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

311–320 of 1001 posts

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

#311

Post by mystraline »

butterbomb wrote: post #232
coldpie wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 need to see hundreds of life-in-prison sentences by the end of 2029 Best we can do is a couple dozen golden parachutes.

Sure, give them the golden parachutes. Put a few holes in them, then make them jump.

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

#312

Post by mjd »

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 filibuster isn't part of the system; it's not even part of the law. It's just part of the rules that the Senate chose for their own internal procedures.

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

#313

Post by furyofantares »

esseph wrote: post #284
furyofantares wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"American consumers bore 90% of last year's nearly six-fold tariff increase, adding $1,000-$2,400 to average household budgets, despite overall inflation dropping to 2.4% in January 2026." https://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2026/02/15/consumers...

Exactly the type of info I was hoping for, thank you.

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

#314

Post by CWuestefeld »

cjbenedikt wrote: post #38

Now let's see what will happen.After all J.D.Vance (US VP)famously said:" The judiciary has decided. Now let them enforce it".

Ahem. The line is widely attributed to President Andrew Jackson, usually quoted as: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”

He probably didn't say it either, its first appearance is in an 1860s book by Horace Greeley.

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

#315

Post by pseudalopex »

blackcatsec wrote: post #170
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 think you're misunderstanding at least a little bit here. The Constitution created separation of powers, but what it did not do is explicitly block a particular branch from either abdicating their duty or simply delegating their power back to the executive. It's certainly an interesting situation that wasn't explicitly spelled out in the law. But as far as everything that's working, it's realistically all within th…

> There are procedures to remove an unfit President, sure; but there's no requirement baked into the Constitution that requires those parties to act upon those procedures.

This would be enforced how?

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

#316

Post by coldpie »

jghn wrote: post #287
coldpie wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 can tell you what will happen instead. If a dem wins in 2028, the big push will be one of reconciliation and acceptance. Let bygones be bygones. And it'll happen. And then for the next 4 years conservative media will absolutely pound that person's backside over made up and/or exaggerated corruption claims. Then in 2032 the GOP candidate will claim they're going to look into these claims.

Your scepticism is well warranted. That's exactly the playbook Biden chose to follow, and I agree the most likely outcome is the next admin will follow it again.

However, I am unfortunately an incurable optimist, and sometimes we Americans really do pull off amazing feats. I live in the Twin Cities and we actually defeated DHS/CBP/ICE here. It was an amazing thing to witness, and maybe there is enough outrage at this admin's looting of the US that we can build the support nationally to do that kind of thing again.

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

#317

Post by hdhdhsjsbdh »

f33d5173 wrote: post #226
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…

[flagged]

I look forward to the day we pull our heads out of the sand and stop excusing blatant corruption. It takes a naive view of the world to assume the Secretary of Commerce has access to the same limited information as you or I.

Let’s call all of this what it is: parasites leveraging their insider positions for profit. The ruling class is ripping the copper out of our walls and selling it for scrap while we all choose to look the other way.

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

#318

Post by rocmcd »

warmwaffles wrote: post #278
rozap wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, that's why you need to convince Congress of that fact, as has been done in the past. Tariffs absolutely make sense as a strategic tool. There is no strategy here.

Ever try to get Congress to agree on something without packaging in another thing?

I agree with the sentiment, but that is completely unrelated to the topic at hand.

Just because Congress is stuck doesn't mean the Executive gets to do whatever they want.

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

#319

Post by blackjack_ »

mastax wrote: post #229
apexalpha wrote: post #136

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.

It seems likely to me the ruling took this long because John Roberts wanted to get a more unanimous ruling. Additionally, the law in this case isn’t ill defined whatsoever. Alito, Thomas, and to a lesser extent Kavanaugh are just partisan hacks. For many years I wanted to believe they had a consistent and defensible legal viewpoint, even if I thought it was misguided. However the past six years have destroyed that no…

Alito is one of the original proponents of the unitary executive theory (way before he was a Supreme Court justice). Everything he does should be looked at as an attempt to impose said theory and destroy America.

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

#320

Post by furyofantares »

tombert wrote: post #298
furyofantares wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I have no idea how the fuck the rumor that these tariffs will be “paid by other countries” started.

It's what POTUS was saying since day 1. That we've been getting ripped off and we're gonna make the other countries pay us etc etc etc.

It is, as I said in the post, obviously wrong - but that's where it comes from.

Post reply on HN