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

461–470 of 1001 posts

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

#461

Post by jeffbee »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #365
kingofmen wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. "Relatively". We really need a fast-track process for genuinely insane nonsense to get shot down in a matter of days, not months.

It takes a long time for something to get through all the appeals. Getting an injunction to put a stop to something during the appeals doesn't take that long. The problem in this case is that Congress made such a mess of the law that the lower court judges didn't think the outcome obvious enough to grant the injunction.

As pointed out in other comments this process is entirely by choice of the court. In other cases where they just felt like ruling on something they have put things on their emergency docket and ruled on them immediately. Letting this situation ride for a year was a choice by the court.

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

#462

Post by lhopki01 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #413
lhopki01 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> As far as I can tell the US system is designed for gridlock. At the federal level the US system was designed for gridlock on purpose , with the premise that something shouldn't be federal policy without widespread consensus, and without that consensus it should be left to the states. The problem is really that many of the gridlock-inducing measures have been thwarted , e.g. delegation of rulemaking power from Congr…

Any system designed for gridlock will lead to increasing anger and pressure that will eventually break out in bad ways. If people see the results of their own actions then they are not going to end up so extreme.

I'm not sure why Americans think that the creation of agencies is the problem when other well governed countries do the same. The idea that a legislative body could possible create appropriate regulation in a modern complex world is crazy. That's what a parliamentary system solves. It keeps the executive accountable to the legislative at all times.

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

#463

Post by 1qaboutecs »

thewebguyd wrote: post #351
uncletomscourt wrote: post #89

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.

We are sick of it, but despite being somewhat of a democracy, we have no real power in this two party, first past the post system when both parties always run establishment candidates, aka, billionaire thieves gang members.

When is the last time the Democrats ran a billionaire?

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

#464

Post by philistine »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #154
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.

Fully agree, but that's what happens when you keep piling laws on top of laws on top of laws and never go back and refactor. If I recall correctly, the case hinged on some vague wording in a semi-obscure law passed back in 1977.

The whole legal apparatus of the US doesn't want to hear that but your laws suck. They're flawed because of the political system borne of compromise with parties incapable of whipping their members to just vote in favour of a law they don't fully agree with.

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

#465

Post by thr0waway_abcd »

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…

There's no scam too big or too small, from Trumpcoin's open bribery, to Secret Service paying 5x the GSA per diem rate to stay at Trump properties on duty.

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

#466

Post by lhopki01 »

mjd wrote: post #312
lhopki01 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's just another thing that means people don't face the consequences of their own actions. If the extremeness of the elected party is blocked by the filibuster then people are angry at things not changing and so go even more extreme.

A similar problem in the United States is the excessive amount of law making by the Judiciary. In most countries the Judicary doesn't' make law it just tells Parliament that they need to change the law. This again means the consequences of who you voted for are not faced.

The pressure builds till there's a breaking point.

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

#467

Post by sdenton4 »

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…

Here's evidence : https://www.kielinstitut.de/publications/news/americas-own-g...

"Importers and consumers in the US bear 96 percent of the tariff burden."

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

#468

Post by Telemakhos »

linuxhansl wrote: post #301

Finally some sanity. The administration has use laws about "national security" and other so call "emergencies" to impose tariffs. If everything is an emergency then nothing is, and that was clearly not congress' intention with those laws. The power to impose tariffs rests with the legislator, not the executive. Of course our congress is effectively useless - we can thank decades of Mitch McConnell's (and others) "not…

> If everything is an emergency then nothing is, and that was clearly not congress' intention with those laws.

The state of exception is the true test of sovereignty, and powers that crave sovereignty therefore seek out states of exception. The PATRIOT act created new institutions and authorities like the TSA. Just a few years ago local health departments were making business-shuttering decisions that ruined life for a lot of people over the common cold. Ukrainian war funding provides the EU with opportunities for exports and new experiments in joint funding (Eurobonds). Emergencies and exceptions are how power grows, so everything can become an emergency if you look at it in the right way.

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

#469

Post by sjm-lbm »

jeffbee wrote: post #454
sjm-lbm wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is not a "weakness" of the majority that the criminal activity has left a mess.

No, but it is a weakness that they have neglected to provide the clarity that would be required to clean it up.

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

#470

Post by keernan »

pseudalopex wrote: post #315
blackcatsec wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

>>This would be enforced how

Bingo. The flaw in the constitution. The Executive holds the only enforcement mechanism in government: the FBI, military and other police forces.

Having majored in political science as an undergrad and then being a trial attorney for 40+ years, I would argue that my use of the word 'flaw' is probably misplaced. 'Flaw' implies it could (should) have been created differently.

Alas, I am unaware of ever reading a workable way to 'fix' our constitutional 'flaw'.

Post reply on HN