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

291–300 of 1001 posts

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

#291

Post by grosswait »

singpolyma3 wrote: post #258
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…

Is a refund even likely? Seems more likely the administration orders everyone to ignore the court.

Why does that seem more likely? They haven't done that yet.

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

#292

Post by sjm-lbm »

singpolyma3 wrote: post #258
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…

Is a refund even likely? Seems more likely the administration orders everyone to ignore the court.

If you read the opinions, it's even less clear. The majority does not make it at all clear whether or not refunds are due, and Kavanaugh's dissent specifically calls out this weakness in the majority opinion.

Even if the executive branch's actions stop here, there's still a lot of arguing in court to do over refunds.

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

#293

Post by linhns »

idontwantthis wrote: post #246
ceejayoz wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'd be interesting if Biden had taken the new doctrine of presidential immunity to heart in the last few months of his term.

A true hero would have done whatever it took to pack the SC and then resigned.

The most stupid idea ever. Biden, despite his frailties, was conscious enough not to do this.

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

#294

Post by BurningFrog »

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.

America is pretty sick of both parties.

Had the Democrats ran a half decent candidate, they could easily have won. But they're just not capable of doing that.

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

#295

Post by tracker1 »

lhopki01 wrote: post #222
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…

I'm not sure why Americans are so certain that their system of separation of powers is the right one. Most countries don't separate the executive and legislative like that. The executive is whoever can command the support of the legislative. If you think about the US system it makes no sense. An executive can just ignore the rules created by the legislative by just not enforcing it and the only means to stop that is…

The difference is in cases where the parliament chooses the executive is it leads to it's own collusion and corruption in terms of excessively growing govt... not that it's barely held the US from doing so. The point is to be in an adversarial context in order to resist overreach of govt.

For better or worse, our system today isn't quite what it was originally designed as... The Senate was originally selected by the state govts, not direct election... the Vice President was originally the runner-up, not a paired ticket and generally hamstrung as a result. The VP didn't originally participate in the Senate either, that came after WWII.

The good part about the constitution is there is a reasonable set of ground rules for changing said constitution with a minimum that should clearly represent the will of the majority of the population. (corrupt politicians not-withstanding)

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

#296

Post by luke5441 »

saubeidl wrote: post #172
jonkoops wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great! Then the next step would be to simply pull out.

Yup. EU institutional slowness working out in our favour once again heh.

I do think that was by design. They of course knew that there would be a big chance of it being struck down.

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

#297

Post by duxup »

estimator7292 wrote: post #289
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…

The government gives back overpaid taxes every year, and there are long-established mechanisms to deduct qualifying purchases from your tax burden. If we lived in a functional society, one might expect that tarriffs could be refunded through the normal income tax refund process hinged upon supplying recipts of tarriffs paid. I do not expect this to happen in the USA.

Individual tax refunds are far different than this.

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

#298

Post by tombert »

furyofantares wrote: post #152
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)

Why do we repeatedly say that tarrifs are passed off in full to the consumer in the form of higher prices? Isn't that as obviously wrong as the argument for them, that they're paid entirely by the other countries? Is there a reason to believe, or evidence, that it's not a mixture of the two? edit: I want to highlight esseph's reply has a link to evidence that last year's tarrifs were passed off 90% to consumers, whic…

What an odd thing to say.

The businesses in the other countries are, you know, businesses. Even if it were Chinese companies that were paying the tariffs, that will be baked into the cost of the good.

This is literally first-day economics. No such thing as a free lunch. The cost of the item that the end user pays should reflect all costs associated with production and distribution to that end user.

I have no idea how the fuck the rumor that these tariffs will be “paid by other countries” started. If there are suspicions that the tariffs are temporary then they might be willing to eat the cost temporarily so it’s not passed onto the consumer immediately, but that’s inherently temporary and not sustainable especially if it would make it so these companies are losing money.

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

#299

Post by grosswait »

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.

I think the precedent has been set - proactive pardons for all, every administration from now on

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

#300

Post by Ajedi32 »

joezydeco wrote: post #286
Ajedi32 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read the opinions. Both are pretty reasonable. I think the dissent has a good point that a plain language interpretation of the term "regulate imports" would seem to include tariffs. The bigger issue I think is that that statute exists in the first place. "Emergency powers" that a president can grant himself just by "declaring an emergency" on any pretense with no checks or balances is a stupid idea.

Kavanaugh's opinion seems to say "well, this would be too hard to undo, so we should just leave it alone and let Trump continue". That hardly seems 'reasonable'. Just lazy and/or partisan.

> The plaintiffs argue and the Court concludes that the President lacks authority under IEEPA to impose tariffs. I disagree. In accord with Judge Taranto’s careful and persuasive opinion in the Federal Circuit, I would conclude that the President’s power under IEEPA to “regulate . . . importation” encompasses tariffs. As a matter of ordinary meaning, including dictionary definitions and historical usage, the broad power to “regulate . . . importation” includes the traditional and common means to do so—in particular, quotas, embargoes, and tariffs.

That doesn't sound like "well, this would be too hard to undo" to me, and making that argument elsewhere doesn't diminish the main point.

Post reply on HN