For Presidents, Not For A President

No, we are not a bunch of pseudo-constitutional scholars with a fetish for Marbury v. Madison. We are plainspoken, commonsense MAGA editorialists with talent on loan from God, not the pompous boards of the vaunted publications. But when echoes of John Marshall’s 1803 ruling thunder through today’s Court, it is impossible to ignore. In our September 2 editorial, Trump’s Marbury v. Madison Showdown, we argued that Trump’s immigration and tariff appeals represent a constitutional test every bit as consequential as the original case that established judicial review. Now, with Justice Barrett stressing that the Court rules “for presidencies, not presidents,” and with the justices agreeing to fast-track arguments on the Liberation Day tariffs, the comparison is more than metaphor. Once again, the Supreme Court is being called upon to define the balance of Presidential power for generations to come, a burden it cannot escape.

That is not just theory. We laid out this case in detail in our September 2 editorial when we pointed out that the United States Supreme Court faces an enormous burden as it takes up case after case adjudicated against the Trump administration by lower courts. We focused our thesis on two groundbreaking actions that the courts have stalled - birthright citizenship and the Trump tariff regime.

We opined that the justices must consider practical policy matters when they hear the Trump appeals. By ruling in his favor, the SCOTUS could help establish long-term policies to address some of the most intractable problems of our time, including illegal immigration, federal deficits, trade imbalances, and a lack of investment in American manufacturing. Ruling against him, we argued, may limit the presidency for generations. Either way, this is more than Trump's fight — it is America's new Marbury v. Madison showdown.

There's still a long way to go, but we are delighted with the recent developments.

During an interview with Fox News' Brett Baier, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, promoting her book, shocked liberal court watchers with her response. Baier had shown her several headlines from the liberal media that had cast the court as being in bed with the Trump administration and upholding his actions.

Baier: The left is saying this court is protecting President Trump and his effort to consolidate power.

Barrett: We're not deciding cases just for today. And we're not deciding cases based on the president, as in the current occupant of the office. We are deciding cases about the presidency. So we are taking each case and we're looking at the question of presidential power as it comes, and the cases that we decide today are going to matter four presidencies from now, six presidencies from now.

In other words, Justice Barrett confirmed our hope that the court is committed to the long haul.

Evidence that she means business was reflected in the court's decision just the previous day. Siding with the 6-3 conservative majority, Barrett helped lift a temporary restraining order issued by U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong in Los Angeles, which had barred federal immigration agents from conducting "roving patrols" that targeted individuals based solely on race, ethnicity, language, job, or location. Frimpong's July 11 ruling, supported by the 9th Circuit, cited a "mountain of evidence" that these tactics violated the Fourth Amendment.

The Supreme Court's unsigned order, backed by Justice Brett Kavanaugh's concurrence, argued that factors such as speaking Spanish or working in specific jobs could contribute to reasonable suspicion when combined, although not alone. He further argued that while no single factor alone justifies reasonable suspicion for detaining or questioning individuals, these factors, when combined, can contribute to a lawful basis for immigration enforcement actions. Kavanaugh asserted that such considerations are practical and necessary for identifying potential immigration violations, rejecting claims that they constitute racial profiling. [In our editorial, we had urged the justices to consider all practical policy matters when they hear the Trump appeals on the birthright citizenship class action order and the tariff judgment.]

The White House couldn't contain its glee when it issued a press statement documenting the 21 victories thus far at the Supreme Court.

Even some lower courts are following the Supreme Court's lead on issuing decisions based on common sense and rooted in realism.

On September 8, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, ruled that 19 states and the District of Columbia lacked standing to challenge the Trump administration's mass firings of approximately 24,000 probationary federal workers. The majority opinion, written by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson and joined by Judge Allison Jones Rushing, vacated a Maryland district court's injunction that ordered the reinstatement of these workers. The decision will enable agencies to resume terminations, pending further litigation, despite the states' claims that the firings violated federal law by bypassing required 60-day notice periods.

"The federal government is required in all kinds of ways to respect the basic sovereignty of the states. However, the reverse is also true; it is hard to imagine a more traditionally federal function than managing the federal workforce. The federal workforce performs federal functions. How it performs them is a matter of federal concern." He warned that if the court were to accept the states' theory of how they have been harmed, every change in federal funding levels would authorize states to sue the federal government. "A contrary result would upend our federalist system by ceding federal sovereignty to the states."

The Supreme Court today granted the government's expedited request for Supreme Court review (writ of certiorari) in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, agreeing to review whether the Trump Administration's "Liberation Day" tariffs exceed the President's legal and constitutional authority. Given the importance of the issues and the need for a prompt resolution, the Liberty Justice Center (which is a party to the dispute opposing the Trump administration) agreed to the government's request. The Supreme Court will hear arguments in November, with a decision likely before December.

Urging the justices to rule based on common sense and the long term, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that a decision opposing the tariffs would deprive the United States Treasury of between $750 billion and $1 trillion in revenue by the summer of next year. With the government already in $37 trillion in debt, it is a loss of revenue that America can ill afford. "If the tariffs are struck down," Bessent told NBC's Meet the Press, "we would have to give a refund on about half the tariffs, which would be terrible for the Treasury."

If the Supreme Court is in it for the long haul, it will likely rule in favor of the Trump administration.

 📊 Market Mood — Wednesday, September 10, 2025

🟢 Futures Mixed – U.S. stock futures hover near flat as investors weigh Oracle’s strong earnings against caution ahead of key inflation data.

🟡 PPI in Focus – August Producer Price Index expected at 3.3% (matching July), highlighting sticky inflation before next week’s Fed decision.

🟣 Oracle Surge – Shares jumped after forecasting $500B+ in AI-cloud booked revenue; backlog (RPO) soared 359% year-over-year.

🔴 Novo Nordisk Cuts – Wegovy and Ozempic maker slashes 9,000 jobs (11.5% of staff), aiming for $1.3B in annual savings.

🟠 Oil Climbs – Crude prices rise on Middle East tensions, NATO drone incursions, and Trump’s call for steep tariffs on India and China over Russian oil.

📅 Key Events Today

🟧 Wednesday, September 10
08:30 – Producer Price Index (PPI) (Aug)
Wholesale inflation measure.
10:30 – Crude Oil Inventories
Weekly change in U.S. crude stockpiles.
13:00 – 10-Year Note Auction
Investor demand for government debt.