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

511–520 of 568 posts

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#511

Post by genewitch »

wqaatwt wrote: post #422
genewitch wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

when you say "from the US" can you explain exactly what you mean? and what sources you're drawing from to show that the fentanyl is coming "from the US" into Canada? I realize it sounds like i'm incredulous, but it's only because the US doesn't manufacture fentanyl. Canada does. Mexico does.

But alright, i guess people import it to the US to illegally traffic it back north. and somehow that makes a majority of the traffic! never stop learning, that's what i always say.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#512

Post by genewitch »

lerchmo wrote: post #446
genewitch wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Enough to kill is a meaningless metric.

It's millions of "doses." Fentanyl is a scourge, and all manner of language decorations are okay to use in my book. "little blue pills" certainly doesn't match the description of any common medications, like Sildenafil or Naproxen, so approximately zero people would have overdosed and died.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#513

Post by rayiner »

abduhl wrote: post #419
rayiner wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump is knee-deep in negotiating with foreign countries on trade deals using the tariffs as leverage. And the court must purported to kneecap him. Of course it’s an exercise of the President’s foreign policy powers, and that’s why Congress gave the President this authority over tariffs in the 1930 act. The major questions issue shows how out on a limb this court is. There’s currently a circuit split on whether MQD e…

>> Trump is knee-deep in negotiating with foreign countries on trade deals using the tariffs as leverage. This statement is completely speculative. There is no evidence that substantive negotiations are happening on any trade deals. >> There’s currently a circuit split on whether MQD even applies to the president. The president is not a party to this suit so I don’t understand what this statement has to do with anyth…

https://www.ft.com/content/aac26993-8be0-499f-bc08-9a59ed7f4...

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#514

Post by johnnyanmac »

wqaatwt wrote: post #454
mensetmanusman wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s impossible to get the effective tariff rate because everyone works around them with VATs and random things like movie ticket taxes for foreign films that are effective tariffs but not officially counted as such.

> around them with VATs That’s such an absurd and nonsensical thing to say. How did you come up with it?

in this day and age it doesn't even phase me. The president clearly doesn't care about coherent arguments, so why would anyone who potentially voted for him?

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#515

Post by abduhl »

jmyeet wrote: post #498
abduhl wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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. This misunderstands Chevron and the effect of its abandonment. Chevron stood for the pr…

This is incorrect. Chevron deference wasn't giving the executive branch sole power to interpret ambiguous statutes as you claim (despite your scary example). The so-called Chevron deference doctrine was simply that the Supreme Court ruled (~40 years ago in the Reagan administration) that if an agency is responsible for administering a statute that's ambiguous, that agency's interpretation should be deferred to. But t…

>> The so-called Chevron deference doctrine was simply that the Supreme Court ruled (~40 years ago in the Reagan administration) that if an agency is responsible for administering a statute that's ambiguous, that agency's interpretation should be deferred to.

This is a misstatement of what the law was. Under Chevron, the agency’s interpretation MUST be deferred to, not should. This is an affront to the separation of powers.

Agencies are not neutered. Nor are they prevented from interpreting ambiguous statutes post-Chevron. They are prevented from being the final say on interpretation. This is good, just, and in line with America’s constitutional regime.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#516

Post by johnnyanmac »

eru wrote: post #412
bruce511 wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like most things in life, tarifs can be used well, or used badly. Canada's Dairy Tariff is specifically designed to protect a specific local industry, which exists, is of national interest to keep, and which could come under threat from cheap alternatives imported from abroad. It's specific, targeted, and serves a valuable purpose. They have been in place a long time, and provide a stable trading environment making t…

> Like most things in life, tarifs can be used well, or used badly. I've yet to see a good use of tariffs.

The US has (has?) a huge tarriff, something like 200%, on Chinese EV's. This in theory would be good because it gives American manufacturers a chance to catch up and giving them a huge advantadge for selling to American customers.

in practice, it didn't work because the US really can't decide where it wants to go with EV's. Fighting over standards, some trying to keep holding things back to sell ICE vehicles, etc. Inflation also didn't help, so a lot of cars just blew up in cost. So because of the indeisive industry, the tarriff is just a safeguard instead of an opportunity.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#517

Post by mrtksn »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #502
mrtksn wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently US collected a record amount of tariffs in April, about $16B. So someone definitely paid that. Maybe for most consumer goods the companies ate that and took a hit until they figure out how to price things because TACO.

Is that a verified figure? Or are they like the DOGE "savings" figures? It's sad that it's come to the point of not being able to trust official government figures. That used to be a given, unlike some other countries (China being one).

It doesn't have anything to do with DOGE, that's just the tax the US importers are paying as a result of Trump tariffs: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/12/tariff-receipts-topped-16-bi...

It's just tax on consumption, the companies can choose whatever way to handle that(i.e. make less profit if they have the margins, increase prices if they can still sell it, go out of business etc. ).

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#518

Post by rayiner »

tristan957 wrote: post #474
rayiner wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 popu…

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

"Disenfranchisement" means legally or physically people from voting. Activists repurposed that term to attack any sort of rules and regulations around voting, with the specific purpose of making Voter ID seem akin to laws requiring a grandfather eligible to vote. The whole point is to muddle the facts rather than clarify them.

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

No, voting is a civic ritual and should be treated with an appropriate level of solemnity to engender trust in the voting system. Look at how Taiwan counts votes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUZa7qIGAdo. What's the purpose of the ritual? Surely a machine could count all the votes easily. But that's not the point. The point is to have a public exercise that people can see and easily understand, to build civic trust.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#519

Post by awesome_dude »

skissane wrote: post #409
awesome_dude wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Falkland Islands were also hit with a tariff that had little to do with the reality of a trade imbalance caused by anything other than they don't buy stuff. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5ygx81gpg6o

> Falkland Islands were also hit with a tariff that had little to do with the reality of a trade imbalance caused by anything other than they don't buy stuff. That they don’t buy stuff is only half the story. The other half is they export a lot of primary produce - to the US, primarily frozen fish. The US imports a lot of food so they are interested in Falklands fish. US exports are much higher up the value chain, an…

> That they don’t buy stuff is only half the story. The other half is they export a lot of primary produce - to the US, primarily frozen fish. The US imports a lot of food so they are interested in Falklands fish. US exports are much higher up the value chain, and Falklands having such a small population has rather limited demand for those high value exports-hence the inevitable trade imbalance.

How is this not what I'm saying?

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#520

Post by sorcerer-mar »

boroboro4 wrote: post #492
saghm wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that logic, a president wanting to tariff the whole world could just specify some small country as not included, and then it be foreign policy.

I don’t think tariffs being foreign policy gives the president full control over them because foreign policy is presidents responsibility. Tariffs have this duality between being foreign policy and budget. So I don’t have issue with Congress delegating some of the tariffs power to the executive in some circumstances.

You have this backwards. IEEPA gives the president the authority to use tariffs as a way to achieve a foreign policy goal.

What's the foreign policy goal of the blanket tariffs across every country? Hint: There isn't one.

Its stated goals are revenue generation (Congress's job) and domestic economic development (not foreign policy)

Post reply on HN