US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal • Hacker News Board

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#521

Post by abduhl » Thu, May 29, 2025, 9:00 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #513

abduhl wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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...

This is as “knee deep” as his 200 deals that were “made” a month ago.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/25/trump-200-trade-dea...

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#522

Post by skissane » Thu, May 29, 2025, 9:01 PM UTC

awesome_dude wrote: post #519

skissane wrote: post #409

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. 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…

Because you didn’t mention the fish exports. If they didn’t export all that fish, and still didn’t buy much, the US would quite possibly have a minuscule trade surplus with them instead of a tiny trade deficit

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#523

Post by xigency » Thu, May 29, 2025, 9:09 PM UTC

acdha wrote: post #176

xigency wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. As someone with libertarian ideals I dislike both of these parties (almost) equally.

As a former libertarian I have a hard time squaring that philosophically with not saving most of your dislike for the people attacking habeus corpus, the rule of law, ignoring judicial rulings, etc. There is plenty to dislike about the Democrats but this is a completely new level of assault on core libertarian principles.

Oh for sure, I've gone as far as trying to get people to change their votes to avoid what we're currently putting up with. But you can't argue that each party paves the way for the other's abuses. Consider the average age of congress and the amount of power the executive branch now holds.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#524

Post by awesome_dude » Thu, May 29, 2025, 10:10 PM UTC

skissane wrote: post #522

awesome_dude wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Because you didn’t mention the fish exports. If they didn’t export all that fish, and still didn’t buy much, the US would quite possibly have a minuscule trade surplus with them instead of a tiny trade deficit

Right so a trade imbalance which by definition is someone selling more than they buy, needs to have someone explicitly say that they were selling stuff... in order for you to understand the point??????

Go you.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#525

Post by Marsymars » Thu, May 29, 2025, 10:50 PM UTC

skissane wrote: post #350

awesome_dude wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah - the tariffs imposed on the islands with little to no population are definitely because nobody buying anything is blame for the fact they have a surplus

That was stupid but also practically irrelevant-if an uninhabited territory has zero exports, you can set the tariff as high as you like, with no exports nobody is going to pay it. To be clear, I don’t agree with these tariffs and think they are a mistake, but I think we should focus on their real world harms not a silly administrative error We know how it happened: Heard and McDonald Islands is an uninhabited Austra…

> That was stupid but also practically irrelevant-if an uninhabited territory has zero exports, you can set the tariff as high as you like, with no exports nobody is going to pay it. To be clear, I don’t agree with these tariffs and think they are a mistake, but I think we should focus on their real world harms not a silly administrative error

If the administration put out all their executive orders in spelling-mistake-riddled crayon, it would also be “practically irrelevant”, but it would similarly show the level competence behind the tariffs’ implementation.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#526

Post by Marsymars » Thu, May 29, 2025, 10:56 PM UTC

KPGv2 wrote: post #341

rayiner wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The President makes foreign policy, not the courts. A tariff is not foreign policy. It is a tax levied on American companies.

It’s also levied on non-American companies. I still wouldn’t count it as foreign policy though.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#527

Post by lobsterthief » Thu, May 29, 2025, 11:04 PM UTC

pjmlp wrote: post #343

Great, now does it matter? The current administration is doing their own laws and no one seems to actually be willing to stop it, like in many authoritarian countries.

And the brain drain will continue…

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#528

Post by Marsymars » Thu, May 29, 2025, 11:04 PM UTC

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.

There are any number of examples:

Wyze importing electronics: https://9to5google.com/2025/05/01/wyze-floodlight-shipment-c...

Various accounts of individuals getting tariffs tacked on for wedding dresses: https://old.reddit.com/r/weddingplanning/comments/1kdirg4/wi...

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#529

Post by mikem170 » Fri, May 30, 2025, 12:35 AM UTC

nl wrote: post #265

megaman821 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Usually I think saying both-sides is pretty lazy, but has any Congress in the last few decades done anything but delegate more of their authority to someone else? One party always complains about Executive Orders and interference when the other party is President, but then never curtails the power when they get a chance.

One can't claim this without addressing Obama's (correct) decision to follow the spirit of the law and not push through[1] Merrick Garland when Republicans refused to conduct committee hearings[2]. [1] https://newrepublic.com/article/138787/obama-can-put-merrick... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_...

That's half the story...

As you said, McConnell and the Republican Senate refused to hold hearings on Obama's Supreme Court nominee, in March more than seven months before the election 2016 election - "Give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy" said McConnell. [1]

The other half:

Four years later, they had no problem confirming Trump's nominee in late October, not two weeks before Trump's 2020 election - and McConnell said "The precedent only applies when different parties control the Senate and the White House." [2]

To me the inconsistency seems contrary to the spirit of democracy.

[1] https://www.republicanleader.senate.gov/newsroom/remarks/mcc...

[2] the precedent only applies when different parties control the Senate and the White House

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#530

Post by skissane » Fri, May 30, 2025, 12:36 AM UTC

awesome_dude wrote: post #524

skissane wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you didn’t mention the fish exports. If they didn’t export all that fish, and still didn’t buy much, the US would quite possibly have a minuscule trade surplus with them instead of a tiny trade deficit

Right so a trade imbalance which by definition is someone selling more than they buy, needs to have someone explicitly say that they were selling stuff... in order for you to understand the point?????? Go you.

I thought what you said was missing important details, and it was worthwhile to state them explicitly. Even if you don’t see any value in that, maybe someone else will.