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

391–400 of 568 posts

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#391

Post by ndsipa_pomu »

skissane wrote: post #361
aetherson wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have most favored nation status with most other countries, so they generally don't have any other nation that is getting better terms than we do. That's the point of the WTO.

> We have most favored nation status with most other countries, so they generally don't have any other nation that is getting better terms than we do. That's the point of the WTO. However, MFN status is full of exceptions. For many countries, the US could plausibly argue that they are being discriminated against despite having MFN status due to one of the exceptions to it

They would surely have to convince the court that the exceptions were "unreasonable" which would be a higher bar than just declaring that there is an exception (i.e. an exception for a specific reason is not "unreasonable")

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#392

Post by trog »

givemeethekeys wrote: post #366
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.

I still can't find evidence of anyone that has actually paid tariffs - nothing seems to be 3x more expensive compared to before the tariffs supposedly kicked in.

I work for a freight forwarder. We have some customers that exported to the US and were hit with the boosted tariffs. Only a few smaller air freight shipments, so not container loads full - they decided to eat the extra cost to try to keep momentum, just on those shipments.

But it was only ever a short term strategy; if they had persisted they would have had to reconsider.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#393

Post by rayiner »

KPGv2 wrote: post #347
rayiner wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The acts give him the power to enact tariffs under certain conditions Right, but the “condition” in the law is that the President first makes a “finding” that other countries have engaged in unfair treatment. The president only needs to convince the court the finding has been made. But whether a trade deficit results from trade barriers or something else is a decision that Congress has delegated to the President to…

> The president only needs to convince the court the finding has been made. It's unclear to me if you think this is just a true statement of how Executive power works, or if you are arguing that the correct standard of review for a very restricted legislative delegation of authority is rational basis scrutiny.

I don’t think even rational basis review applies here, because there’s no constitutional right or due process issue. Courts simply don’t get to supervise this particular arrangement on the substance.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#394

Post by somenameforme »

forgotoldacc wrote: post #390
somenameforme wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you make comments like this, it makes it sound like you think Germany tying their entire country's economy to Russian gas was a reasonable thing to do, because it's just trade after all. I'm trying to avoid straw manning you because I am certain you don't believe this, but your argument would suggest you do. There is self beneficial trade, and there is trade which risks imperiling your own national stability if…

America isn't tied to any single country. Adding tariffs to discourage trade with every country on earth (except Russia, which was exempt from tariffs, while other sanctioned countries like Venezuela were not) isn't anywhere near equivalent to making one's entire energy sources dependent on another country. You're likely arguing against someone else you've built up in your mind and definitely about another topic. It…

Germany isn't a "trap". They're a crystal clear illustration of the problem with no hypotheticals necessary. Their economy is in recession, businesses are collapsing, and and their "solution" is to swap one dependency for another.

All the while they're left entering into unprecedented levels of debt just to try to keep their economy from outright collapsing. The most likely outcome for them is long-term stagflation and decline (be it relative or absolute). Germany as we knew it in our lifetimes, well dependent on your age I suppose, is probably dead. Creating dependencies on other countries isn't smart.

The point of the tariffs is to raise the price of foreign products, enabling domestic competition and/or to encourage foreign producers to create onshore production facilities. You're not isolating anybody or anything. Some companies will try to eat the costs, others will pass it onto the consumer. In general though, trade is still 100% possible - it simply makes it possible for domestic entities to competitive more effectively.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#395

Post by forgotoldacc »

somenameforme wrote: post #394
forgotoldacc wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America isn't tied to any single country. Adding tariffs to discourage trade with every country on earth (except Russia, which was exempt from tariffs, while other sanctioned countries like Venezuela were not) isn't anywhere near equivalent to making one's entire energy sources dependent on another country. You're likely arguing against someone else you've built up in your mind and definitely about another topic. It…

Germany isn't a "trap". They're a crystal clear illustration of the problem with no hypotheticals necessary. Their economy is in recession, businesses are collapsing, and and their "solution" is to swap one dependency for another. All the while they're left entering into unprecedented levels of debt just to try to keep their economy from outright collapsing. The most likely outcome for them is long-term stagflation a…

>Their economy is in recession, businesses are collapsing

>All the while they're left entering into unprecedented levels of debt

So is America because of the tariffs and tax cuts for the ultrarich.

Also, a lot of the tariffs were delayed or canceled. Is that a good idea?

Also, those canceled tariffs were brought back. Was that a good idea?

Those brought back tariffs were also delayed again. Was that a good idea?

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#396

Post by heylook »

palmotea wrote: post #364
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 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" Why? If the GP quoted the law correctly and the plain-language reading is also the legal one, it's all about what the president finds as fact. I don't s…

This is covered in the ruling. The courts get to decide whether the executive's use of delegated legislative power (levying taxes) is both constitutional and within the bounds of the relevant legislation. They don't simply take the executive at their word, and in this case specifically there are several examples, such as the tariffs that are supposed to be about fixing fentanyl. Cited legislation requires a specific emergency justification, and the tariff has to meaningfully address the issue. The court rules that the justification of "it's suddenly a fentanyl emergency and making our own citizens pay additional tax will make China do something" isn't close to fitting within the statutory and constitutional framework.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#397

Post by heylook »

ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #391
skissane wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We have most favored nation status with most other countries, so they generally don't have any other nation that is getting better terms than we do. That's the point of the WTO. However, MFN status is full of exceptions. For many countries, the US could plausibly argue that they are being discriminated against despite having MFN status due to one of the exceptions to it

They would surely have to convince the court that the exceptions were "unreasonable" which would be a higher bar than just declaring that there is an exception (i.e. an exception for a specific reason is not "unreasonable")

So many people in here are making the same mistake. The whole purpose of the courts is to decide whether some behavior does or does not fit within the confines of some statute. They don't just say "oh yeah whatever you say, go ahead." This very decision is just several instances of the court saying "the law says you can only tariff when X. you said X is true, but it's obviously not, so you can't tariff."

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#398

Post by genewitch »

Terr_ wrote: post #256
lolinder wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

> Trump's tariffs. Republican tariffs, they're complicit. Literally every single Republican in the House voted to shield Trump's "national emergency" [0] from being challenged as invalid. [0] The National Emergency of... a relatively small amount of fentanyl seized at the Canadian border.

The amount of fentanyl (just fent) siezed through April of this year since January was enough to kill 700,000 people. I guess you can disbelieve the story that car part vsndors were trafficking fentanyl, but it is a problem.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#399

Post by heylook »

rayiner wrote: post #313
davorak wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> id the President make a finding? Here, the President did make a finding. At that point, the courts' jurisdiction gives way to the President's discretion. This seems incorrect > cases in which the Executive possesses a constitutional or legal discretion In this case though the laws wording would determine where the discretion starts and ends. "... whenever he shall find as a fact that such country—" so the president…

The court’s power is limited to determining whether the President made a finding in the nature of the finding required by the law. What the court can’t do is then second guess that finding—analyzing it substantively to determine whether it is correct or not.

That's just not true. This case is a specific example of exactly the opposite. Read the opinion. It's literally a panel of federal court judges, one a Trump appointee, going through each justification and calling bullshit on each one.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#400

Post by heylook »

k4shm0n3y wrote: post #273
Aurornis wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The President makes foreign policy, not the courts The courts aren’t making foreign policy. That’s a strawman argument. The President also doesn’t have unlimited powers. It’s President, not King or Dictator. The President must act within the powers granted by law. The court has determined this act was outside of the law.

No question the executive has had its powers extended beyond the original vision, but I don't often see the same criticism of the judiciary. Judges are more akin to a monarch than the US executive (courtroom is their kingdom), with very little recourse for ordinary citizens.

Except judges can't do anything proactively and are forced to rely on the executive to enforce their decisions and the legislative to fund them. Really, they're absolutely nothing like a monarch. Especially compared to the guy who appoints all the secretaries, commands the military, and decides foreign policy.
Post reply on HN