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

371–380 of 1001 posts

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

#371

Post by fuzzfactor »

ReptileMan wrote: post #121
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…

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.

Biden's hail mary would have been to pick Haley as his running mate, who already had 19% of the Republicans.

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

#372

Post by WillPostForFood »

SilverElfin wrote: post #51
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…

That’s an insane conflict of interest. His sons took over the firm? It was already bad that Lutnick took over in the first place. As I recall he sued the widow of Cantor to steal control of the company after Cantor died. But I guess this is not very surprising. I am sure every friend and family member of Trump administration people made trades leading all those tariff announcements over the last year, while the rest…

Serious question - what do you think the kids should do when their parents get political positions, not work?

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

#373

Post by keernan »

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.

>apparently so ill defined in law that 9 justices can't agree on it

That is not how the Supreme Court works. SCOTUS is a political body. Justices do one thing: cast votes. For any reason.

If they write an opinion it is merely their post hoc justification for their vote. Otherwise they do not have to explain anything. And when they do write an opinion it does not necessarily reflect the real reason for the way they voted.

Edit: Not sure why anyone is downvoting this comment. I was a trial attorney for 40+ years. If you believe what I posted is legally inaccurate, then provide a comment. But downvoting without explaining is ... just ... I don't know ... cowardly?

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

#374

Post by buzzerbetrayed »

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…

[flagged]

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

#375

Post by mattas »

sowbug wrote: post #118
sc68cal wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The importer pays the tax and passes it on as higher prices to the consumer. So the importers are the one that had the tax collected from them and would be getting the refund. The importer CAN be the seller, but other times the importer is a middleman in the supply chain.

To the CPAs among us: will the refunded import taxes be treated as extra profit for all the importers who paid them? I could see an argument that they don't have a legal obligation to pass the refunds on to their customers, any more than my local grocery store owes me 5 cents for the gallon of milk I bought last year if the store discovers that their wholesaler had been mistakenly overcharging them.

The idea of getting a refund for mischaracterized tariffs is actually fairly common (it's called a duty drawback and there's a cottage industry around this). It's generally used when an importer incorrectly categorized their import under an HS code that has a higher duty than the correctly categorized HS code.

The difference this time is the scale is orders of magnitude larger. Will be interesting to see how they (importers and CBP) work through this.

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

#376

Post by exe34 »

latchkey wrote: post #210
fuzzfactor wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a legitimate tax. That's why it taxed the economy much worse than a legitimate President would do.

maybe i lean too much in one direction, but what is a "legitimate tax"? Once again, count on hn for the downvotes. Yep, those shall not speak of downvotes, or taxation.

usually one imposed by congress, from my distant memory of reading the us constitution.

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

#377

Post by tfehring »

fblp wrote: post #360
sgerenser wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not really excusing anything, just pointing out that Cantor Fitzgerald would be making money whether this Supreme Court ruling went for or against the Trump tariffs. So it’s not like they had to have any inside knowledge to be making money.

They do make more money the more pervasive tariffs are though as more people would buy tariff related financial products.

It's true that a volatile environment in general is good for certain types of investment banking business, including facilitating this trade. I nevertheless think it's unlikely - honestly, a galaxy brain take - that Cantor Fitzgerald or other investment banks with influence in the Trump administration would push for policies like unconstitutional tariffs just to drive trading revenue. Maybe the strongest reason is that other, frankly more lucrative investment banking activities, like fundraising and M&A, benefit from a growing economy and a stable economic and regulatory environment.

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

#379

Post by dmix »

SiempreViernes wrote: post #245
latchkey wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

maybe i lean too much in one direction, but what is a "legitimate tax"? Once again, count on hn for the downvotes. Yep, those shall not speak of downvotes, or taxation.

In this context it simply means "legal".

As in only Congress can create new taxes and regulate commerce.

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

#380

Post by mullingitover »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #269
mullingitover wrote: post #59

It’s disappointing but not surprising that the SC left the administration to illegally bilk US taxpayers for billions upon billions of dollars for something that was facially unconstitutional. They should’ve allowed an emergency injunction from the outset.

They didn't rule it unconstitutional - it's not. They ruled that the specific statute Trump was using that allows him to "regulate imports" doesn't include regulating imports with tariffs.

> They ruled that the specific statute Trump was using that allows him to "regulate imports" doesn't include regulating imports with tariffs.

Right, and thus because the Constitution gives congress the authority to levy tariffs, and the administration was usurping that authority, they violated the Constitution.

Post reply on HN