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

651–660 of 1001 posts

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

#651

Post by mexicocitinluez »

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]

> discussion about the nuances of this ruling are happening on X

I'm sure they are lol.

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

#652

Post by throw0101a »

metalliqaz wrote: post #617
bradleyjg wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kavanaugh clearly isn’t in the same bucket. His votes go either way. I don’t recall seeing a single decision this administration where either Alito or Thomas wrote against a White House position. Not just in case opinions but even in an order. I don’t think we’ve seen a justice act as a stalking horse for the president in this way since Fortas.

His reputation will be forever tarnished by "Kavanaugh stops"

That the the four sexual assault allegations (Thomas had "only" one during his nomination):

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh#Sexual_assault...

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

#653

Post by PearlRiver »

1qaboutecs wrote: post #463
thewebguyd wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

One of the greatest Dems ever was FDR and he was old elite. Curiously in the history of socialism quite a few were "traitors" of their own class!

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

#654

Post by cmurf »

morkalork wrote: post #643
consumer451 wrote: post #628

In response, POTUS just declared a global 10% tariff. Does anyone understand if this is legal? https://www.reuters.com/world/china/trump-orders-temporary-1...

Aw shucks, I guess we'll have to wait another year to find out won't we?

In a sense this is the correct level of punishment for all. The courts are slow and deliberative.

The Congress could solve this in a week. Impeachment and removal from office.

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

#655

Post by tracker1 »

ragazzina wrote: post #621
tracker1 wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think GPs point was that Tariffs are legitimate as a practice and that some people have been led to believe that they shouldn't exist at all.

Can you make an example of a tariff from the last 100 years that definitely benefitted the US in a long-lasting way?

How do you feel about allowing the import of goods from nations using slavery to create those goods? Would you be okay with a foreign nation undercutting domestic production as a strategy to destroy your industry to control a market?

That's aside from my position that most taxes should be at a point of trade/exchange.

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

#656

Post by nutjob2 »

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.

Wrong law. Trump chose not to use the "impose tariffs for national security reasons" law in this case.

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

#657

Post by cmurf »

sowbug wrote: post #50
fuoqi wrote: post #32

Let the fun of returning hundreds of billions of the illegal tariff revenue back to importers through litigation begin!

Will I get back the $17 DHL charged to collect the $1 tariff on the cat toys I bought from China? Actual event may not have occurred, but DHL flat fee is real.

Send a letter requesting a full refund.

If they refuse, sue them in small claims court.

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

#658

Post by SunshineTheCat »

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…

Still find it kinda wild that it's the Republicans fighting tooth and nail against any balance of power to...

...raise taxes

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

#660

Post by Forgeties79 »

mattas wrote: post #375
sowbug wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 (im…

Smart money is that they will make some token comment about "leave it up to the states" or lower courts and then do absolutely nothing about it
Post reply on HN