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

551–560 of 1001 posts

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

#551

Post by llm_nerd »

GeoAtreides wrote: post #487
blibble wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

All systems have weaknesses, but the utter criminal farce the US system has been betrayed to be yields a situation where zero Americans should be gloating about their constitution or values any more.

Oh look, Trump just declared a new, 10% global tariff because lol laws. Congress is busted. There are essentially zero real laws for the plutocrat class.

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

#552

Post by tgv »

paul7986 wrote: post #438

Politics is always a sh!t show on both sides we humans constantly think the next one will better. It will never be better maybe unless AI destroys society and we all go back to living on the land cause money/greed/power always drives the madness!

And all that at the reasonable costs of a few billion lives. What a bargain!

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

#553

Post by throwaway613746 »

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…

[dead]

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

#554

Post by mothballed »

simonw wrote: post #506
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…

Meanwhile Pam Bondi's brother is a lawyer who's firm represents clients with cases against the justice department, and those cases keep getting dropped. - https://www.newsweek.com/trump-doj-handling-pam-bondi-brothe... - https://abcnews.com/US/doj-drops-charges-client-ag-pam-bondi...

Yeah this is basically a thing everywhere. I was criminally charged in a certain mid-sized town, all I did was search through the court records to find the lawyer who always gets the charges dropped, hired them, and they went away for me too. Unfortunately that's the way the just us system works.

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

#555

Post by neaden »

mothballed wrote: post #554
simonw wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile Pam Bondi's brother is a lawyer who's firm represents clients with cases against the justice department, and those cases keep getting dropped. - https://www.newsweek.com/trump-doj-handling-pam-bondi-brothe... - https://abcnews.com/US/doj-drops-charges-client-ag-pam-bondi...

Yeah this is basically a thing everywhere. I was criminally charged in a certain mid-sized town, all I did was search through the court records to find the lawyer who always gets the charges dropped, hired them, and they went away for me too. Unfortunately that's the way the just us system works.

Well what you're describing could just be finding the most skilled lawyer in town. What the other person is describing is bribery and nepotism.

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

#556

Post by tyre »

RetpolineDrama wrote: post #546
mastax wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

It’s not an absurd scenario. The law was written specifically to allow blocking imports from a country.

The nuance is that nothing Congress passed granted to right to tax. Additionally, they did grant the power to partially block imports. Nothing says you have to enact “no imports from Japan” vs. “no imports of networking equipment from Lichtenstein.”

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

#557

Post by tyre »

cael450 wrote: post #486
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.

This specific law does not allow imposing tariffs, which is the whole point of the ruling. Roberts’s opinion says that a tariff is essentially a tax, which is not what Congress clearly delegated.

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

#558

Post by mothballed »

neaden wrote: post #555
mothballed wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah this is basically a thing everywhere. I was criminally charged in a certain mid-sized town, all I did was search through the court records to find the lawyer who always gets the charges dropped, hired them, and they went away for me too. Unfortunately that's the way the just us system works.

Well what you're describing could just be finding the most skilled lawyer in town. What the other person is describing is bribery and nepotism.

Maybe Brad Bondi is the most skilled lawyer in town. It's certainly not in the interest of the clients to have any material knowledge otherwise, nor for it to be revealed to them.

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

#559

Post by nielsbot »

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.

> my impression is

not sure why you'd give them any benefit of the doubt. they haven't earned it.

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

#560

Post by Terr_ »

sjm-lbm wrote: post #292
singpolyma3 wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Meh, Kavanaugh indirectly caused the whole mess, and directly caused many related and similar ones. It's a bad-faith complaint, Kavanaugh's actual track record is "always let Trump move fast and if he breaks things then whatever."

Basically we have a legal processes for courts going "this is weird and unlikely to stand and hard/impossible to fix afterwards, so do nothing until you get a green light", using temporary restraining orders and injunctions.

Yet Kavanaugh et al spent the last year repeatedly overriding lower-courts which did that, signaling that if someone said "let's figure this out first" to radical and irreparable Republican policies, the Supreme Court would not have their backs.

______________

> In case after case, dissenting justices have argued that the Court has “botched” this analysis and made rulings that are “as incomprehensible as [they are] inexcusable,” halting lower court injunctions without any showing that the government is facing harm and with grave consequences, including in some cases in which the plaintiffs are at risk of torture or death. The majority’s response to these serious claims? Silence.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/supr...

Post reply on HN