It's odd to me that something as fundamental as 'can the President unilaterally impose tariffs on any country he wants anytime he wants' is apparently so ill defined in law that 9 justices can't agree on it.
[deleted]
Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court
271–280 of 1001 posts
Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court
#272I don't think tariffs should be imposed capriciously at the President's whim. But I do think tariffs are an appropriate policy tool that should be used to protect US companies against overseas competitors that get government subsidies or other unfair advantages: Low wages, safety regulations, worker protection, environmental rules, etc.
That's the issue: He used an emergency act passed in the 1970s designed for rapid response to other countries' "first strike" of economic hardship like the oil embargo.
Tariffs in general have not been touched at all, those that Congress wishes to pass. This is a ruling that the President cannot use the 1970s act to be a one-person economic warfare machine to the entire world when he doesn't like something.
Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court
#273Earlier quoted context omitted.
It'd be interesting if Biden had taken the new doctrine of presidential immunity to heart in the last few months of his term.
A true hero would have done whatever it took to pack the SC and then resigned.
"Whatever it took" is just appointing more judges. The president can do that. Unfortunately, the result would be that Trump would have just packed it the other direction and this case would have gone the opposite way.
Are you should that would have been a good idea?
Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court
#274Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t see how constitutional changes would help. The constitution already creates separation of powers, limits on executive authority, and procedures for removing an unfit president or one who commits serious crimes. But these only matter to the extent that majorities of elected and appointed officials care, and today’s ruling notwithstanding, there’s no political will to enforce any of them. The plurality of Ameri…
I think you're misunderstanding at least a little bit here. The Constitution created separation of powers, but what it did not do is explicitly block a particular branch from either abdicating their duty or simply delegating their power back to the executive. It's certainly an interesting situation that wasn't explicitly spelled out in the law. But as far as everything that's working, it's realistically all within th…
Worth mentioning, that goes the other way too... plenty of what should be executive power was delegated to congressional authority over the years as well. And it doesn't even begin to cover activist judicial practices.
The lines have definitely blurred a lot, especially since the early 1900's. And that's just between the branches, let alone the growth of govt in general.
Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court
#275I don't think tariffs should be imposed capriciously at the President's whim. But I do think tariffs are an appropriate policy tool that should be used to protect US companies against overseas competitors that get government subsidies or other unfair advantages: Low wages, safety regulations, worker protection, environmental rules, etc.
Agree, and it should be Congress decision.
Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court
#276Earlier quoted context omitted.
You think at some point america would get sick of having a billionaire gang of thieves in charge. Trump just gave himself a $10 billion dollar slush fund from taxpayers. Who stopped him? No one. This amount of money will buy you one great den. Noem wants luxury jets from the taxpayer. So. Much. Winning.
The irony is that Trump won on a message of "drain the swamp" which was supposed to address this issue. Instead it seems like it's more of just "replace the swamp" with his own guys.
The swamp has always been him and his buddies. Pure projection. Everything he spouts is always pure projection.
Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court
#277Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Oh, come on. They spy on Congress ( https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/lawmakers-demand-d... ). They likely don't even need to spy on SCOTUS. They just have to chat with Ginni Thomas. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/dec/30/ginni-thomas... "The conservative activist Ginni Thomas has “no memory” of what she discussed with her husband, the supreme court justice Clarence Thomas, during the heat of the bat…
Sadly people don’t have to remember. They have to be proven guilty.
Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court
#278I don't think tariffs should be imposed capriciously at the President's whim. But I do think tariffs are an appropriate policy tool that should be used to protect US companies against overseas competitors that get government subsidies or other unfair advantages: Low wages, safety regulations, worker protection, environmental rules, etc.
Yep, that's why you need to convince Congress of that fact, as has been done in the past. Tariffs absolutely make sense as a strategic tool. There is no strategy here.
Ever try to get Congress to agree on something without packaging in another thing?
Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court
#279It's odd to me that something as fundamental as 'can the President unilaterally impose tariffs on any country he wants anytime he wants' is apparently so ill defined in law that 9 justices can't agree on it.
The opinion should merely read
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises
(which it does, and expounds upon)
Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
You think at some point america would get sick of having a billionaire gang of thieves in charge. Trump just gave himself a $10 billion dollar slush fund from taxpayers. Who stopped him? No one. This amount of money will buy you one great den. Noem wants luxury jets from the taxpayer. So. Much. Winning.
The irony is that Trump won on a message of "drain the swamp" which was supposed to address this issue. Instead it seems like it's more of just "replace the swamp" with his own guys.
Every accusation from Republicans, without exception, is either a confession, a plan, or an unfulfilled wish.