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

471–480 of 568 posts

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#471

Post by tristan957 »

synergy20 wrote: post #437
charliea0 wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a lawful order is enjoined by a district court, you can appeal to higher judges. If the higher judges agree with the district court, then you can appeal to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court agrees with the district court, then the order probably isn't lawful.

this could take years, which essentially blocks whatever the executive branch wanted, quite effectively at minimal cost.

Judges doing bad faith rulings can be removed by Congress. Checks and balances works.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#472

Post by tristan957 »

synergy20 wrote: post #439
anonymous_panic wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're nearly all banned because they're nearly all illegal. The president is not a king. If Trump followed the law, this wouldn't be happening.

except most of the orders are blocked by the opposite party judges, I would not call it 'illegal' until it went through the supreme court, problem is that it could take years, so the opposite party judges can block pretty much every order at the whim of whatever.

Where are the stats for your claim?

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#473

Post by ajross »

palmotea wrote: post #456
helsinki8 wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Finds as fact" isn't the same thing as imagines/thinks/claims. Facts are still different than opinions, that statute doesn't give him unchecked power to declare any crazy idea as fact.

> Facts are still different than opinions, that statute doesn't give him unchecked power to declare any crazy idea as fact. I don't know about the president, but IIRC, juries have a quite wide latitude decide what facts they find ("In Anglo-American–based legal systems, a finding of fact made by the jury is not appealable unless clearly wrong to any reasonable person", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trier_of_fact ). S…

No, it's precisely the opposite. The choice of that term isn't to empower the president, it's to clarify that such a decision is a "fact" in the legal sense and thus subject to judicial review. In point of fact the page you link says explicitly that courts (and not the executive branch) are the government organ responsible for determining facts.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#474

Post by tristan957 »

rayiner wrote: post #468
tristan957 wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gerrymandering can have an effect, but I'm not sure how to measure it. Gerrymandering contributes to voter disenfranchisement. If you have been disenfranchised for the 3 years before the presidential election, why would you then choose to participate in the elections in the 4th year? To me, that number has to be non-zero, but it isn't obvious if it's anything significant. For instance, how many Democrat supporters ju…

I’m a republican in Maryland. Am I “disenfranchised?” That terminology is just activist wordplay. It is insanely easy to vote in America. Also, Trump is the one who performs better among your supposedly “disenfranchised” voters. The folks who didn’t vote in the last 3 elections were more likely to vote for Trump in 2024: https://amac.us/newsline/elections/trump-victory-explained-n... . The only group Harris won were…

I'm not sure how you can call disenfranchisement activist wordplay. It makes me not even want to engage with you.

Just because someone didn't vote doesn't immediately mean the reason was disenfranchisement.

Given you live in Maryland, how can you claim voting is easy in the the entire US? Are you familiar with voting laws in every state and how elections can be weaponized by the state governments against certain populations?

Easy voting would mean drive thru voting, mail in voting, automatic voter registration, not weaponizing polling locations, etc.

I think you are taking your lived experiences and applying it to everyone. Are you elderly, disabled, a single parent, or are you living in poverty? Do you have immediate access to your birth certificate or a passport? Do you have a government ID at all? Do you have access to transportation? All these factors play into how easy it is for someone to vote.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#475

Post by rayiner »

jmyeet wrote: post #411
genewitch wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chevron decision told Congress to do its fucking job and stop delegating it to the for-profit entities the regulations are supposed to apply to, unchecked. The story of how it made it to the supreme court is a good one, about having to pay an inspector to ride on every fishing trip... I don't see how this diminishes congressional power, unless you consider delegate count a sign of power.

This is a conservative talking point to justify stripping Congress of power. The whole reason Chevron came into existence is because it's impossible for Congress to pass explicit regulations for every little thing as soon as it's needed. So agencies were instead given broad legislative mandates like "keep the water clean" or "manage fish stocks" because it was impossible to enumerate every circumstance. So for 40 yea…

Filling in “details” was the conceit of Chevron, but that’s not how it was used in practice. The agencies were creating vast new programs from whole cloth and demanding that courts defer to their interpretation of the statute as allowing it. Moreover, it has the effect of making it impossible for the legislature to count on the executive actually honoring compromises and trade offs baked into the legislation.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#476

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#477

Post by CamperBob2 »

rayiner wrote: post #403
worik wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Here, the President did make a finding That is very interesting. It assumes that the president is truthful

It doesn’t! The relevant issue is allocation of power (who gets to make the finding), or the substantive merits of the finding itself.

So there is no remedy available to those who are wronged by a false or fraudulent "finding?"

We're pretty sure there's at least one fatal bug in the Constitution, thanks to Kurt Goedel [1], but I don't think anyone has definitively nailed down just what the bug is yet. Maybe this is a candidate.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_Loophole

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#478

Post by rayiner »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #477
rayiner wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn’t! The relevant issue is allocation of power (who gets to make the finding), or the substantive merits of the finding itself.

So there is no remedy available to those who are wronged by a false or fraudulent "finding?" We're pretty sure there's at least one fatal bug in the Constitution, thanks to Kurt Goedel [1], but I don't think anyone has definitively nailed down just what the bug is yet. Maybe this is a candidate. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_Loophole

Please read Marbury carefully. There is a remedy! An electoral one.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#479

Post by JamesBarney »

rayiner wrote: post #255
wlesieutre wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does the law list specific conditions in which the president can apply the law if the president can apply it for any reason he wants? Surely there's a mechanism through the courts for someone to challenge illegal tariffs on their imports if the president declares "There's a 50% tariff on everything because I woke up in a bad mood today and it's unfair of other countries to be doing that."

> Surely there's a mechanism through the courts for someone to challenge illegal tariffs What you're describing is the Marbury tail wagging the Article II dog. The focus of the Constitution is allocation of power . The focus isn't creating a system where courts micromanage how the other two branches of government exercise that power. Marbury therefore goes to great lengths to draw lines between an executive's "minist…

"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..."

That quote is from the Tariff Act of 1930. The government didn't argue this was the authority for the presidents actions.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#480

Post by davorak »

duxup wrote: post #35
firesteelrain wrote: post #26

It’s not the end of this saga. Prior administrations, Republican and Democrat, have enacted tariffs without additional congressional approval.

Congress granted some options to the executive branch to do so. The justification given by this administration to act independently is legally absurd.

My understanding is that in 2024 that some power of congress to delegate to power to the executive was limited in "Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo" over turning(partial I assume, I am not well versed in this) the opinion called "Chevron deference" from "Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council".

So the Supreme Court at least puts limits on what/how congressional powers can be delegated.

Post reply on HN