Live data from Hacker News

US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

bloomberg.com

331–340 of 568 posts

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#331

Why is this country insisting on this ridiculous infighting? Why do you have a democracy if your bureaucracy is set up to resist the person the people elected? Didn't this exact sort of thing happen when a democrat was elected, the republicans basically stonewalled all progress? Now the dem bureaucracy is stonewalling the republicans? Is this how checks and balances is supposed to work? Am I being naive in thinking i…

> country insisting on this ridiculous infighting? Why do you have a democracy if your bureaucracy is set up to resist the person the people elected

The president doesn’t have the powers to handle tariffs, Congress does. This was the mockery of democracy and the courts are finally stepping in.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#332
post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? American and European CEOs voluntarily move manufacturing to China, now everything gets made in China. And that's somehow China discriminating western countries?

I believe the reference here is that there are fairly protective trade policies in China, and they are similarly mercurial about what passes. See cases of IP theft, if you’re partial to IP as a concept (I’m not). They’re certainly not a laissez-faire paradise. Granted, merely terking our jerbs isn’t a good argument for slapping massive tariffs on them. There’s probably a different thread on this but, TACO and the dam…

You'd think, by this point, they'd realize if you don't want your IP stolen, don't send it to China. At least make them work for it, like everyone else.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmmm, I think a "pardon factory" would counter that. (not supporting anything about the current strategy... just pointing out that the "line in the sand" doesn't imply that any individuals would actually get in trouble)

Yeah, but then you're depending on a notoriously fickle and unreliable person wanting or remembering to do that when the time comes. Sure, if you're a true believer in the cause you'll take that risk, but a majority of the people in any administration are opportunists, not ideologues.

So far, his modus operandi seems to be "You and what army?"

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s an argument that the Tariff Act of 1930 is unconstitutional, which is a different argument.

No, it's an argument that your interpretation of the act is (pretty clearly) unconstitutional.

I’d love to live in a world where non-delegation was such a robust doctrine. But “you can set tariffs if you find that other countries are being unfair” (paraphrasing) is a more than intelligible principle supporting Congress’s delegation.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#336

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…

That is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the judicial, legislative, and executive branches are set forth in the constitution. The co-equal branches are supposed to check and balance each other. Merely making up a "story that sounds plausible" but is in fact "brain dead" should not be enough for the courts. That should be such an obviously losing argument that the executive is immediately injunction to cease whil…

"should" carries a lot of weight here.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and half the country will cry that the courts are being ignored and justice will rain down soon, and the other half will say hell yeah, ignore those woke courts. Thing is, I think support for these tariffs is way less than 1/2 of the country. Even parts of MAGA have been expressing doubt about the tariffs (or at least the hamfisted way they've been implemented).

Apparently up to about 40% support them, depending on the poll. [1] That 40% seems absolutely unshakeable in their support. No matter what happens, that group will support it. And 40% is pretty close to half. [1] https://www.progressivepolicy.org/polling-u-s-public-is-agai...

It's not like people are just closing their eyes and trusting in leader. I'm part of that 40% (and probably substantially more given contemporary pollsters difficulty in reaching people like me [1]), and I think my rationale is quite sound. The fundamental reason is that we are creating an unsustainable system. When Germany chose to limit imports of Russian gas, they wrecked their economy. Many people, blinded by hindsight, wondered why they would have created such a dependency to begin with.

But that completely ignores the fact that literally every other nation, including the US most obviously, has excesses of dependencies on other countries, many of which we aren't friendly with today, and even more that we won't be friendly with tomorrow. Times change. An 'advanced economy' is a misnomer, if not an outright facade. Supplanting agriculture, real manufacturing, and other core aspects of your economy with e.g. advertising driven high tech discretionary industries creates an inverted dependency. People don't need iPhones or Google. They do need food, the zillion things in your home labeled 'made in China', and gas. If those 'lesser economies' chose to stop selling to the US, they'd destroy the country.

Offshoring all of these jobs also distorts the economy driving excesses of wealth inequality. Many of the jobs that used to lay between flipping burgers and writing code are the exact ones that have been hollowed out by offshoring. The fundamental problem we've created is that it's cheaper than make a widget half way around the world and ship it here than it is than it is to make it here. So how do we fix this? Tariffs are a blunt way to change this, but change it they do. The most probable outcome is that these providers will simply increase their prices which will, in turn, enable and motivate domestic competition and/or incentivize these companies to create onshore operations.

[1] - https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/05/polling-20...

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#338

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"

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…

> just that there's a burden or disadvantage

You're omitting a key clause: a burden or disadvantage . . . by any of the unequal impositions or discriminations aforesaid

The "unequal impositions aforesaid" are:

1. a country that imposes duties/tariffs on the US but "is not equally enforced upon the like articles of every foreign country"

2. discriminates "in such manner as to place the commerce of the United States at a disadvantage compared with the commerce of any foreign country"

So the law only gives authority for retaliatory tariffs when the US is specifically being targeted.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#339

Why is this country insisting on this ridiculous infighting? Why do you have a democracy if your bureaucracy is set up to resist the person the people elected? Didn't this exact sort of thing happen when a democrat was elected, the republicans basically stonewalled all progress? Now the dem bureaucracy is stonewalling the republicans? Is this how checks and balances is supposed to work? Am I being naive in thinking i…

> Is this how checks and balances is supposed to work? Yes, check and balances assume a conservative* theory of government in which politicians should be restrained and changes should be require overwhelming support to implement. *- not conservative in the sense of political ideology, but conservative in the sense of attempting to conserve.

White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller said to X, "The judicial coup is out of control."

This is starting to sound like `Wool`

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have a narrow so small that passing tariffs would still be politically difficult even though they control both chambers, and that is not even considering a filibuster. I hope this judgement stands, however, trade actually works out really well for the US economy and its job market. Yes, we don't often manufacture the thing, but we have huge roles in designing those things and packing them with software. Even Chi…

Three of the post senior citizen Democratic representatives died in office so far so the margin is actually getting bigger as time goes on, the GOP had room to make multiple mistakes on the budget bill where one GOP rep fell asleep and didn't vote and one rep was present but just missed the deadline to vote. The Democratic senators have not shown the spine to put a hold on any appointments or pull a Tuberman and not…

> Three of the post senior citizen Democratic representatives died in office

None of those deaths are in swing districts.

Fetterman was always a right of center politician, the only reason he isn't a Republican is that the Republicans simply do not do moderates anymore.

Post reply on HN