On Friday’s Mark Levin Show, the Supreme Court majority issued a very messy and problematic decision on tariffs. The fact is the majority agreed on an outcome but not so much on the reasoning for the outcome. It struck tariffs under a single statute, yet created chaos or, actually, left it to the president to decide if and/or how to treat the revenue those tariffs already created for the federal Treasury. The question is not who has the power to tax per se, but a more complicated question about where the separation of powers is. The majority, apparently, chose to duck the question and stick with the indirect tax characterization and focus on a single statute, which is outrageous. Also, Tucker Carlson is an indecent grifter with inexplicable ties to Qatar and an attraction to the Third Reich. He is gravely damaging the Republican Party, the midterm elections, and the Trump administration. Later, Jon Levine of the Washington Free Beacon calls in to explain that NYC Mayor Mamdani is fulfilling his campaign promises by staffing his administration with individuals from radical Islamist and far-left progressive circles, united by a shared hatred of the West and Jews. Mamdani is also pressuring Governor Hochul to impose a wealth tax by threatening massive property tax increases on roughly 3 million homeowners—effectively holding the entire city hostage in a “look what you made me do” tactic.
X
The Supreme Court majority today issued a very messy and problematic decision.
Washington Free Beacon
Mamdani Hires Three Founders of Muslim Group that Blamed Oct. 7 on ‘Israeli Apartheid Regime’
Breitbart
Steven Spielberg Fleeing California Ahead of Proposed Wealth Tax
Newsbusters
Goldman Sachs CEO Bucks Anti-Trump Media with Upbeat 2026 Economic Outlook
Photo by Heather Diehl
The podcast for this show can be streamed or downloaded from the Audio Rewind page.
Rough transcription of Hour 1
Segment 1
Hello America. Mark Levin here. Our number 877-381-3811. 877-381-3811. By the way, Mandami in New York is loading up his administration with one Jew hater, an Islamist after another. We’re going to talk about that next hour with our friend Jon Levine, who’s an outstanding reporter. But first. I did an interview today that will air on Sunday. With our friend Dennis Prager. Dennis Prager had a horrific accident. And we talk about that in his brand new book, which is absolutely fabulous. Again, earlier Sunday on Life, Liberty and Levin, it’s the first TV show he’s doing that is airing. And he asked if I would do it. And so I interviewed him for two segments because he’s not really able to do more than that. And then I decided in the middle of the interview, I’m going to bring him back the next Sunday to for two segments. What do you think about that? Rich He’s paralyzed from the shoulders down. And God must have been looking over him because he’s not supposed to be alive. He was on a ventilator for a long period of time. Even now, doctors are amazed because he’s breathing. He’s got 80% of his breathing capacity back, but he shouldn’t. Why? Because they said he’s paralyzed from the shoulders down. There’s a lot going on in your chest from the shoulders down. But I’ll talk about that a little bit more later. It just really has affected me. That interview. That a man like this who was struggling for his life, who still struggling every single day. If you’re paralyzed from the shoulders down, you can’t really do anything without significant help. And in any event, it was really moving and touching. And his book is absolute genius. And he still wants to be involved in promoting the country and defending the country. Victor Davis Hanson I’m not going to get into specifics. You know, I speak every few days. He’s a very dear friend of mine. He’s been through hell to. And we almost lost them. To be perfectly honest with you and you still fighting, these are great patriots, great people, great men. Whose legacies will continue far into the future. And his families are and will be proud of them. For their legacies. And that’s important with people today on radio, TV, podcasters. I can’t imagine their children would be very proud of them. Drop the F-bombs. This Tucker Carlson interview with Ambassador Huckabee. Ambassador Huckabee is such a class act. Such a decent man. Remember, he was a pastor, a Baptist pastor, kind, gentle in so many ways, thoughtful, up against a very evil, indecent, disgraceful grifter. And I believe there’s a reason for this other than mental illness and emotional obsessions. I truly do. His ties to Qatar are unexplainable, but for support he must be receiving from. Look. That’s my view. Support in one form or another. But in part of the interview he’s talking about listen to this, America, that the people of Israel, a majority of whom are Jews, should all be taking DNA tests to determine whether, in fact, their ancestry lived in that part of the world. What do you think about that, Rick? That’s pretty sick. And of course, Huckabee said, well, what about people who have converted to Judaism? And what about. It’s the question. That’s the problem. Jews should take DNA tests. To determine if that’s their homeland. I do now understand why he’s attracted to the Third Reich. I do now understand why he’s attracted to guests who promote Hitler. I get it now. I really do. That’s his mindset. In addition to being a mouthpiece for Qatar, an operator for Qatar PSYOP operation. The guy. The guy’s mind really is, in my view, set in the Third Reich. And it gets worse by the day. Worse by the day. One should remember Hitler murdered 2 million Christians. I’m not even talking about during the course of war, he exterminated 2 million Christians as he was exterminating 6 million Jews. The Aryan race. He didn’t say Christians. He’s talked about the Aryan race. And we can go on. Of course, the Islamists, these terror groups that are funded by Qatar, many of them are killing Christians in Africa. Christians throughout the Middle East. And how dare he talk about how they’re more Christians in Qatar and in Arab countries and in Israel? Everybody knows that’s a flat out lie, but he repeats it. He repeats it. You keep repeating the big lie, Goebbels said, and people will begin to believe it. I suspect he’s studied this very, very thoroughly, given the nature of his guests and the nature of his statements. The fact is that he’s doing grave damage to the Republican Party. I think he’s doing grave damage to our mid-term elections. He’s doing grave damage to the Trump administration. Whether they realize it or not, he is grave damage. And no amount of his attempting to attempt intimidate the ambassador to intimidate my stepson is going to work. He’s a scumbag. That’s what he is. I don’t understand why anybody, quote unquote, debates this guy, say, going into a mental institution. In debating somebody who’s banging off the padded walls. And I feel bad for them. This punk was born into wealth. What do private schools and public schools? Remember when he used to wear that bow tie? He’s taken 50 sides of every issue. He’s worked in virtually every media platform and he’s failed. But now he’s succeeding because he’s he’s got the he’s got the formula figured out. That there are enough people in this country and overseas for sure. Will watch and listen to him, even pay him. As long as he wears effectively that brown shirt and those black boots effectively. Just that disgrace. The Supreme Court decision. Let’s move on. It’s also a disgrace. On the tariff issue, it doesn’t matter if you’re for tariffs against tariffs, you don’t know about tariffs, you don’t care about tariffs to irrelevant. I’m talking about the rule of law. I texted. I texted the president. I don’t think he’d mind my telling you this yesterday or the day before. And I said, the court’s taking a long time for one of two reasons. Either they can’t settle on a single. Rationale. And you’ve got a whole bunch of concurring opinions, or they do have a strong majority, but they can’t figure out what the majority opinion should be. And guess what, Mr. Producer? I was right on both counts. So let’s begin there. Why is that the case? Because the court shouldn’t have been involved in this at all other than to take up the case, reverse the lower court and get out of the case. Because this is not a clear cut constitutional issue. It’s not a clear cut separation of powers issue. It’s not just a quote unquote, indirect tax under Article one. It’s also a clearly a foreign policy matter, and it affects foreign policy under Article two, Article one, Congress, Article two, the president. There is no bifurcating the two. Tariffs on international commerce have been going on since the beginning of this republic, just so you know. But only Congress can lay taxes. But only the president can run foreign policy. And so what the court should have done is avoided this because what it wound up doing is issuing a bunch of. Really? Contradictory and confusing opinions. Where they tried to come up with one position, which was basically, I’m sorry, the tariffs under this specific law in 1977 involving emergencies doesn’t apply. Which is ridiculous to me. Because it does, in fact, authorize the president. Authorize the president to regulate commerce. Chief Justice said, Well, that may be true, but there’s too many words between regulate and commerce and something to that effect. And he found that disturbing. But now what do we have? It’s a messy decision. It’s a problematic decision. It’s now an unresolved issue. They basically ruled that under this statute and this statute. Alan. President can’t do what he did. Okay, so what about the other statutes? And the rationale they gave is incoherent, absolutely incoherent, because they got involved in politics and policy, even though they they exclaim that we have not gotten into policy because they have. The two dissenting opinions of which Alito agreed with Clarence Thomas was brilliant, as usually goes to the history of tariffs. And. Commercial regulation, international commercial regulation and presidential powers. And Brett Kavanaugh was absolutely outstanding. He went through the law. He went through the Constitution, and he went through the arguments of the other side. And he said, this is actually quite simple and clear cut. And by the way, America, if Congress disagrees with a president. Using his power to impose tariffs. Congress has the power of the purse to cut off any funding for the implementation of his tariffs. But it’s never come up. They’ve never done it. He’d obviously veto it. So you don’t have enough votes to take it. But that is the way the system works. It’s supposed to work. You got nine lawyers, six of whom decided that they would substitute their opinions. For that of the president in dealing with international commerce. Diplomacy. Foreign policy, national security. Because John Roberts decided that this is a indirect tax under the power of the purse, Article one Congress. But it’s more than that. And he knows it. So what was this decision? It was result oriented. They had a result they wanted and they came up with a bunch of cockamamie arguments. That’s the truth. Now, I want to pursue this when we return, because it’s very, very. Very fundamental. This is a seminal decision, and yet it’s absolutely convoluted and incoherent. I’ll be right back.
Segment 2
As I posted earlier today, the Supreme Court majority today issued a very messy and problematic decision. Let me give you an example of the language here. Roberts Chief justice announced the judgment of the court and delivered the opinion of the court with respect to parts one, two and A one and two B, which Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett and Jackson joined in an opinion with respect to parts two, a two and three, in which Gorsuch and Barrett joined Gorsuch, and Barrett filed concurring opinions. Kagan filed an opinion concurring in part, and concurring in the judgment in which Sotomayor and Jackson joined, Jackson filed an opinion, concurring in part, and concurring in the judgment. Get my drift, Mr. Producer. How preposterous. How preposterous the reason is. They should never have gotten to the substance of this, and it became a quagmire. The majority had a problem, which I said it would should the court move in this direction. Tariffs are more than indirect taxes. They do in fact impact foreign affairs and national security matters and have been used for those specific purposes. Therefore, the question is not who has the power to tax per se, but a more complicated question about where the separation of powers is. The majority apparently chose to duck the question and stick with the indirect tax characterization and focus on a single statute, which is outrageous. It could not figure out how to bifurcate the Congress’s power of the purse from the president’s foreign policy powers. So redefine the issue to reach the outcome. And even then, they argued over the rationale. So we’re left with even a worse ambiguity. One. If only Congress can raise taxes, even indirectly, then how does the court justify the entire regulatory state in the executive branch that raises indirect taxes? Putting aside the specific statute, it appears the president is still free to raise or cut tariffs under other statutes. So what was the purpose of this whole process? And the court succeeded only in creating confusion going forward. I’ll be right back.
Segment 3
President Trump on this outrageous ruling, and I’ll spend some more time on this on Life, Liberty and Levin. And by the way, we’re getting record numbers there. I hope you’ll join us tomorrow night, 8 p.m. Eastern time. We have Steve Moore. And we’re going to get deeply into so-called affordability because this is a big issue. President’s going to talk a lot about it next Tuesday at the State of the Union. And I want to really dig into this myself and with Steve Moore and Rich Goldberg, one of the great experts on Iran. There’s going to be a decision made one way or another, and it’s not going to be long from now. So it’s important we talk about that. And then Sunday, I mentioned we have Dennis Prager. I don’t think you’re going to want to miss that as well as America’s governor. This guy’s unbelievable. Ron DeSantis And they’ve already pushed through the House in Florida, the elimination of the property tax for homesteaders that has actual residents. And he pointed out on the program that’s about one third of the people who pay the property tax. You have commercial property taxes. You also have taxes from a lot of tourists who come in and so forth, he said. They’re in a great position to do this. He wants to get it on the ballot. You know, this is a man that has, what, two years left in his governorship, a year and a half. And he doesn’t he doesn’t let up. You look at him compared to say News.com is on the Internet all day. He’s overseas all day. He’s on TV all day, and he can’t even get water into the fire hydrants. He can’t even get water under the fire hydrants where DeSantis is handling hurricanes and water issues and everything else. And he you see the difference. So two really great shows, I think Saturday and Sunday, Life, Liberty and Live in 8 p.m. Eastern. I would encourage you to set your DVR. It’s the easiest thing to do. Set your DVR. President Trump today at the White House and the Supreme Court ruling on tariffs. Again, it was a really ugly bunch of decisions, you know, that reminded me of those of you have gone to law school. It reminds me of a bunch of young law review. Editors sitting in a circle, say in the in the law library trying to prove who’s smarter than the other. Dancing on the head of a pin on semantics. Even in Barrett’s concurring opinion, she’s defending her approach from Gorsuch’s criticism. I’m Go, what the hell is this? What is this really? What a mess. Barrett is very thin skinned, I have to say. The very thin skinned Jacksons. Very stupid. And and and and of course, I call Roberts Hollywood Roberts because he cares very much about what the press says about him. Friend of Thomas Friedman, who is a self-hating moron. But here’s the president tonight or this afternoon. Cut one, go. The Supreme Court’s ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing. And I’m ashamed of certain members of the court absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country. I’d like to thank and congratulate Justices Thomas Alito and Kavanaugh for their strength and wisdom and love of our country, which is right now very proud of those justices. When you read the dissenting opinions, there is no way that anyone can argue against them. There’s no way in foreign countries that have been ripping us off for years are ecstatic. They are so happy and they’re dancing in the streets, but they won’t be dancing for long. That I can assure you. The Democrats on the court are thrilled, but they will automatically vote no. There are no automatic no, just like in Congress, they’re an automatic no. They’re against anything that makes America strong, healthy and great again. They also are a frankly, disgrace to our nation. Those justices, they’re an automatic no, no matter how good a case you have. It said no. And he’s right. And I want you to think about something, ladies and gentlemen, how the Constitution was contorted again and again and again in order to create. A legal imprimatur for the New Deal. When you step back. The New Deal has no defense in the Constitution, none whatsoever. And so they threaten to pack the court. The justices were all eventually FDR replaced most of them, but they were intimidated and they reversed course. They turn on a dime and they started approving all these New Deal policies and programs that went much, much farther than these these tariffs. Can even be thought of going. Imagined of going. And they turn the law inside out and the logic inside out and the Constitution inside out to advance that agenda. They’ve done the same for Democrats over the decades. And here we have a straightforward issue on tariffs. Now, a lot of people don’t like terrorists. A lot of people like tariffs. A lot of people don’t know about tariffs. That’s not the issue. And what was done today, in my view, was a very serious a very serious usurpation of the two elected branches of government. By a handful of lawyers, not even nine six. Interposing themselves. It matters of international economics. Indirect taxation. Foreign policy. National security. And what did they come forward with? A burp. But a burp. A burp. That has an effect. An effect of. Creating confusion. Creating more litigation. More cases in front of these radical activists. Trial court judges. As I’ve said before, they took a case where they couldn’t cut the baby in half, and yet they’ve tried to do it. They’re not. Solemn, like in any respect. The fact is, despite all the propaganda from some lawyers, from trade groups, from businesses. People in the media and so forth and so on. The president has very broad powers in foreign policy and the idea that a tariff. Is not as related to foreign policy as it is to an indirect tax is ridiculous. And let me explain. The reason they claim it’s a power of a purse issue is because they argue if the president, say, puts a 10% tax on products coming from Botswana. Then that increases the price of that product when it’s imported into the United States, the importers pass that price on to you and me, Mr. and Mrs. America. Therefore, it’s an indirect tax. Now, that may or may not be true, but you can see how many steps you have to go to, how convoluted that is to reach that result. Maybe it’s the right result, maybe it’s the wrong result. I don’t much care. But when it comes to foreign policy, it’s a direct result. The foreign policy powers of the president under Article two, Section eight. It has a direct impact. Direct. Furthermore. This court, this Supreme Court, in the throes, bent over backwards to allow Congress to delegate. Its core functions that of legislating. To bureaucrats. So we create these bureaucrat bureaucratic offices and divisions and buildings. And it would it would delegate its court function of legislating to these entities in the executive branch. Now, how does that not violate separation of powers? So you literally have unelected. Individuals and agencies created by Congress delegated the power to legislate and hence raise taxes. Not indirectly, but directly through the regulations. How is that constitutional? And of course, not a single justice wanted to discuss that because the whole house of cards comes collapsing down. Doesn’t it? But it’s a point I continue to make because it’s important. There is no need for the court to do this. None. And the president does have other statutory options. And I’m sure he’ll use them and I’m going to talk about them on TV on Sunday. But even there. What if somebody brings a lawsuit? Wait a minute. You know, what statute is the broadest that he can use? Mr. Producer, over here, Smoot-Hawley. 1930. A lot of people say the Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930 helped caused the Depression. May well have, but it won’t here. And it gives the president enormous power to impose up to 100% tariffs. My guess is ultimately that’s where they’ll go. That perhaps they relied on the wrong statute, but perhaps they relied on a. A court that they thought. Had enough. Intelligence and integrity more than anything else. You do the right thing. Barrett is a mess as I read her concurrence. Gorsuch is digging and digging and digging and he finds fool’s gold. And Roberts. He’s got it all figured out. It’s a tax power. The purse belongs to Congress. Article one. That’s it. That’s it. That’s over. Which, of course, is absurd. It’s buffoonish. And yet. From his perspective, I suppose, and it’s not a good one, was the only way he could get five more votes. The all important six vote majority. Why did it take so long? Because he was negotiating with individual justices, seeing what they could agree with and not agree with. It’s highly political. What goes on? Highly political for a party that’s not supposed to be political, but it’s a lot of interpersonal politics that go on. Barratt What’s it going to take to get your vote? Corsets. What do I need to do to get your vote? Well, keep it simple and direct. I’ll write a concurrence. I’ll raise my own issues. Because I know I can count on the three libs on the court. They’re going to vote no against Trump no matter what. Now, this is what’s interesting to me. Those three justices, I guarantee you, if this were Obama Biden. Would have flipped, would have voted the other way for them. That’s all that matters. How can you support the New Deal? All the changes and constitutional interpretation that go with it. And yet here you find the president overreached when in fact, the strongest argument to me is this is a shared power. There’s no red line. There’s no firm line. There’s no wall between the two. It is a shared power. And we’re going to allow. The policy debate, the politics of it to work its way through. No, no, no. We got to get involved. Awful disgrace. I’ll be right back.
Segment 4
Here’s the president also today about the heat, about the Supreme Court decision. Cut five go since Liberation Day, there’s about $175 billion in tariff revenue that is now in limbo. Do you have to refund 175 billion? Thank you, Peter. Very fair question. They take months and months to write an opinion and they don’t even discuss that point. We’ve taken in hundreds of billions of dollars, not millions, hundreds of millions of dollars. And so I said, well, what happens to all the money that we took in? It wasn’t discussed. Wouldn’t you think they would have put one sentence in there saying that keep the money or don’t keep the money, Right. I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years. So they write this terrible, defective decision, totally defective. It’s almost like not written by smart people and what they do. They don’t even talk about that. Your question is very basic. It was the first question I asked also to make you feel good. I said, What about all the money that we’ve taken in? So they don’t discuss that. How crazy is that? It is crazy. It’s like they’re in a bubble and they are. They’re in a bubble. And so they dropped this in the president’s lap. A whole conglomeration of opinions. Well, there’s not a central opinion other than a central conclusion. Under one statute. And so a president now has to decide, well, how am I supposed to handle foreign policy and national security? What statutes can we use to continue to do what I feel we need to do in order? The deal with international commerce and so forth. And there are statutes and the court knows their statute. So why do this? And on top of that, $175 billion that have come into our coffers as a country. How are we supposed to unravel that? Meanwhile, they took the months to come up with this cockamamie, quote unquote, decision. Months. As money was coming in from these tariffs. You see, when you’re a judge or a justice, the real world implications of your rulings have no impact on you. On us. They do. That’s why they’re supposed to stay the hell out of policy. And that’s why in this case, they should have let the two elected branches duke it out. If they chose to duke it out because the president was not doing anything that was like extreme or dictatorial or anything of the kind. Period. I’ll be right back.
