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

121–130 of 1001 posts

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

#121

Post by ReptileMan »

lapcat wrote: post #88
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 in 2024 asked for this It was 49.8%, which is not quite a majority. It's also worth noting that Kamala Harris received precisely 0 votes in the 2024 Democratic primaries. [EDIT:] I see that the parent comment has now changed "majority" to "plurality." If I could make one Constitutional amendment, it would be this: publicly finance all election campaigns, and make private contribution…

My first thought when I read the Biden resignation letter was - Harris endorsement is brilliant fuck you to the Dem insiders that are ousting him. I am still lowkey convinced that he voted for Trump out of pure spite.

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

#122

Post by 1970-01-01 »

raincole wrote: post #31
drunner wrote: post #9

Is it all speculation still at this point for what happens next? Like are they immediately void, does the govt have to repay importers the now illegal loss? Or is this just another "trump did illegal thing but nothing will happen" kind of scenario?

Trump govt will find another way to circumvent this and keep the tariff. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/02/cnbc-daily-open-trump-admini...

You can't get around the Supreme Court. Full stop. They can try, fail, and declare victory but they cannot find another way. They would literally be right back in the courts fighting their own consequences and punishment.

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

#123

Post by tfehring »

lapcat wrote: post #88
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 in 2024 asked for this It was 49.8%, which is not quite a majority. It's also worth noting that Kamala Harris received precisely 0 votes in the 2024 Democratic primaries. [EDIT:] I see that the parent comment has now changed "majority" to "plurality." If I could make one Constitutional amendment, it would be this: publicly finance all election campaigns, and make private contribution…

Fixed the “majority” claim.

I think a competent opposition party would be great for the US. But regardless of the candidate, US voters had three clear choices in the 2024 Presidential election: (1) I support what Trump is going to do, (2) I am fine with what Trump is going to do (abstain/third-party), (3) Kamala Harris. I think it’s extremely clear 3 was the best choice, but it was the least popular of the three.

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

#124

Post by maxwell »

jen729w wrote: post #14
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 Y'all have proven how worthless that piece of paper is.

What piece of paper is worth more to you?

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

#125

Post by carefree-bob »

edot wrote: post #24
Jamesbeam wrote: post #15

He better dusts off the good old auto pen. The man has a lot of cheques to write for the 175 billion he stole illegally from foreign countries.

What? You mean from American importers and therefore consumers? Foreign countries do not pay tariffs. This lie needs to stop.

You really believe that the incidence of taxation falls 100% on the buyer and never the seller? And you think those who have a more accurate view are "lying"?

Please learn a bit about the incidence of taxation: https://stantcheva.scholars.harvard.edu/sites/g/files/omnuum... The main models supporting your view is where consumer income is exogenous and all firm profits are redistributed to the representative consumer as a lump sum transfer: https://www.ief.es/docs/destacados/publicaciones/revistas/hp...

Please avoid simplistic beliefs and moral outrage for things as complex as trade policy. The people who say that the incidence of taxation falls heavily on sellers may just be better informed, particularly when listening to wall street earnings calls while simultaneously looking at the consumer price data.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIAUCSL

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

#126

Post by jeromegv »

fuoqi wrote: post #72
leopoldj wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The ruling was silent on whether tariffs that have been paid under the higher rates will need to be refunded." - from CNBC

This is why I mentioned "litigation" in my comment, i.e. you probably would need to separately sue the government if you want to refund the tariffs.

That's not how it works.

There is a normal process in place for importers/brokers to request refunds if a specific tariff was overpaid or a tariff was ruled to be illegal.

But if you imported through DHL and you were not the broker, that is more complicated, you might need to ask DHL for it, and they might not want to do it for you (as they don't have a standard process in place).

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

#127

Post by saubeidl »

jonkoops wrote: post #100

I wonder what this means for the EU. We made a new deal under pressure of the tariffs that is actually worse than the deal we had. If we had not bent the knee, we would have had that original deal back, or at least, so it seems? Now we seem to be properly shafted due to weak politicians.

We never actually ratified that deal.

Parliament froze it when Trump started threatening Greenland.

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

#129

Post by pawelduda »

uuuuuuurrrrr wrote: post #27

All of that pain for nothing. The Trump administration's signature policy achievements involve the DJT ticker and actual meme coins. I hope no republican sits in the oval office for 50 years, they're all responsible for enabling this madness and self-destruction.

Memecoins especially are so funny it's worth putting out some numbers:

- $TRUMP meme coin, down 87% from ATH

- $MELANIA meme coin, down 98% from ATH

- $WLFI, down 50% from ATH, with 4 Trump co-founders

The first two coins were actually hyped up so hard at launch that they drained liquidity from most of the crypto market because of people dumping everything to buy in

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

#130

Post by chrisweekly »

ajross wrote: post #49
dayyan wrote: post #13

This ruling impacts tariffs imposed by way of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which includes the reciprocal tariffs announced on April 2’s so-called “Liberation Day.” Bloomberg Intelligence estimates that roughly $170 billion in tariff revenues have been generated through February 20 via these policies. However, this ruling has no bearing on section 232 tariffs, which have been used to justify levies…

That's just bluster. The IEEPA nonsense was already the creative trickery deployed in defense of a novel and prima facia unconstitutional policy. If they had a better argument, they would have made it. And we know in practice that Trump TACOs out rather than pick real fights with established powers. Markets don't like it when regulatory agencies go rogue vs. the rule of law. They'll just shift gears to something else…

TACOs?
Post reply on HN