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

421–430 of 568 posts

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#421

Post by wqaatwt »

margalabargala wrote: post #287
tptacek wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could say that, but they won't, because "unequal impositions or discriminations aforesaid" is a straightforwardly justiciable question. Deciding whether things are "unequal" or "discriminatory" is almost exactly what courts are for.

Nearly every country that Trump tariffed does have some sort of tariff on the US. Canada has a sizable dairy tariff, for example. Whether that dairy tariff is particularly onerous on the US, worth antagonizing our closest ally for, that would be the political question, but certainly it's definitionally unequal.

Right. The average tariff on US goods applied by the EU is 4.1% IIRC Canada was significantly lower. So having “some sort of a tariff” isn’t that meaningful on its own.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#422

Post by wqaatwt »

genewitch wrote: post #398
Terr_ wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yeah the much higher volume of fentanyl going FROM the US TO Canada is a huge issue. Other way around? Not so much in comparison.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#423

Post by StackRanker3000 »

genewitch wrote: post #398
Terr_ wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Between 2022 and 2024, 0.1% of all fentanyl seizures were at the northern border with Canada, vs ~99% at the border with Mexico. There’s also an (equally small, relatively speaking) reverse flow of fentanyl into Canada from the US. Not to mention that fentanyl trafficking is completely orthogonal to tariffs, except that the former is used as an excuse to utilize the latter to bully an ally.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#424

Post by growlNark »

roenxi wrote: post #380
growlNark wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> The sort of havoc Mao wreaked made the greatest state in the world in 2025 by any capitalist measure. Not in terms of the general welfare. If the question is "which peoples have the most money" the leaderboards are still dominated by historically capitalist economies in the US and Europe. Its true that China's trajectory is much more promising and their industrial policy has the west licked (although I argue mainly…

> No; the deal is massive wealth creation and rapid improvements in material prosperity.

It isn't necessary to let businessmen who likely aren't even loyal to the people who live here dictate how your state is run to get this benefit.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#425

Post by boroboro4 »

trealira wrote: post #219
thomastjeffery wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There are attacks on people's voting rights, but gerrymandering actually doesn't affect the presidential election in the US. The electoral votes are chosen by statewide popular vote, except in Maine and Nebraska.

> The electoral votes are chosen by statewide popular vote, except in Maine and Nebraska.

Which means it does :-) just not by much.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#426

Post by wqaatwt »

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.

In this specific case the congress is the one making trade policy (in non-emergency situations which obviously this is not..).

The congress never gave Trump the power to do this. Of course they didn’t refuse it either..

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#427

Post by codelikeawolf »

> The Trump administration argued in court filings that the plaintiffs are improperly questioning his executive orders, “inviting judicial second-guessing of the president’s judgment.”

Isn't this that whole "checks and balances" thing I learned about in school?

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#428

Post by gdilla »

codelikeawolf wrote: post #427

> The Trump administration argued in court filings that the plaintiffs are improperly questioning his executive orders, “inviting judicial second-guessing of the president’s judgment.” Isn't this that whole "checks and balances" thing I learned about in school?

No it’s the authoritarianism you learned in school

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#429

Post by _heimdall »

tptacek wrote: post #280
hcknwscommenter wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think that's directionally true in this case but not generally true: powers delegated to the executive branch by the Constitution can indeed allow the President to make up complete bullshit and largely avoid judicial scrutiny (at least with a conservative SCOTUS that believes in unitary executive power). (Case in point: Trump's travel ban last term).

> largely avoid judicial scrutiny (at least with a conservative SCOTUS that believes in unitary executive power).

Has the supreme court been refusing to hear an unusual number of cases against Trump.

I know the common feeling is that they have been siding with him more than usual, but that isn't avoiding scrutiny.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#430

Post by iamtheworstdev »

wredcoll wrote: post #243
curt15 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (other than being almost 100 years old) Age alone shouldn't disqualify a law. The law above all other laws, aka the Constitution, is more than 200 years old.

People love to say things like this, but much like electing an 80 year old president, it should perhaps be a trigger for a more thorough evaluation.

i don't think anyone would disagree that a law can "age out", but simply ignoring it because it's old versus revisiting it's intent and modifying/removing/etc are two very different strategies.
Post reply on HN