Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court • Hacker News Board

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

#181

Post by jajuuka » Fri, Feb 20, 2026, 4:19 PM UTC

munk-a wrote: post #133

lapcat wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Oh man that hits the biggest nerve in me. Never again should we allow primaries to be skipped. I don't care if the incumbent is the most popular candidate in history - running a primary makes sure the best candidates will be picked and refusing to run an election and then having the gall to suddenly anoint a chosen candidate was an absolutely disastrous decision. Democracy is a healthy process - I don't know why we b…

To be fair there were primaries, but the DNC only pushed Biden's candidacy. So there really wasn't any other candidates on all the ballots except uncommitted. When he dropped out in July their simply isn't enough time to run a functional primary and campaign for the vote in November. We can't really delay the election to have a primary. The delegates of the DNC do get to vote on who they want and by the time Kamala stepped in she did get the most votes.

It's really a problem of money though. The DNC really are the king makers when it comes to candidates. That and PAC money are the requirements to get a nomination. At least when it comes to presidency. Smaller elections you get more freedom to have a successful without such things. The whole system needs an overhaul unfortunately and I don't see any candidate from any party looking to fix that any time soon.

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

#182

Post by jorblumesea » Fri, Feb 20, 2026, 4:19 PM UTC

parineum wrote: post #142

dylan604 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but now SCOTUS can say they are not a rubber stamp for POTUS. "See, we just ruled against him. Sure, it's a case that doesn't really solve anything and only causes more chaos, but we disagreed with him. This one time."

> ...but we disagreed with him. This one time. They've actually done so numerous times already and have several cases on the docket that look to be leaning against him as well. There's a reason why most serious pundits saw this ruling coming a mile away, because SCOTUS has proven to not be a puppet of the administration.

Except for all the other blatantly unconstitutional rulings in his favor. Presidential immunity one will go down in history as a black stain on America and the courts.

and still this current ruling was a 6-3 vote.

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

#183

Post by Spooky23 » Fri, Feb 20, 2026, 4:19 PM UTC

coldpie wrote: post #153

taeric wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Holy crap, you couldn't make a story that is a more direct echo of the plot point in Wonderful Life if you tried.

If whoever runs in 2028 does not have a concrete plan for investigating & prosecuting every single person who worked under this admin from top to bottom, they are wasting everyone's time. We need to see hundreds of life-in-prison sentences by the end of 2029.

We’ll be dependent on New York for that, as potus will pardon everyone save for a few suckers at the end, assuming he leaves office in an orderly manner.

The purge of DOJ (They can’t even find confirmable US Attorneys at this point.) and the military officer corps makes that not a certainty.

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

#184

Post by saghm » Fri, Feb 20, 2026, 4:19 PM UTC

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…

> 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

This is kind of a bizarre whataboutism to throw in there. The current administration (with the full support of Congressional majorities in both houses that have largely abdicated any pretense of having their own policy goals) has been flouting constitutional norms pretty much nonstop for a year now and literally ignoring court orders in a way that probably no administration has ever done before, and yet the playbook they're following for extrajudicial activity apparently is from the Democrats? Just because there's bad behavior on both sides doesn't mean that the magnitude of it is equal, and in terms of respect for the rule of law the behavior of the current administration really has no comparison.

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

#185

Post by axus » Fri, Feb 20, 2026, 4:19 PM UTC

alephnerd wrote: post #6

raincole wrote: post #5

It feels like the US-Iran war is inevitable now.

A US-Iran conflict has been inevitable for decades. A nuclear Iran would lead to a nuclear KSA, Turkiye, UAE, Egypt, Qatar, etc and would make the Middle East more unstable. We don't need to put boots on the ground though. The reason why we had boots in Afghanistan and Iraq which led to it's unpopularity was due to our moral commitment to nation-building in the 1990s-2000s (especially after Yugoslavia). Americans no…

How many more years will it remain inevitable, do you think?

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

#186

Post by wiradikusuma » Fri, Feb 20, 2026, 4:20 PM UTC

"The ruling applies to his so-called "Liberation Day" tariffs, but not individual tariffs he's imposed on specific countries or products " -- So what's gonna happen next?

For countries that negotiated special treatment, they'll be stuck with a (now worse) deal?

For other countries, they'll return to the previous deal (non-tariff)?

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

#187

Post by simonh » Fri, Feb 20, 2026, 4:20 PM UTC

csense wrote: post #151

I 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.

They can be and are. The USA had tariffs on many products prior to Trump.

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

#188

Post by ryandrake » Fri, Feb 20, 2026, 4:20 PM UTC

coldpie wrote: post #153

taeric wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Holy crap, you couldn't make a story that is a more direct echo of the plot point in Wonderful Life if you tried.

If whoever runs in 2028 does not have a concrete plan for investigating & prosecuting every single person who worked under this admin from top to bottom, they are wasting everyone's time. We need to see hundreds of life-in-prison sentences by the end of 2029.

Unfortunately, we have a two party system, and neither side is going to do anything about it. One side is complicit and actively participating in the fraud and grift. The other side is all talk and no action. If they win, they'll spend four years making excuses about why they can't actually do anything. They had four years to prosecute and imprison Trump 1.0 and just... talked and sat on their hands doing performance art.

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

#189

Post by lotsofpulp » Fri, Feb 20, 2026, 4:21 PM UTC

coldpie wrote: post #153

taeric wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Holy crap, you couldn't make a story that is a more direct echo of the plot point in Wonderful Life if you tried.

If whoever runs in 2028 does not have a concrete plan for investigating & prosecuting every single person who worked under this admin from top to bottom, they are wasting everyone's time. We need to see hundreds of life-in-prison sentences by the end of 2029.

How many cops/prosecutors/judges/prison guards/government employees support this administration?

Doesn’t seem like a trivial task, given the Nov 2024 election results.

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

#190

Post by leopoldj » Fri, Feb 20, 2026, 4:21 PM UTC

duxup wrote: post #61

I don’t get what SCOTUS is up to as far as a practical matter goes. They’re hands off so the president can clearly gather illegal taxes. Then they change their mind. So what? The government gives the taxes back? Is that even possible? Next step what? Trump does something else illegal and SCOTUS majority sits on their hands for a year or more? SCOTUS majority’s deference to their guy has become absurd… the judicial br…

I am not a lawyer. But I think cases need to work their way up to SC. Before today's ruling a Federal Trade Court ruled the tariffs illegal [1]. And later, a Federal Appeals Court did the same [2]

The process takes time.

1. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/29/court-strikes-down-trump-rec...

2. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/29/trump-trade-tariffs-appeals-...