US Supreme Court Rejects Trump's Global Tariffs (reuters.com) 228
The U.S. Supreme Court struck down on Friday President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs that he pursued under a law meant for use in national emergencies, rejecting one of his most contentious assertions of his authority in a ruling with major implications for the global economy. From a report: The justices, in a 6-3 ruling authored by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, upheld a lower court's decision that the Republican president's use of this 1977 law exceeded his authority.
The court ruled that the Trump administration's interpretation that the law at issue - the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA - grants Trump the power he claims to impose tariffs would intrude on the powers of Congress and violate a legal principle called the "major questions" doctrine. The doctrine, embraced by the conservative justices, requires actions by the government's executive branch of "vast economic and political significance" to be clearly authorized by Congress. The court used the doctrine to stymie some of Democratic former President Joe Biden's key executive actions.
The court ruled that the Trump administration's interpretation that the law at issue - the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA - grants Trump the power he claims to impose tariffs would intrude on the powers of Congress and violate a legal principle called the "major questions" doctrine. The doctrine, embraced by the conservative justices, requires actions by the government's executive branch of "vast economic and political significance" to be clearly authorized by Congress. The court used the doctrine to stymie some of Democratic former President Joe Biden's key executive actions.
Don't Get Too Excited (Score:5, Informative)
They already said they had numerous other regulations to keep the tariffs going.
This just strikes down one. One.
Re:Don't Get Too Excited (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't Get Too Excited (Score:5, Insightful)
The permanent damage has been done and this weak decision upholds the fact no nation can trust the USA again.
To have any hope of undoing the harm they needed to "reach" out and simply repeat the constitution then slap down every tariff as completely out of bounds. Saying congress can't delegate it's own core power away in any of those laws... even then leaders of the world can see the slow collapse going on. To allow congress to remove itself is actually violation of the supremacy clause of the constitution; not that it matters, the court has been selectively ignoring the constitution for years.
Re:Don't Get Too Excited (Score:5, Insightful)
The permanent damage has been done and ...
That is the administration's goal. "You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride" as the saying goes.
They can do anything, and it will take months or years to tell them "No", by which point the action is already done. We have seen this with deportations (and later courts saying "No, bring them back..."), with National Guard deployments (and later courts saying "No, you can't do that..."), with military strikes on foreign nations (and later Congress saying "You should not have done that..."), with tariffs (and now the Supreme Court saying "No, you don't have that authority...") -all well after the fact. And all to no real effect. The damage has already been done.
Re:Don't Get Too Excited (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit. He can be impeached at any moment and kicked the fuck out by 'DC'. The Republicans are just evil selfish anti-American pieces of shit. Very simple.
Re: Don't Get Too Excited (Score:4, Insightful)
Fuck your 'both sides' bullshit. The depravity of the Republicans in Congress is plain for everyone to see. They are allowing the USA to be destroyed at an incredible pace.
Fuck your 'both sides' bullshit.
Re: Don't Get Too Excited (Score:4, Insightful)
Stop blaming honest people for not anticipating the actions of dishonest people. The Democrats merely tried to run an honest campaign on their values, something admirable. It's not their fault that a majority of Americans thought they preferred dishonesty. Honest people will forever have this weakness and will always be the most boring choice. The only defence against this is to have voters prefer the banal dullness of goodness and honesty over people who are rapists and crooks. That just isn't the US right now.
Remember Bill Clinton? (Score:2)
Actually I'd prefer to start with the joke: You mean someone implemented my literacy development app/game and the SCOTUS "justices" used it to learn to read the Constitution?
On your [Busman85's] comment, I want to agree with the two key points, but with extensions.
On the lack of trust, absolutely, and I think it's about to lead to a war, possibly a YUGE one. The Iranians may be crazy, but they aren't stupid enough to trust the YOB or his sycophantic negotiators. The talk about a diplomatic solution is just
Re:Don't Get Too Excited (Score:5, Insightful)
Those require a lot more legal work and they are all temporary measures. If they were easier then Trump would have started with them.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Exactly, these measures have all sorts of constraints, like that Trump can only impose a maximum tariff length of half a year. It won't stop his assault on America, but it will absolutely slow it down, significantly.
Re:Don't Get Too Excited (Score:5, Insightful)
Those require a lot more legal work and they are all temporary measures. If they were easier then Trump would have started with them.
Not just if they were easier, Trump doesn't like having to justify his actions to anyone else and get their approval -- Checks and Balances be damned.
Re:Don't Get Too Excited (Score:4, Interesting)
Correct. They can use Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 or Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. This is by no means the end of these counterproductive tariffs.
SCOTUS also ruled on the major questions doctrine he can’t just turn around and call these blanket tariffs sec 232 tariffs which he probably still will do but basically he could only do tariffs per country per commodity and if he’d just say all that would trigger the major questions clause again while they didn’t strike down all tariffs power the didn’t exactly make it very easy on him either
Re:Don't Get Too Excited (Score:5, Interesting)
Page 2: Held: IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.
Page 3: The Framers gave “Congress alone” the power to impose tariffs during peacetime.
Page 10: Judge Cunningham concurred (for four judges), reasoning that IEEPA did not authorize the President to impose any tariffs.
And so on. They were pretty clear that Congress would need to give an explicit, individualized authority to impose tariffs and they cite several laws and prior opinions that use broad language that they still struck down including Biden trying to dismiss education loans. Whatever route he chooses, to be legal, will need to a specific and limited power deferred to the Executive by Congress.
Re:Don't Get Too Excited (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever route he chooses, to be legal, ...
Hahahahahaha! Good one!
Even if he DID suddenly decide he needed to start following the law, he's got an incompetent attorney general giving him legal guidance. But the idea that he can't just do whatever he wants and declare by fiat that it's legal simply does not enter into his head.
I suspect he'll just try to do the same stuff using different (but still incorrect) legal justifications, figuring it'll be one or two years before the new case makes it (back) to the Supreme Court.
Re:Don't Get Too Excited (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't Get Too Excited (Score:5, Insightful)
The other regulations take time to implement and require Congress to get off their asses and work. That's why Trump tried to short-circuit the whole process.
Which is silly, since with complete control of the government - the executive, the legislative (both branches), and the judicial, you should be able to do anything you want the proper way. The problem is the proper way is slow, and it's designed that way because every change should be deliberate to avoid plunging everything into chaos.
All the tools were there to be used, all anyone had to do was actually use it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Democrats better hope Republicans find another way to keep this crippling tax increase, or else the economy might start recovering before the midterm elections. Republicans are making an enormous mistake, and Democrats are interrupting them.
Republicans: "Fuck America! Here, have the biggest tax increase of your entire lifetime! You wanted poverty and reduced individual rights, so here comes poverty and reduced individual rights."
Cold, Calculating Democrats: "Keep digging your own graves, Republicans!"
Bleedi
Re: Don't Get Too Excited (Score:2)
It's pretty clear that it will be a mess for the remainder of Trump's term no matter what happens.
Re: (Score:2)
It does mean a hundred billion dollars in lawsuits to recover illegal taxes though.
Re: (Score:3)
The people who paid the taxes are the ones who have standing to recover them. That will be the retailers, except for direct imports, i.e. when UPS brings out their card scanner of doom at your doorstep.
It's not a "corporate grab." It's your government breaking the law and creating chaos under the guise of made up "emergencies."
Re:Don't Get Too Excited (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, Trump will clearly do his best to continue to ruin the US economy and then claim he "saved" it and that without the tariffs everything would have been a lot worse and that, anyways, he is all that stands between the barbaric hordes and civilization. And the MAGA morons will believe it and cheer him on.
Re:Don't Get Too Excited (Score:5, Insightful)
They already said they had numerous other regulations to keep the tariffs going.
This just strikes down one. One.
Yes, but this route was chosen so that Trump could easily impose tariffs unilaterally on every country for the flimsiest (for lack of a better word) reasons, with the least reviewable justifications and limits, especially time.
Tariffs are usually imposed for a few specific reasons [investopedia.com], not because, for example, a foreign leader wasn't polite enough on a phone call -- Trump says he raised Swiss tariffs after leader’s call: ‘I didn’t really like the way she talked’ [thehill.com]
“So [the tariffs were] at 30 percent, and I didn’t really like the way she talked to us, and so instead of giving her a reduction, I raised it to 39 percent, ...
Trump is using tariffs simply as a cudgel because he really doesn't know any other way to negotiate, preferring to dictate terms and harassing people until they give up/in -- ask any contractor who's ever done work for him. Google: trump doesn't pay [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
But it's about more important things than tariffs. It's also about whether the Supreme Court will accept Trump exceeding his constitutional authority - in effect ignoring the constitution. Seems like the Republican majority SCOTUS isn't willing to go that far, and it reinforces the Constitution as the supreme authority in America, not the Chief Executive.
Re: (Score:2)
It was literally a rejection based on the stated reason for using the provision they did. They basically said "this is the wrong form. you need to go back and get a different form".
Re: So if this was a sane Court (Score:5, Insightful)
That doesn't mean the different form will work. If it was more likely to work then Trump would have used it.
Re:So if this was a sane Court (Score:4, Informative)
This would be the end of it because they would just strike down the other provisions.
No, they wouldn't, because that's not how courts work. They do not rule on issues that aren't in front of them, and with few exceptions, they rule as narrowly as possible on the issue that is in front of them. There are really good reasons for them to work this way, so you really want them to, even though it sometimes means that issues that are important to you get dragged out.
Note that I'm not saying this is a sane court, just that even if it were, it wouldn't have done what you want. This also isn't a completely insane court, though. It's a mixed bag that on balance is pretty bad, but not entirely. When faced with an issue that is as ridiculous as Trump's claims that IEEEPA, which isn't about tariffs, lets him set crazy tariffs based on an "emergency" he made up out of whole cloth, they rule 6-3 against him. With a fully sane court it would have been 9-0 with one or two blistering concurring opinions in addition to the restrained and lawyerly majority opinion.
But it still wouldn't address issues not properly before it.
Re:So if this was a sane Court (Score:5, Informative)
It takes rare kind of mental gymnastics to turn this SCOTUS decision into an accusation of partisanship,
What a statistical anomaly that the court finds in favor of the fat orange tub of shit 90% of the time.
https://truthout.org/articles/... [truthout.org]
https://www.americanprogress.o... [americanprogress.org]
https://www.brennancenter.org/... [brennancenter.org]
Re:So if this was a sane Court (Score:5, Insightful)
hat a statistical anomaly that the court finds in favor of the fat orange tub of shit 90% of the time.
That number is roughly accurate, but misleading.
What they have been doing (and it's bad, and wrong, but not quite as bad or wrong as the number makes you think) is giving him his way on temporary, emergency orders, then finding against him on the merits, as late and as narrowly as possible.
The consistent pattern is:
1. District courts find that he's doing something that's probably wrong and which creates risks of irremediable harm, harm that can't be fixed later when the court makes a final decision on the merits of the case, so the judge issues an injunction ordering the government to stop. The injunction is just a temporary "stop", while the courts decide if it's legal.
2. The government appeals the injunction, and loses. This is actually somewhat weird. Usually the government just obeys the injunction until the issue is decided.
3. The goverment appeals the injunction to the Supreme Court. Then this court does two historically very strange things. First, it actually accepts the appeal. SCOTUS hasn't historically done that, instead deferring those issues to the lower courts. Second, it stays the injunction, and does so with very little explanation, because honestly there isn't any good reason for doing it.
4. When the actual case eventually makes its way to SCOTUS, they agree to hear it, and then drag their feet as long as possible before issuing a ruling.
5. When they eventually rule on the merits Trump loses most of the time. 57% of the time, to be exact. That's mostly in his first term, though. In his second there have been only two cases with final rulings. and his record is 50/50... but that's even kind of misleading because the one he won was a procedural issue. If I were to assign some sort of weighting by subjective importance, I'd say his second term record is 90% loss.
I don't think there's any doubt that the current SCOTUS is ideologically biased and politicized in Trump's favor. There are two justices who, AFAICT, have never ruled against him, even when their history says they should have disagreed on the merits. But still, when the court actually has to write out opinions justifying their decisions -- and setting binding precedent in the process -- they go against him more often than not. Given how weak the administration's argument are in a lot of the cases before the court right now, I expect his overall win rate to plummet.
You're ignoring the shadow docket (Score:4, Informative)
With the shadow docket there isn't really a ruling just a legally binding order. It's something that is I think supposed to only be used for very very obvious scenarios where the court would be clearly unanimous. Meaning that it's supposed to be used rarely but this court has been using it Non-Stop.
I think a lot of people are trying to rationalize away the supreme Court corruption because the idea that an entire major branch of our government is corrupt is something people really don't want to think about. Frankly I can't blame you.
Re: (Score:2)
because the idea that an entire major branch of our government is corrupt is something people really don't want to think about.
Just the one!
Re:So if this was a sane Court (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So if this was a sane Court (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not OP but myself, being a fan of liberalism and American values (unlike the conservatives today) know you couldn't or shouldn't criminalize viewpoints or political affiliation.
However there is nothing stopping the rest of us from making being or associating with conservatives so socially repugnant that they should hide themselves in shame, disengage from having strong political opinions (because it's obvious they are incapable of understanding American institutions, law and values) so as to make conservatism politically irrelevant for the next 2 decades until they root out the rot they have allowed to take over their movement and come back to the table with sane people and sane policy.
Re: (Score:3)
You've set up a false dichotomy. Opposition to an authoritarian power grab does not mean advocating for Soviet-style communism.
Re: So if this was a sane Court (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The OP has become increasingly more unhinged over the years. He accuses me of being right-wing because my philosophy is that the government's function in our economy should be limited to providing guardrails and a safety net (to individuals, not corporations) for capitalism. More often than not, the free market produces a better result than our elected leaders.
Thing is, I'm honestly not convinced the OP would ever be happy. If he had his walkable city, he'd probably be complaining that the train is too c
Not worried about the refund (Score:3)
It's only $175B.
We were going to spend that much on debt over the next ~3 weeks anyway.
That's the USA in 2026 for you.
Re:Not worried about the refund (Score:5, Informative)
It's only $175B
That's about $500 per person in the United States. For many families, that's a big deal and would make a significant difference to them. It was taken through an illegal tax and should be returned to them.
It's going to be more than that (Score:5, Insightful)
Donald Trump basically did the single greatest middle class tax hike in American history short of counting when we instituted income tax for world War II.
Oh and he also let 33,000 violent criminals walk the streets so that he could redirect resources to rounding up dangerous 5th graders.
No joke that is the estimate number of additional actual criminals who are going to get away with it because they're just aren't any resources to track them down.
We really don't talk enough about what Trump is doing in terms that the average person can really relate to. Tax raises and criminals on the streets. That's what Trump's incompetence got us and you have to State it that plainly to people
Re:It's going to be more than that (Score:5, Informative)
Mmmmm the tax was paid when they bought the product. Not on their tax return. So yes anyone who bought just about anything in the last year has been impacted at the higher tax rate (tariffs). That is how they came up with the number.
Re: (Score:3)
Fuck me, another person who doesn't know how tariffs work.
Re: (Score:2)
estimated 60% of families have zero or negative income tax
The number is more like 40%; and this includes retirees, the disabled who live on government assistance, and most households earning less than $75,000 per year.
But to say they don't pay taxes is completely untrue. These families still pay sales tax, property tax, and all other non-income-based taxes, such as FICA and (if working) social security, medicare / medicaid, etc.
Re:Not worried about the refund (Score:4, Insightful)
It's only $175B
That's about $500 per person in the United States. For many families, that's a big deal and would make a significant difference to them. It was taken through an illegal tax and should be returned to them.
It won't be returned to families. It will be returned to the companies that paid the tarrifs and have already passed along those costs to consumers. There will be no incentive to pass down these refunds to consumers.
Re: (Score:3)
Worse than that. Howard Lutnick (Trump's Commerce Secretary) has been purchasing the rights to the tariff refunds from companies. So it's actually a member of the administration that will be getting that money back.
https://www.wired.com/story/ca... [wired.com]
Non-paywalled: https://www.rawstory.com/howar... [rawstory.com]
Re:Not worried about the refund (Score:4, Funny)
> It was taken through an illegal tax and should be returned to them.
That is a woke conspiracy theory! If you did not suffer from woke brain virus, you would know that China pays all the tariffs. Even for the European products we buy.
And Canada, Greenland and Iran have it coming.
Re: (Score:2)
Better a windfall bonus for those companies, than nobody getting any money back at all. Sure, consumers are worse-off victims than their vendors, but the vendors are nevertheless victims too. You can't really undo all (or even most) of the harm, but every little bit helps.
Re: (Score:3)
Even if you say that companies and customers are the victims, in todays WH guess who will get paid.
Wall Street firm goes to an importer and says, youâ(TM)ve now paid $10 million in tariffs. Iâ(TM)ll pay you $2 million right now for the right to collect the refund if courts ever end up deciding the tariffs were illegal. My friend had also heard that one of the most aggressive buyers was Cantor Fitzgerald, the firm until recently headed by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and now run by Lutnick
Re: (Score:2)
If you return the money to the one who actually paid it, in most cases you'll be giving it to large companies (Walmart, Costco, Amazon) who incorporated those tariffs into the prices that they charge their customers.
For most items, yes, but there were a number of items I had shipped directly to me from international producers and I paid the tariff directly (the postal service would not deliver until the tariff was paid).
Screed incoming (Score:5, Insightful)
However, you know damn well they're just going to find some other way to implement the asinine tariffs so he can keep toddle stomping every time his feefees get hurt. Then it'll take another year for the courts to invalidate that loophole, rinse and repeat ad nauseum until he's finally gone. Basically, we're stuck with this BS because the courts move at a glacial pace, with apologies to the glaciers.
So he's gearing up for war with Iran (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't me making shit up. It's in project 2025. They call it flood the zone.
Re: (Score:2)
It looks like he's going to use that to eat up this new cycle. Basically it's governing by insanity and chaos. Every single thing that he does is designed to cause so much chaos that it distracts you from the last thing he did. This isn't me making shit up. It's in project 2025. They call it flood the zone.
"Flood the zone with shit" is Bannon's phrase (and maybe someone before him), nothing really to do with Project 2025. The strategy is implicit in a lot of their plans, but they don't ever call it out as such.
Trump is a Kleptocrat (Score:5, Informative)
The USA started out as a federal republic but has since degenerated into a kleprocratic neo-feudalist banana-republic run by a criminal mafia oligarchy
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Trump is a Kleptocrat (Score:4, Interesting)
He is using his position of power to enrich himself
Here's an example... The Trump Organization is involved in a $1.5bn deal to build hotels, golf courses and luxury real estate in Vietnam, but under their laws the approval process usually takes 3-5 years. Trump threatening 46% tariffs on Vietnam on "Liberation Day". Shortly there after, Vietnam rammed through all the approvals in under 3 months, breaking several of their own laws, and Trump ultimately imposed only 20% tariffs on Vietnam.
- While in tariff negotiations, Trump group gets approval for massive golf resort in Vietnam [usatoday.com]
- Trump announces trade deal with Vietnam [bbc.com]
- Fistful of dollars and rice for Vietnam farmers displaced for $1.5 billion Trump golf club [reuters.com]
Every issue isn't a nail, so tariffs ain't hammers (Score:2)
In principle, I agree w/ the idea of tariffs. I'm not a "free trade uber alles" guy that most pre-2016 Republicans were, of the schools of Forbes, Kudlow, Limbaugh, Buckley, et al. In the 90s, even though I was pro-GOP on other things, I agreed w/ Dick Gephardt and David Bonior on the need to have fair trade - something that was echoed in Corporate America by the likes of Lee Iacocca, Ross Perot and to an extent, even Trump. All other nations have tariffs on foreign goods - regardless of whether they're
Re:Every issue isn't a nail, so tariffs ain't hamm (Score:4, Insightful)
https://www.philadelphiafed.or... [philadelphiafed.org].
USD is 60%, Euro is 20%,Yen and British pound are 5% each, and everything else is basically noise. Yuan, Rouble, Rupee and all the other currencies are basically rounding errors at the global level.
People who predict the downfall of the US and the USD will eventually be proved right, but that's like somebody telling me that I'm gonna die someday. Wow, sherlock, you're such an insightful genius! Is it gonna be tomorrow or next century?
Re: (Score:3)
Today it's at 60%. What was it two years ago?
Two details of the ruling: (Score:3, Informative)
1) 30% of Trump's tariffs were ruled legal.
2) The administration has been given one year before the tariffs have to be rescinded.
Re: (Score:3)
1) 30% of Trump's tariffs were ruled legal.
2) The administration has been given one year before the tariffs have to be rescinded.
I don't know where you're getting either of these from:
"Held: IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. The
judgment in No. 24–1287 is vacated, and the case is remanded with
instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; the judgment in No. 25–
250 is affirmed"
There are other tariffs still existing, that weren't challenged in this case, but there is no 12 month limit, and all the tariffs challenged in this case were ruled illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
The IEEPA were the 70% of the tariffs that were ruled illegal. From what I understand, all tariffs that Trump issued were challenged. The ones not issued using IEEPA were ruled legal.
Here's a link that explains that Trump's tariffs on steel and aluminum were ruled legal: https://www.nbcnews.com/politi... [nbcnews.com]
Regarding the 12 month delay to rescind the tariffs, I read this on a legal blog. I just did a search to provide the link and couldn't find it. So, this either means that this is wrong or I can't find the l
Re:Two details of the ruling: (Score:5, Informative)
Ah, I see the misunderstanding. So this case is specifically about the IEEPA tariffs. The legality of the other tariffs weren't challenged, or were not challenged in this case. The number you used, 30%, threw me for a loop. IEEPA is actually about half of the tariffs. You can read a pretty succinct summary on NPR here:
https://www.npr.org/2026/02/20... [npr.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The administration has been given one year before the tariffs have to be rescinded.
Shopping on that day is going to be crazy.
Kavanaugh is a weasel (Score:5, Insightful)
serious practical consequences in the near term
So Kavanaugh's basically saying "Even if the tariffs were illegal, they're so darned inconvenient to undo that the regime should get away with acting illegally."
Re:Kavanaugh is a weasel (Score:5, Insightful)
News flash: Random late-night postings on Truth Social do not constitute "bilateral trade agreements"
And any trade agreement has to be ratified by Congress and the equivalent institution in the other country. None of that has happened.
Re:Kavanaugh is a weasel (Score:4, Informative)
Also, Canada was very smart not to enter any of these stupid "agreements" with Trump that would be broken the very next week. It was obvious that the only approach to the irrational Trump regime is to stall negotiations and run out the clock until conditions in the USA change enough that people realize tariffs against allies are idiotic.
I fully expect Canada to slow-walk the CUSMA negotiations because there's little point in making an agreement the USA will break the next week.
Re: Kavanaugh is a weasel (Score:2)
Trump will blame everything on Canada anyway. . Really you say that like there is any way to win against Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
Listen, Trump is antagonized by anything. That's how narcissists are.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is going to fuck us over no matter what we do.
The only sensible path for Canada is to reduce its dependence on the USA. I realize our geographical position makes that a tall order, but we have to do it because the USA is absolutely untrustworthy nowadays and should be handled as an adversary nation.
Re: (Score:2)
News flash: Random late-night postings on Truth Social do not constitute "bilateral trade agreements"
And any trade agreement has to be ratified by Congress and the equivalent institution in the other country. None of that has happened.
That's mostly correct, but IMO it's worth understanding the nuances.
The "ratified by Congress" phrase indicates that you're thinking about the Constitutional treaty approval process, which requires a 2/3 vote of the Senate (no involvement of the House).
But that's not the only type of treaty the US enters into, and in fact it's the least common kind. Another important kind is the "Congressional-executive" treaty, in which the executive negotiates the terms and then takes it to Congress to pass as an ord
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Especially when you consider that many of these tariffs were ratified by bilateral trade agreements.
Precisely zero of the tariffs in question were ratified by a bilateral trade agreement. If they were there wouldn't be a case about it in the Supreme Court complaining about the Orange retard's unilateral decree.
Also fix your lead water pipes, your posts seem to be getting progressively dumber.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it is very reasonable to consider how undoing tariffs would actually work. Especially when you consider that many of these tariffs were ratified by bilateral trade agreements.
The tariffs didn't take a year to be enacted. They happened in a matter of weeks. Why would the reverse operation be any different? This entire time the republicans could have held a vote to take his tariff powers away. Perhaps you should be asking the people you voted for as to why.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but many announcements are limited in scope, tied to tariff carveouts, or remain “frameworks” rather than full FTAs requiring congressional implementing legislation [2] [3] [5] [6]. Followup scrutiny should focus on legal form (executive order vs. treaty/implementing law), detailed tariff schedules, and whether concessions become permanent or conditional on further implementation steps [15] [11].
Lip service.
here's a link to the decision (Score:3)
https://www.supremecourt.gov/o... [supremecourt.gov]
It's complex, lots of justices agreeing or arguing. It'll keep legal analysts/commentators busy for a while. But its core holding, "IEEPA does not authorize tariffs" is decided pretty comprehensively. (IANAL.)
Lock Trump Up Now (Score:2)
Trump should be locked up for this illegal use of power.
I'm hopeful: Tariffs fuck over conservatives too (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, remember, tariffs hurt American factories more than foreign ones because they pay tariffs on every piece of machinery and input. American cars have complex components going over the border for a step in Ontario, then coming back then going back to Detroit, then going back for another stage, etc...each border crossing incurs a tariff. Foreign factories only pay tariffs on the finished goods.
What's more powerful than asshole conservatives? Corporate America. Trump got them to bend the knee at his inauguration...Tim Cook will give him some gold trophy...but Apple is not happy about these tariffs, especially the unpredictability of them. The corporate world has stated many times that if DJT adds tariffs, they'll adjust accordingly...AKA raise prices....EVERY moron knows that. It's just a consumption tax.
What has frustrated Corporate America is the unpredictability...taxes are fine...it's just math to add extra cost to consumers, but not knowing how much to charge is total chaos and quite destructive. Let's say DeWalt tools wants to build their new storage and hand tools lineup in the USA. Chinese labor is now typically more expensive than building in the USA. Without DJT's asshattery, there is a compelling case for it. Any cost increase due to the USA enforcing regulations can be offset by less shipping costs and faster delivery to their main markets: USA & Canada.
OK, but now they can't predict price of Steel, chromium, vanadium, rubber, plastic, etc. A nice ToughSystem box sells for $130 retail. Let's assume Home Depot pays $65 per box. Let's assume they can be built and shipped from overseas for $40 in Israel (Keter, who makes Packout/ToughSystem is Israeli). Israeli labor is not cheaper than American labor and they pay a huge shipping cost. Keter could easily set up a factory in Alabama or Iowa and make that for $30...assuming 2024 tariffs....OK, now steel is more expensive...so they need to buy US steel, but...there's a shortage...so that's doubled in price. Injection molding machinery from Germany has gotten more expensive. Chrome plating materials from Canada got more expensive.
So if it costs $40 to make in Israel and $30 in the USA 3 years ago, what does it cost today? In the last 2 years, that price has changed nearly every month....$0.50 added one month $0.10 dropped another...then a tweet stating it will go up $5...but not hearing any follow up. How the fuck can you run a business? Few segments of the economy can adjust prices in real time.
However, the irony is you're fucking over American manufacturing more than overseas. Keter pays one tariff. A Chinese factory pays one tariff because they're selling a finished good. The American factory pays tariffs on every raw material used.
Not only is King Donald fucking over his voters who are facing shortages, price increases, and various form of price gouging in their daily lives...he's fucking over every Republican donor who can't make a business plan and go about their lives like responsible adult companies. Who is benefiting...really just him and his corrupt inner circle....not his donors, not his voters.
The Supreme Court...as shitty as they currently are...know they will outlive Trump, both literally and politically. The world is watching them. Their stupidity can wreck the economy. I would be amazed if they sided with Trump over the entire fucking US economy.
Re:It won't (Score:2)
Conservatives will be huddled around a burning garbage can on the street muttering "At least the libs are suffering too". They learned absolutely nothing.
Cars were never 100% made in America! (Score:2)
You create less jobs by insisting 100% comes from America...because there are things we ca
guess we're invading iran (Score:3)
regardless of the legality (Score:2)
Think prices will go down? (Score:2)
Don't hold your breath for lower prices. It will be profit time instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Additionally, the profits won't show up in your stock or retirement portfolio, they will be spent on Executive Compensation and dubious stock buybacks/s
Clarence Thomas Calls Out Neil Gorsuch (Score:2)
> Thomas disagreed with Gorsuch’s interpretation of early history, writing, “Justice Gorsuch’s interpretation of two 'early congressional debates,’... is thus difficult to reconcile with what early Congresses actually did.”
> He continued: “Since the 1790s, Congress has consistently delegated to the President power over foreign commerce, including the power to impose duties on imports."
https://www.newsweek.com/clarence-thomas-calls-out-neil-gorsuch-in-supreme-court-d
Somebody will pop a vein (Score:2)
Or update daily Aspirin to 1000mg.
I guess thats going to tax his patience (Score:2)
The Court? (Score:2)
"It's my opinion that the court has been swayed by foreign interests and a political movement that is far smaller than people would ever think," Trump said.
Someone swayed by foreign interests and a smaller than actual political movement you say? /s How much money have/are you, your family, and friends grifting from foreign leaders, countries (including the U.S.) and your 35% MAGA base?
The Constitution grants Congress the power to tax, not the President. Congress has authorized the President to do some of that unilaterally under very specific circumstances. You stretched the definitions to meet your agendas and SCOTUS said what you did / the way you did
Just like 1k "dancing Muslims" he saw on 9/11. (Score:2)
Foreign countries like Puerto Rico, Minnesota, New York, Houston...
Dirty deeds Trump might try (Score:2)
1. Get congress to give him the authority to implement any tariff he so desires. This would probably be attempted by reconciliation, or by filibuster reform.
2. If #1 fails. Then ignore the supreme court order. When the court issues an injunction, ignore that too. When the US Marshalls get directed by the court to arrest Trumps minions, trump fire everyone in the US Marshalls service. When Congress wakes up and tries to help the court by filing articles of impeachment against Trump, Trump sens in a hand-pic
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This very late and half-assed decision confirms that the so-called supreme court is little more than a rubber stamp for the wanna-be dictator pedophile and his clique who have been the worst enemy of the United States ever. Alongside their stupid voters like yourself.
Re:Judical independence (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there a day when you aren't thinking about trans people?
Re: (Score:2)
Okay joke, but I was hoping for more Funny on this story. Pretty sure my longer comment won't get the funny, but one of the jokes links in here. The guy you're responding to is different from the Iranians. He's both crazy and stupid. (And therefore your (and my) ad hominem response is thereby justified?)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Judical independence (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
>>This very reasonable decision reaffirms SCOTUS independence from the current administration.
No, it just demonstrates the internal division between the 3 Republican justices who realize Trump is destroying the economy (and with it any chance of maintaining power) and the 3 that have completely drunk the MAGA kool-aid.
Re: More from Justice Clarence Thomas (Score:2)
That's what their followers vote for. Lawlessness.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what their followers vote for. Lawlessness.
But only when their party is in charge ...
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, Clarence Thomas claims Congress already delegated the authority to impose tariffs to POTUS. But his opinion is the minority opinion.
Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, said:
The President asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope. In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it.
https://www.newsweek.com/clare... [newsweek.com]
Re: Apparently nobody reads shit... (Score:2)
It still means they have been illegal up until now and should be refunded.