for vague countrywide tariffs before, so we must wait & see what SCOTUS says.

If this goes like last time, let it be proof that my adversaries can't Google enough to realize I have shared 0 opinions in this post. That's why it's going to SCOTUS, because IEEPA makes no clear distinctions that it gives power of tariffing to any President, unrelated to politics and Trump.

[Omniscient]

January 14th is when SCOTUS is scheduled to rule on IEEPA.

I got flamed for saying it a couple months ago, but the truth remains true today. Some of the tariffs are legal, some are not. For example, country wide tariffs for all industries are not legal within IEEPA, but Trump says IEEPA gives him that right.

This is why the Supreme Court is ruling because all other courts have said that Trump cannot use IEEPA for these countrywide tariffs, and unless a new law is made, it would remain illegal. Only SCOTUS can change that for Trump, so if they don't side with him on IEEPA then we'll see a few tariffs removed (while others will still be legal, under other laws).

IEEPA has never been used for vague countrywide tariffs before, so we must wait & see what SCOTUS says.

If this goes like last time, let it be proof that my adversaries can't Google enough to realize I have shared 0 opinions in this post. That's why it's going to SCOTUS, because IEEPA makes no clear distinctions that it gives power of tariffing to any President, unrelated to politics and Trump.

I am lazy and also don't want too much political engagement.

AI Quote: Here’s what’s accurate, what’s overstated, and a clean counter you can post.

Accuracy check

1) “January 14th is when SCOTUS is scheduled to rule on IEEPA.”
Mostly misleading framing. January 14, 2026 is an opinion-release day (a day the Court may issue opinions). But SCOTUS does not schedule rulings by case in advance, and it has not confirmed it will issue the IEEPA-tariff opinion that day. Reuters explicitly notes the Court doesn’t announce which cases will be decided on a given opinion day. ([Reuters][1])
A more accurate version: “Jan 14 is the next chance the Court could release an opinion.”

2) “All other courts have said that Trump cannot use IEEPA for these countrywide tariffs.”
Largely accurate in the sense that the key lower courts in this pathway have ruled against the IEEPA tariffs. Reporting and litigation updates describe the Court of International Trade (CIT) and the Federal Circuit holding that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs. ([Clark Hill][2])
But “all other courts” is sloppy. The important point is: the lower-court decisions that matter for this appeal struck them down.

3) “Countrywide tariffs for all industries are not legal within IEEPA… IEEPA has never been used for vague countrywide tariffs before.”
Generally supported by the record being discussed publicly. The Federal Circuit opinion (in the IEEPA-tariffs line of cases) emphasizes that IEEPA does not use words like ‘tariffs’ or ‘duties’ and lacks an open-ended residual grant of power beyond what it lists. ([Federal Circuit Court][3])
Multiple summaries also note this would be an unusual/novel use of IEEPA for broad tariffs. ([MarketWatch][4])

4) “Only SCOTUS can change that for Trump.”
Wrong as stated. SCOTUS can interpret IEEPA and reverse lower courts, but it doesn’t “change” the statute. Congress can amend IEEPA to explicitly authorize tariffs (or pass a new tariff statute). Also, even if the IEEPA tariffs fall, an administration may attempt to reimpose tariffs under other trade laws (with different limits and procedures). ([MarketWatch][4])

5) “If they don’t side with him… we’ll see a few tariffs removed (while others will still be legal, under other laws).”

Plausible but speculative. It’s true there are other tariff authorities (e.g., 232/301/122), but which tariffs “remain” depends on what was imposed under which statute and what the administration does next. Market/legal commentary suggests re-imposition under other authorities is a possibility, but it’s not guaranteed. ([MarketWatch][4])

The best “counter” points (tight and factual)

1. Jan 14 isn’t “the IEEPA ruling day.” It’s just the next day the Court may release opinions; SCOTUS doesn’t pre-announce which case gets decided.
2. Lower courts already struck down the IEEPA tariffs (CIT + Federal Circuit), largely because IEEPA doesn’t mention tariffs/duties and has been used historically for sanctions/transaction restrictions, not broad import taxes.
3. SCOTUS won’t “change” IEEPA; it will interpret it. Congress can change the law.
4. Even if SCOTUS strikes these tariffs, the administration could try different statutory routes for new tariffs, which is a separate legal fight.

Copy/paste reply you can post

> A couple corrections here. Jan 14 isn’t “the day SCOTUS is scheduled to rule on IEEPA.” It’s simply the Court’s next opinion-release day, and the Court does not announce in advance which cases it will decide on any given date.
>
> The accurate part is that the key lower courts in this pipeline (CIT and the Federal Circuit) have already held that IEEPA doesn’t authorize tariffs, in large part because the statute doesn’t mention “tariffs” or “duties” and no president has used it as a general tariff statute the way this case involves.
>
> Also, SCOTUS can’t “change” IEEPA for anyone. It can only interpret it; Congress is the one that can amend the law. And even if these IEEPA tariffs are struck down, that doesn’t automatically settle other tariffs imposed under other statutes, or prevent an administration from attempting new tariffs under different authorities.

If you want, paste the original thread/context (or the specific tariffs they’re arguing about), and I’ll tailor the counter to the exact claims they’re making (and keep it “no opinion, just facts” if that’s the vibe you want).

[1]: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government...hatgpt.com "Supreme Court plans rulings for January 14 as Trump's tariffs remain undecided"
[2]: https://www.clarkhill.com/news-events/ne...hatgpt.com "Update on IEEPA Tariff Refund Litigation"
[3]: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-o...hatgpt.com "V.O.S. SELECTIONS, INC. v. TRUMP [OPINION]"
[4]: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-su...hatgpt.com "The Supreme Court could rule on Trump's tariffs as soon as Friday. Here's how it could play out."

Also, why was this in Crypto Currency. Moving to News and Happenings which is more suitable.

[Hackers]

I am lazy and also don't want too much political engagement.

AI Quote: Here’s what’s accurate, what’s overstated, and a clean counter you can post.

Accuracy check

1) “January 14th is when SCOTUS is scheduled to rule on IEEPA.”
Mostly misleading framing. January 14, 2026 is an opinion-release day (a day the Court may issue opinions). But SCOTUS does not schedule rulings by case in advance, and it has not confirmed it will issue the IEEPA-tariff opinion that day. Reuters explicitly notes the Court doesn’t announce which cases will be decided on a given opinion day. ([Reuters][1])
A more accurate version: “Jan 14 is the next chance the Court could release an opinion.”

2) “All other courts have said that Trump cannot use IEEPA for these countrywide tariffs.”
Largely accurate in the sense that the key lower courts in this pathway have ruled against the IEEPA tariffs. Reporting and litigation updates describe the Court of International Trade (CIT) and the Federal Circuit holding that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs. ([Clark Hill][2])
But “all other courts” is sloppy. The important point is: the lower-court decisions that matter for this appeal struck them down.

3) “Countrywide tariffs for all industries are not legal within IEEPA… IEEPA has never been used for vague countrywide tariffs before.”
Generally supported by the record being discussed publicly. The Federal Circuit opinion (in the IEEPA-tariffs line of cases) emphasizes that IEEPA does not use words like ‘tariffs’ or ‘duties’ and lacks an open-ended residual grant of power beyond what it lists. ([Federal Circuit Court][3])
Multiple summaries also note this would be an unusual/novel use of IEEPA for broad tariffs. ([MarketWatch][4])

4) “Only SCOTUS can change that for Trump.”
Wrong as stated. SCOTUS can interpret IEEPA and reverse lower courts, but it doesn’t “change” the statute. Congress can amend IEEPA to explicitly authorize tariffs (or pass a new tariff statute). Also, even if the IEEPA tariffs fall, an administration may attempt to reimpose tariffs under other trade laws (with different limits and procedures). ([MarketWatch][4])

5) “If they don’t side with him… we’ll see a few tariffs removed (while others will still be legal, under other laws).”

Plausible but speculative. It’s true there are other tariff authorities (e.g., 232/301/122), but which tariffs “remain” depends on what was imposed under which statute and what the administration does next. Market/legal commentary suggests re-imposition under other authorities is a possibility, but it’s not guaranteed. ([MarketWatch][4])

The best “counter” points (tight and factual)

1. Jan 14 isn’t “the IEEPA ruling day.” It’s just the next day the Court may release opinions; SCOTUS doesn’t pre-announce which case gets decided.
2. Lower courts already struck down the IEEPA tariffs (CIT + Federal Circuit), largely because IEEPA doesn’t mention tariffs/duties and has been used historically for sanctions/transaction restrictions, not broad import taxes.
3. SCOTUS won’t “change” IEEPA; it will interpret it. Congress can change the law.
4. Even if SCOTUS strikes these tariffs, the administration could try different statutory routes for new tariffs, which is a separate legal fight.

Copy/paste reply you can post

> A couple corrections here. Jan 14 isn’t “the day SCOTUS is scheduled to rule on IEEPA.” It’s simply the Court’s next opinion-release day, and the Court does not announce in advance which cases it will decide on any given date.
>
> The accurate part is that the key lower courts in this pipeline (CIT and the Federal Circuit) have already held that IEEPA doesn’t authorize tariffs, in large part because the statute doesn’t mention “tariffs” or “duties” and no president has used it as a general tariff statute the way this case involves.
>
> Also, SCOTUS can’t “change” IEEPA for anyone. It can only interpret it; Congress is the one that can amend the law. And even if these IEEPA tariffs are struck down, that doesn’t automatically settle other tariffs imposed under other statutes, or prevent an administration from attempting new tariffs under different authorities.

If you want, paste the original thread/context (or the specific tariffs they’re arguing about), and I’ll tailor the counter to the exact claims they’re making (and keep it “no opinion, just facts” if that’s the vibe you want).

[1]: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government...hatgpt.com "Supreme Court plans rulings for January 14 as Trump's tariffs remain undecided"
[2]: https://www.clarkhill.com/news-events/ne...hatgpt.com "Update on IEEPA Tariff Refund Litigation"
[3]: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-o...hatgpt.com "V.O.S. SELECTIONS, INC. v. TRUMP [OPINION]"
[4]: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-su...hatgpt.com "The Supreme Court could rule on Trump's tariffs as soon as Friday. Here's how it could play out."

Also, why was this in Crypto Currency. Moving to News and Happenings which is more suitable.

I agree with all of the AI points completely, no disagreements there. That's all true & in line with what I'm thinking as well. But yes, could've been more specific about all courts versus lower court rulings, and them sharing opinions in Jan 14th but not having a big ruling event or anything, and phrased things.

This AI post is helpful, I hope more people will read it because the whole situation is not just black & white, but there are people who are thinking that it's either all tariffs or no tariffs when realistically most things will not change. Even if IEEPA use changes, other new targeted tariffs can take their place.

I think it was put in crypto because some investors will react to any change in tariffs. I don't think it has as much impact on crypto as some people may be thinking.