201–210 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. Despite all the talk and grand announcements of independence, most of the world wants globalization and worked for more of it, but maybe without the US (openings to china/india/LatAm). Now it will most likely be WITH the US. While the US may feel that globalization has been bad for itself (it hasn't - just look at the spectacular US economy) , the rest of the developed world is not in a position to revers…
I think that a lot of people would disagree that the economy is spectacular. People can't even afford to buy a home in a decent part of the country.
Is that because of scarcity? We’re manipulation? Or something else?
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.
And that it took this long to get an answer to that question.
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-...
Illegally taxing billions from we the people? Should be addressed immediately.
And they have done that before….
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…
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…
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.
Was that less bad than what Trump has done in one year? Yes. But Trump in his first term was less bad than this, and recency bias means that what we didn't like about Biden was more prominent in our minds.
But my option 4 looks just like your option 2 in terms of how people voted. I'm just saying that the motive may have been different.
Earlier 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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Joe Average knows he is getting fucked over either way
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s a tax on the US economy. A tax levied by individuals rather than the government itself. An ingenious scheme. Evil, but ingenious.
It's not a legitimate tax. That's why it taxed the economy much worse than a legitimate President would do.
Once again, count on hn for the downvotes. Yep, those shall not speak of downvotes, or taxation.