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

481–490 of 1001 posts

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

#481

Post by flipgimble »

buzzerbetrayed wrote: post #401
sschueller wrote: post #4

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 love how it’s “global damage” when the US tariffs counties that are already tariffing them. But no, unfortunately the rest of the world knows the US’s value.

the "global damage" is largely because these tariffs were arbitrary, lacking strategic planning, and highly inflationary creating a turbulence tax. The frequent reversals and selective granting of exemptions showed that its another tool to enrich the Trump family, cabinet and their business associates. In other worlds the rest of the world stopped trusting the US and started making trade deals on their own.

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

#483

Post by interestpiqued »

jorblumesea wrote: post #182
parineum wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...but we disagreed with him. This one time. They've actually done so numerous times already and have several cases on the docket that look to be leaning against him as well. There's a reason why most serious pundits saw this ruling coming a mile away, because SCOTUS has proven to not be a puppet of the administration.

Except for all the other blatantly unconstitutional rulings in his favor. Presidential immunity one will go down in history as a black stain on America and the courts. and still this current ruling was a 6-3 vote.

Earnestly, I think you need to actually read that opinion. They said some things the president does, he is immune for. And they pushed it back down to the lower courts to define the categories of official acts they laid out.

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

#484

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#485

Post by micromacrofoot »

tracker1 wrote: post #330
apexalpha wrote: post #241

Since tariffs apparently brought in about $200 billion I guess you can add another 0.66% to the 2025 deficit.

Hence my (somewhat downvoted) comment in that I think the refunds should probably just be issued aa Treasury Bonds with varying maturity dates. Cashing out all t once can only lead to more chaos/disruption to the broader economy.

It's going to be nearly impossible for it to happen at once anyway, it's going to take a long time to unravel this mess

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

#486

Post by cael450 »

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 really isn't ill-defined at all. Both the constitution and the law allowing the president to impose tariffs for national security reasons is clear. There are just some partisan hacks on the Supreme Court.

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

#487

Post by GeoAtreides »

blibble wrote: post #348
entuno wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that it took this long to get an answer to that question.

in the UK a similar unconstitutional behaviour by the head of government took... from the start of the "injury": - 8 days to get to the supreme court - 2 days arguing in court - 5 days for the court to reach a decision 15 days to be ruled on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_The_Prime_Ministe...

Ah,yes, british constitutional law. In a country where no parliaments can bind its successors it means there is no constitution and the constitutional law is a polite fiction poorly held together with tradition and precedent.

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

#488

Post by bregma »

tfehring wrote: post #86
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…

I wouldn’t put anything past them, but my impression is that they were just acting as a middleman for this transaction and taking a fee, rather than making a directional bet one way or another. Hedge funds have certainly been buying a lot of tariff claims, giving businesses guaranteed money upfront and betting on this outcome. But for an investment bank like Cantor Fitzgerald that would be atypical.

That's what a bookie does. Middleman.

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

#490

Post by wat10000 »

conartist6 wrote: post #366
singpolyma3 wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The executive branch couldn't so much as order me drink a cup of tea unless it first drafted me into the army or declared martial law.

Irrelevant. The people who would send the money for refunds are people who do take such orders.
Post reply on HN