In the latest installment of political drama, the Supreme Court is now in the spotlight as it grapples with the legality of tariffs imposed by the former president. It seems that members of Congress decided to play a riveting game of “pass the buck” without thinking through where the buck should actually land. The main question before the justices is whether Congress handed over too much power to the president to impose these financial burdens on imports. While tariffs are traditionally the domain of Congress, it appears the former administration decided to take matters into its own hands, potentially stepping over some legal lines.

Listening to the legal discussions, one can’t help but appreciate the fireworks as justices demanded evidence from both sides. It’s always amusing to watch legal teams squirm while justices insist on examining the exact wording of the laws in question. In essence, they were trying to find out if the president could indeed grab control and slap on tariffs without needing a thumbs-up from the congressional peanut gallery. And to those challenging the tariffs, the justices were just as quick to remind that, yes, other laws might be useful here, so perhaps all isn’t lost after all.

Now, let’s imagine a courtroom where the nine justices each have their own opinions about tariffs. They might applaud them as sensible tools of economic and foreign policy. But the rub lies in whether or not the president was playing with the right rulebook. Even if they believe tariffs could save the day, they may still decide that the White House should have taken a different route. A bizarre mishmash of legal gymnastics, it might lead to a delightful sequel where the president has to come back with a Plan B that adheres to the Supreme Court’s script.

Of course, in the world of big business and Wall Street, clarity reigns supreme. Corporations crave steady ground to forecast their profits and losses, not the rollercoaster ride of legislative uncertainty. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the tariffs, then the market can keep calm and carry on. However, if the Court deciduous that the administration acted without the right authority, it would mean refunding all that tariff money—a logistical nightmare that would give any accountant palpitations.

Amid this theatrical debate, the real-world backdrop is an economy that voters have on their minds. With inflation snooping around in everyone’s wallets and prices refusing to come down from their lofty perches, regular folks are less concerned with constitutional interpretations and more with making ends meet. Meanwhile, some college graduates are dabbling in the art of blaming capitalism for their economic woes, seemingly unaware that perhaps majoring in something other than an $80,000 liberal arts degree might have been wise. As this delightful episode of political theater concludes, one can’t help but anticipate the next act, eager to see who’ll take center stage in the halls of power.