Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 568 posts

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#141

Post by eru »

lesuorac wrote: post #115
lupusreal wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last time America formally declared a war was 1942. Every war since then has been various shades of "special military operation". At least the American public does recognize them as wars, so there's that at least.

> At least the American public does recognize them as wars, so there's that at least. I'm not sure this is accurate. We have plenty of "wars" that aren't wars. Such as the annual "war on Christmas". Do we recognize them as "wars"? Or do we just use the word?

Metaphors are a thing. People can (mostly) tell the difference between a literal war and a metaphorical war.

I say '(mostly)' because while the 'war on Christmas' and WWII are clear cut cases, the war on drugs is an example that sometimes skirts closer to the border. Though it's still very much a metaphorical war.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#142

Post by rayiner »

MBCook wrote: post #80
whoisthemachine wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A plurality of Americans voted for this government, for better or worse. The courts are one of the primary avenues for the minority to express their will, but they move slowly, although slightly faster than congress.

That assumes a fair vote, which is arguable. Between Gerrymandering, purging voter roles, suits over who is allowed on the ballot, ID checks and associated issues I’m not sure it’s so clear cut. He won under the conditions the election was performed under. That’s clear. I’m not sure I could call those fair after years of attacks on people’s voting rights.

There are no “attacks on people’s voting rights.” It’s a canard Democrats trot out to energize their base, just like Republicans trot out lies about election fraud. For example, studies show voter ID doesn’t reduce turnout (but also doesn’t reduce fraud). https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/21/18230009/v.... Gerrymandering doesn’t affect the presidential election. But the GOP won the House popular vote by even more than Trump won the Presidential popular vote.

Extensive post-election voter surveys showed that if everyone had voted, Trump would’ve won by 4.8 points: https://www.vox.com/politics/403364/tik-tok-young-voters-202...

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#143

Post by eru »

lesuorac wrote: post #108
duxup wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GOP in congress has struggled, even last election cycle to gather enough votes to take action. They ran through several rounds where they couldn't even pick a house majority leader among their own party. The tariffs would be very difficult considering each of their local concerns.

Additionally, in the first Trump presidency congress temporarily removed the debt limit. I don't think there are even votes to do that now so compromising on how to fund the government is going to take a lot of effort (that can't be spent on tariff rates).

I wish they would replace the debt limit with something more sensibly designed like the German (or Swiss) debt brake ('Schuldenbremse').

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_balanced_budget_amendme...

The American debt limit regularly shuts down the government, but debt still keeps piling up. The German debt brake doesn't seem to shut down the government, but actually lead to a substantial drop in the debt-to-gdp ratio.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#144

Post by dylan604 »

l33tfr4gg3r wrote: post #69
thuanao wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not Congress - Republicans, who have a congressional majority.

... for now, and barely.

What evidence do you have for this? The democrats are showing nothing that suggests they will take either chamber of congress. Even if they got control of the house and actually impeached, the results would be no different than the previous 2 impeachments where the senate took no action. Even if they get control of both chambers, they'd have to have an over whelming victory to reach enough seats to secure a conviction since it needs a 2/3 vote.

The current administration is behaving exactly like they know this. They are also boosted by the fact that SCOTUS told essentially told POTUS that he can do whatevs without repercussions. He's even ignoring their direct orders, and still nothing.

You can call me pessimistic, but these are just the facts of the situation. You're optimism is based on what?

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#145

Post by crummy »

megaman821 wrote: post #94
duxup wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Usually I think saying both-sides is pretty lazy, but has any Congress in the last few decades done anything but delegate more of their authority to someone else? One party always complains about Executive Orders and interference when the other party is President, but then never curtails the power when they get a chance.

I remember Obama struggling pretty hard to get Obamacare through congress (and it ended up fairly watered down).

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#146

Post by mangoman »

wlesieutre wrote: post #137
mangoman wrote: post #121

I'm not a lawyer or even close to it, but why wouldn't the trump admin use the tariff act of 1930? quote: "Whenever the President shall find as a fact that any foreign country places any burden or disadvantage upon the commerce of the United States by any of the unequal impositions or discriminations aforesaid, he shall, when he finds that the public interest will be served thereby, by proclamation specify and declar…

He would have to convince the courts that I don't like having a trade deficit with anyone somehow means our trading partners are "placing a burden or disadvantage upon the commerce of the United States by any of the unequal impositions or discriminations aforesaid"

I don't think it requires the courts to agree - just that there's a burden or disadvantage and that it's in the "public interest" which seems like a pretty low bar to make up a story that sounds plausible. i think the idea that a trade deficit is a disadvantage is kinda brain dead, but it's plausible sounding enough to argue in court. throw in unequal tariff rates and it seems like an easier win than the IEEPA's emergency justification.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#147

Post by growlNark »

tnel77 wrote: post #12

Not saying this is good or bad, but this doesn’t seem surprising. Isn’t the point of our government structure to stop any one person from acting like a king. I’m surprised it took this long.

> Isn’t the point of our government structure to stop any one person from acting like a king.

America clearly forgot the workplace if this was the intent.

I would also stop holding your breath if you're expecting courts to start acting in our interest.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#148

Post by growlNark »

rayiner wrote: post #104
tnel77 wrote: post #12

Not saying this is good or bad, but this doesn’t seem surprising. Isn’t the point of our government structure to stop any one person from acting like a king. I’m surprised it took this long.

> Isn’t the point of our government structure to stop any one person from acting like a king. That isn’t the “point” of our government structure. The constitution deliberately mixes an electorally accountable deliberative body (Congress), an electorally accountable unitary executive (the President), and a judiciary insulated from elections. As explained in Federalist 70, the executive is unitary and “vigorous,” by de…

> What the constitution seeks to avoid is consolidation of all the government’s powers under a single entity

Yes, wealthy inter-state individuals would be so much better. Right?

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#149

Post by selimthegrim »

pwarner wrote: post #34
tnel77 wrote: post #12

Not saying this is good or bad, but this doesn’t seem surprising. Isn’t the point of our government structure to stop any one person from acting like a king. I’m surprised it took this long.

Congress seems to want a king?

Guarantee Clause forbids it.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#150

Post by mangoman »

bilbo0s wrote: post #125
mangoman wrote: post #121

I'm not a lawyer or even close to it, but why wouldn't the trump admin use the tariff act of 1930? quote: "Whenever the President shall find as a fact that any foreign country places any burden or disadvantage upon the commerce of the United States by any of the unequal impositions or discriminations aforesaid, he shall, when he finds that the public interest will be served thereby, by proclamation specify and declar…

it does cap it at 50% Pretty sure you're answering your own question.

...sigh... i mean i guess it really is just about saying they _can_ do it instead of actually _trying to do it_....
Post reply on HN