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

181–190 of 568 posts

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#181

Post by thomastjeffery »

rayiner wrote: post #142
MBCook wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You are so dead wrong I don't even know where to start.

Gerrymandering doesn't affect the presidential election? Surveys show how everyone would have voted? Do you even hear yourself?

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#182

Post by growlNark »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #162
growlNark wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You’re describing a court whose history traces closer to the founding of our republic than to the present day This is certainly no less damning. However, it is very illustrative of our colorful history: trade above humans!

> it is very illustrative of our colorful history: trade above humans Seriously lost on what point you're trying to make. Is it a general diatribe against specialist courts, e.g. dedicated family and traffic courts?

Well, sure. a trade court is a symptom of trade. You don't have a trade court without trade, just like you wouldn't have a family court without family or a traffic court without traffic.

But the entire premise of the private market is competition, or else it's just a blight on humanity. So the idea of a trade court seems a little silly at best, or actively enabling the worst hypothetical behavior of capitalism at the worst. If the court were really that necessary, the fundamental tenets of the alleged benefits of capitalism seem in question, and we should probably renegotiate at all costs with those who own the means of production.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#183

Post by Izikiel43 »

rayiner wrote: post #151
wlesieutre wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

He doesn’t have to convince the courts of that. The President makes foreign policy, not the courts. As long as the President is plausibly exercising a foreign policy power Congress gave him, the courts don’t get to reweigh the evidence and decide for themselves whether the trade deficits result from other countries placing trade barriers or something else.

Taxing things is Congress' responsibility, not the executive branch.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#184

Post by curt15 »

growlNark wrote: post #163

[flagged]

>Our constitution is something to feel shame for—this obviously no longer represents us or our values in any way. Why would we look to 18th century aristocrats that share basically no values with us to see ourselves? We have real rights we care about—shelter, healthcare, education, and food.

There's an Amendment process for updating the Constitution. It's been used many times, most recently in 1992.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#185

Post by drewcoo »

You know when a programmer first moves from rote understanding of syntax and running through tutorials into that mode where they're testing the limits of what a new (to them) language can do and how it performs? This reminds me of that. It just took Trump several years longer than I expected.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#186

Post by boroboro4 »

lolinder wrote: post #159
mangoman wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 emer…

"Aforesaid" is a very specific word that means that the "unequal impositions or discriminations" refers back to specific concepts previously referenced in the law. He can't (legally) just invent his own interpretations for what "unequal impositions" and "discriminations" entails, he has to convince a court that the specific actions he's retaliating against are covered by the "aforesaid" definitions. Here's the comple…

> It'd be very difficult to prove that discriminatory treatment for each and every one of the 180+ countries caught up in Trump's tariffs.

To be frank they will need to do this to 20, maybe 30 countries to cover most of it (money wise).

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#188

Post by JumpCrisscross »

growlNark wrote: post #182
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it is very illustrative of our colorful history: trade above humans Seriously lost on what point you're trying to make. Is it a general diatribe against specialist courts, e.g. dedicated family and traffic courts?

Well, sure. a trade court is a symptom of trade. You don't have a trade court without trade, just like you wouldn't have a family court without family or a traffic court without traffic. But the entire premise of the private market is competition, or else it's just a blight on humanity. So the idea of a trade court seems a little silly at best, or actively enabling the worst hypothetical behavior of capitalism at the…

> entire premise of the private market is competition, or else it's just a blight on humanity. So the idea of a trade court seems a little silly at best

You think private markets can exist without laws (and by corollary, venues in which to adjudicate them)?

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#189

Post by toomuchtodo »

siliconc0w wrote: post #180

I wonder if this means businesses can request the courts order the government to repay their unconstitutionally levied duties - especially when it meant it basically destroyed their ability to do business.

Congressional Research Service: The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA): A Legal Overview - https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R45732.pdf - April 17th, 2023

Wikipedia: Sovereign immunity in the United States - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unit...

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#190

Post by rswail »

tomschlick wrote: post #179
growlNark wrote: post #163

[flagged]

Then change it through amendments. However you likely wont be able to because not enough people agree with you to do so. Our constitution was made to be specifically hard to change unless a vast majority agreed. That's a feature, not a bug. If a change can't be agreed upon at the national level it should stay at the state / local level. > It should, however, cause people who voted for this (hypothetically dead or dis…

Or unless enough state legislatures vote for a constitutional convention, in which case, all of the constitution is up for grabs.

Whether the population of those states wants the change is irrelevant if the legislature votes for it (even if they lose the next election).

Post reply on HN