Clarence Thomas terrifies ex-judge as he shrugs at existential question

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas alarmed a retired judge Tuesday as he broke from all of his colleagues on a question that poses an existential threat to the U.S.

Writing in Newseek, Ex-Judge Thomas G. Moukawsher wrote that Thomas shrugged when asked if Congress should hand its entire power to the president of the U.S.

Moukawsher's observation came days after the court slapped down Trump's tariffs as illegal in a 6-3 ruling. Thomas was in the miniority.

"Several justices wrote opinions supporting the basic result and two wrote in opposition," Moukawsher wrote. "But too many of the words throughout the 164 pages of discussion were about how to use the major questions doctrine and whether it’s a doctrine, a bit of pragmatism, or unnecessary. A fascinating bit of scholarship, but it missed the chance for a clear ruling on a major question for our time: Can Congress allow presidential dictatorship?

"Worryingly, for Justice Clarence Thomas, the answer appears to be 'yes.' Thomas argued that with but a few exceptions, Congress can give its entire power to the president.

"We can be grateful he was alone in this view."

Overall, the latest ruling goes a long way to improving the Supreme Court's recent abysmal approval ratings, he wrote.

The tariff ruling emerged from Trump's reinterpretation of trade law language. Existing legislation granted presidential emergency powers to "regulate" or "prohibit" imports during national security, foreign policy, or economic crises, the ex-judge wrote.

"Trump interpreted "regulate" to encompass tariff authority. He declared fentanyl and unfavorable trade balances national emergencies, then deployed tariffs globally as negotiating leverage. Compliant nations received tariff relief, while those Trump viewed unfavorably faced increased rates.

Six justices recognized this as constitutional overreach—replacing policy judgment with personal preference. Chief Justice John Roberts led the majority in two critical holdings: rejecting Trump's argument that tariffs differ from taxation, and invalidating his claim to unilaterally impose taxes without Congressional authorization.

But a significant concern remains unaddressed, he wrote. Congress should never voluntarily surrender core constitutional powers to the president, regardless of good intentions. Such abdication would effectively eliminate Congress and undermine democracy itself.

Justice Neil Gorsuch approached this issue most directly, asserting that legislative consensus produces wiser taxation policy than individual presidential judgment. However, no justice adequately emphasized this fundamental danger.

The decision focused on whether Congress granted Trump specific tariff authority rather than whether Congress could constitutionally grant such power. The Court applied the "major questions doctrine," requiring Congress to explicitly authorize major powers rather than assuming such intent. Two justices dissented from this framework.

But Thomas dissented, arguing that Congress can delegate virtually all its powers to the president except in a few very narrow circumstances.