Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

951–960 of 1001 posts

Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court

#951

Post by sealeck »

malfist wrote: post #937
davorak wrote: post #863

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I found the law: > SEC. 122. BALANCE-OF-PAYMENTS AUTHORITY. > (a) Whenever fundamental international payments problems > require special import measures to restrict imports— > (1) to deal with large and serious United States balanceof-payments deficits, > (2) to prevent an imminent and significant depreciation of > the dollar in foreign exchange markets, or > (3) to cooperate with other countries in correctin…

Its like going 70 mph in a sleepy subdivision because a road sign on the interstate says you can go 70 there. Trump is taking an law that says "You can do X if Y" and saying "I can do X" 150 days thing is just moving the goal posts.

> Its like going 70 mph in a sleepy subdivision because a road sign on the interstate says you can go 70 there.

> Trump is taking an law that says "You can do X if Y" and saying "I can do X"

I think it's more like going 70mph downtown because there's a sign saying "if onn an interstate you can do 70mph" -- the "if on an interstate" is pretty important there!

Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court

#952

Post by davidmurdoch »

carefulfungi wrote: post #931
lysace wrote: post #682

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://apnews.com/live/supreme-court-tariff-ruling-updates Furious about the defeat, Trump said he will impose a global 10% tariff as an alternative while pressing his trade policies by other means. The new tariffs would come under a law that restricts them to 150 days. Don't you americans have some kind of mechanism for removing a president from office when the trust is no longer there? I remember hearing a lot abo…

In the US, Congress has two parts: the House of Representatives (members proportional-ish to state populations elected every 2 years) and the Senate (two members per state with 1/3rd of the body elected every 2 years to a 6 year term). To remove the President (impeachment), requires the House to "indict" the President with a majority vote; and the Senate to "convict" with a 2/3rds majority vote. Both of these bodies…

> Both of these bodies are currently controlled by Trump's party

Is it not the other way around? The party controls Trump?

Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court

#953

Post by gorgoiler »

bgentry wrote: post #77

The actual decision: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdf

”Based on two words separated by 16 others, the President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time. Those words cannot bear such weight.”

Zing! Surprisingly spicy writing for such a gravely serious body.

Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court

#954

Post by 15155 »

sschueller wrote: post #4

The global damage has been done. It took too long and it looks like it will only be partially reversed. Constitutional changes are required for other countries to trust in the stability of the US in the future.

Good luck convening a Constitutional Convention in the current (or future) political climate.

Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court

#956

Post by paulryanrogers »

justin66 wrote: post #936
SunshineTheCat wrote: post #658

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still find it kinda wild that it's the Republicans fighting tooth and nail against any balance of power to... ... raise taxes

Rip van Winkle, let me tell you how they are treating conflict with Russia…

Primarily as extortion to enrich the first family and secondarily as a foil to undermine European dependence on US security commitments?

Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court

#957

Post by gdilla »

xnx wrote: post #57

Am I understanding this right? 1) US customer pays huge import tax on imported goods in the form of higher prices. 2) Seller sends the collected tax to the US government 3) US government will refund all/most of that tax back to the seller after this ruling 4) Seller gets to keep the returned tax money as pure profit (no refund to customer)

yes, because the US elected a clown, and this is the clown show.

Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court

#958

Post by SmirkingRevenge »

sigwinch wrote: post #949
bubblewand wrote: post #942

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read that as “when you use them correctly”. “Correctly” means building consensus so capitalists can expect the new trade framework they're operating under to be reasonably stable, signaling what you’ll do well in advance, then phasing it in, ideally also with a guide to what a phase-out will look like and why or when you would begin doing that. Also, you’d usually avoid tariffing too widely at once. Focused is far…

Sorry, yes, I wasn’t clear. The point I wanted to make was that this tariff strategy seems to fail propelling any job creation at all . To the degree that if it wasn’t tariffs but some kind of protection money, we’d more clearly call it a strategy.

Yes, this particular tariff regime is, well - completely insane and really is all downside.

But even under the best regime, they still are not great, and probably more harmful than helpful

Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court

#959

Post by paulryanrogers »

davidmurdoch wrote: post #952
carefulfungi wrote: post #931

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, Congress has two parts: the House of Representatives (members proportional-ish to state populations elected every 2 years) and the Senate (two members per state with 1/3rd of the body elected every 2 years to a 6 year term). To remove the President (impeachment), requires the House to "indict" the President with a majority vote; and the Senate to "convict" with a 2/3rds majority vote. Both of these bodies…

> Both of these bodies are currently controlled by Trump's party Is it not the other way around? The party controls Trump?

The GOP has been transformed by Trump. It's much bolder, more shameless, nakedly corrupt, openly hypocritical, and unafraid of burning bridges with allies who have supported the USA for decades (some for centuries).

As the sun downing continues the direction of influence may start flowing the other way.

At this point my guess is those physically closest to Trump have the most power. They control whom he speaks to last before opening his mouth.

Re: Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court

#960

Post by cma »

zerocrates wrote: post #851
defrost wrote: post #845

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because the law being invoked here has a time limit unless Congress extends it. Like many similar US laws it probably has a time limit expressed in lapsed Congressional days . Heavy emphasis on "Congressional days". Catch me up here, has the Congressional "clock" (count of lapsed days) been restarted since the current admin shut it down as almost the first order of business for 2025? https://news.ycombinator.com/it…

The IEEPA one works where it can last as long as the "emergency," which Congress can vote to end. The "days don't count as days" game just lets the House have an easier time of not bringing it up for a vote. This other authority is different: it's limited within the law to 150 days and then has to be extended by Congress. So the same kind of strategy of just avoiding a vote doesn't work here. They could monkey with t…

> it's limited within the law to 150 days and then has to be extended by Congress.

Isn't that one also limited to targetted tariffs? He's applied it worldwide...

Post reply on HN