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

101–110 of 1001 posts

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

#101

Post by andsoitis »

munk-a wrote: post #74
tfehring wrote: post #56

Earlier 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…

The majority of American voters can be as dumb as they want - the two big failures here are the legislature and the judiciary. The judiciary let an obviously illegal thing sit for far too long while the legislature is too partisan to actually take actions against the administration (except in the case of the Epstein files which has been surprisingly admirable and a rare ray of light in the last year). If the majority…

Are you arguing voters in a democracy are not even a little responsible for the outcomes of their vote?

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

#103

Post by ceejayoz »

stevenwoo wrote: post #78
pavlov wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many countries that have functioning constitutions that are regularly revised. It’s not impossible for the USA to get there one day.

We still haven't fixed things caused by putting chattel slavery into the Constitution almost 150 years after a civil war.

Hell, we deliberately left it in.

> Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

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

#104

Post by munk-a »

mongol wrote: post #21
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.

> Constitutional changes are required for other countries to trust in the stability of the US in the future. For sure. Question is what would be enough to regain trust? I don't really see it happening

Genuinely, I think the US is pretty doomed if the Trump family and administration cronies aren't stripped of their wealth, tarred and feathered. If it is known that being president is a great way to make a bunch of money through corruption and there are no consequences then we'll be in the same situation as the Roman Republic in the waning days before Caesar. Caesar himself was funded by Crassus to make sure Crassus wealth making tactics stayed legal and grant him a big payout in the form of a rich governorship. Towards the end of the republic that sort of quid pro quo was standard operating procedure and if it happens and goes unpunished - if those benefiting see any positive RoI - then it'll just happen more and more.

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

#105

Post by ceejayoz »

tfehring wrote: post #56
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.

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 don’t see how constitutional changes would help.

At the very least, we need a clarification on presidential immunity.

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

#106

Post by andsoitis »

SilverElfin wrote: post #93
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.

This is probably true. Even before this ruling Trump and Bessent and Lutnick have spoken about how they would react to such a ruling. And it looks like they’re going to do the same thing Democrats do when they don’t like a SCOTUS ruling, and try to implement the same tariffs in a slightly different way to effectively ignore the ruling. We have to fix this. The Supreme Court’s rulings and the US Constitution have to m…

> If Trump wanted to use tariffs as a tool for emergency purposes, he should have just taken action against China.

What is the emergency with China?

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

#107

Post by throwawaysleep »

uncletomscourt wrote: post #89
edot wrote: post #40

Howard Lutnick and his sons are surely happy about this. It’s almost like Howard Lutnick, the Secretary of Commerce , knew this would happen. His sons, at their firm Cantor Fitzgerald, have been offering a tariff refund product wherein they pay companies who are struggling with paying tariffs 20-30% of a potential refund, and if (as they did today) they get struck down, they pocket the 100% refund. https://www.financ…

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.

Trump has a long record of stealing from Joe Average and had been doing it since between 2016. Joe Average thinks he’s clever for doing it.

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

#108

Post by expedition32 »

fullshark wrote: post #12
franktankbank wrote: post #2

Can't say one way or another whether the power of the president was abused in this case but its a sad state for businesses who can't get started because of flip flopping policy. I'm for the tarrifs, its absolutely ridiculous to think only Wall Street matters.

Just because businesses / wall street doesn't like something doesn't mean it's necessarily good for every day Americans. The tariff vision of on-shoring manufacturing and reliving the glory days of the post WW2 era was rooted in fantasy. The US simply cannot compete given its labor costs and actual manufacturing know-how. Perhaps this is an overdue wakeup call, and a freak out is in order regarding this reality but u…

I was watching the Olympics. They have these really cool drones that follow the skiers down the slope at 80 kph. Chinese drones...

If only you knew how bad things really are.

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

#109

Post by elAhmo »

I am still baffled by the notion that Trump and co. managed to spread the 'other countries are paying for the tariffs' narrative into mainstream and having so many world leaders bend over just to have them not imposed. Knowing they are short-lived, unpredictable, illegal, and in the end hurting the US consumers primarily.

Sure, if there is a huge tariff on something, the user might look for an alternative, causing lower sales and, therefore, damaging the source company and economy, but for many products there isn't really a US-available substitute.

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

#110

Post by munk-a »

mamonster wrote: post #84
kojacklives wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

>In 2021 the US had the its best opportunity to date to assemble a military tribunal to try and then execute a President It's completely foreign to the US or the Anglo-Saxon world in general. The military as the final guarantor of state security is a continental European thing (and removing this has been the goal of many army reforms in Europe since the end of WW2).

The modern anglo-saxon world has been pretty limited in this respect - but Charles I of England is an excellent example of pretty much just this playing out and being solved with a national razor.
Post reply on HN