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

781–790 of 1001 posts

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

#781

Post by mastax »

blackjack_ wrote: post #319
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…

Alito is one of the original proponents of the unitary executive theory (way before he was a Supreme Court justice). Everything he does should be looked at as an attempt to impose said theory and destroy America.

I don't think that is compatible with his ruling in Biden v. Nebraska, nor some others during Biden's term.

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

#783

Post by joshuamorton »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #414
duped wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The opinion should merely read > The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises (which it does, and expounds upon)

Yes but in practice they delegate this power to the executive. Congress doesn’t run the IRS themselves after all

They don't delegate the policymaking. Tax code is always congressionally approved, and I'm unaware of any even remote argument that changing tax policy is delegated to the executive.

OTOH enforcement of congressional policies is basically always the role of the executive, so the fact that the IRS exists and does things doesn't really impact delegation.

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

#784

Post by mapontosevenths »

ikiris wrote: post #694
blurbleblurble wrote: post #667

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many are beyond furious

Many voted for this

Trump believed that Obama was a secret Muslim infiltrate sent to destroy America because he's black, that's what they voted for. Racism.

The rest of it was just gravy.

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

#785

Post by dragonwriter »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #414
duped wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The opinion should merely read > The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises (which it does, and expounds upon)

Yes but in practice they delegate this power to the executive. Congress doesn’t run the IRS themselves after all

> Yes but in practice they delegate this power to the executive.

No, they do not delegate the power to lay (set) taxes to the executive, they do assign the executive the function of collecting the taxes laid by Congress.

> Congress doesn’t run the IRS themselves after all

The IRS doesn't freely set taxes, it collects the taxes set by Congress.

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

#786

Post by worik »

bsder wrote: post #683
omnimus wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you agree with countries doing the opposite to the US? When for example US tech is better than the local alternative but the countries create unfair advantages to the local alternatives?

> Do you agree with countries doing the opposite to the US? Yes, please! Maximally efficient is minimally robust. We need robustness in the global economy more than some megajillionaire needs another half cent per customer in profit. In addition, we need competition in a lot of areas where we have complete consolidation right now. The only way to get that is to give some protection to the little guys while they grow.

> The only way to get that is to give some protection to the little guys while they grow.

Industrial Policy

It has a very bad reputation in the West but in built Japan and Taiwan

In the West it meant "protect old industries" rather than grow new ones (e.g. British steel)

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

#787

Post by fuzzfactor »

dgellow wrote: post #714
Animats wrote: post #696

Useful site for daily tariff updates: Trade Compliance Resource Hub.[1] They've marked which tariffs are now invalid and which are still valid. [1] https://www.tradecomplianceresourcehub.com/2026/02/20/trump-...

Damn, that’s pretty much all of them

It couldn't happen to a more deserving act of vengeance.

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

#788

Post by [deleted] »

layer8 wrote: post #327
furyofantares wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

For goods for which no domestic equivalent alternatives exist, why would the foreign suppliers lower their prices to compensate for the tariffs (which are paid by the importers to the government)? More generally, the cost of the tariffs will be split between foreign suppliers and local importers/consumers according to the competitiveness and availability of domestic suppliers, and according to market elasticity for t…

[deleted]

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

#789

Post by kshri24 »

carlosjobim wrote: post #112

I'm just here to enjoy the endlessly fractal spiraling double-think of tariffs being the devil when the US implements them, and being double-plus-good when the European Union implements them (or China or South America). As hackers here are very intelligent but also very unwise, they find great enjoyment in double-think exercises and the resentment it gives them.

Tariffs are great for developing countries. It protects their nascent industries/businesses that are not even ready to compete with those from developed countries and specifically to prevent developed countries from dumping goods (look up anti-dumping laws). Tariffs suck for developed countries as it just raises tax on its own citizens without any benefits that are enjoyed by developing countries.

> being the devil when the US implements them, and being double-plus-good when the European Union implements them (or China or South America).

You can also flip the argument and say that it is "double-plus-good" when USD is reserve currency but is the devil when Euro, Yen, Yuan, Rubles, Rupee et all want to be reserve currency too. Why does US admin go bananas when the topic of a BRICS currency is brought up?

Developed countries have levers. Developing countries have levers too. That's how balance has been maintained all these years since the World order was established post-WW2. Now if US wants to undo this World order (which it itself help setup) and wants to behave like a developing country, then developing countries will encroach on areas US holds dear to it: USD as reserve currency, cross-border transactions through SWIFT, imposing sanctions etc. Remember that it is not US alone that holds all the cards. Everyone else has their own cards as well.

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

#790

Post by xorcist »

fn-mote wrote: post #669
jrmg wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can I get compensation from UPS or FedEx for making me pay illegal tariffs - and making me pay a fee to them for processing it too? (I know the answer is practically ’no’, but it does still seem to me that the bureaucracy and companies that went along with this obviously illegal operation bear some culpability...)

> Can I get compensation from UPS or FedEx for making me pay illegal tariffs - and making me pay a fee to them for processing it too? I can see why you are mad, but it seems like the were fulfilling their legal obligation (at the time). The good news is that having directly paid UPS and not a middleman makes it much more likely that you will receive the money back. If anybody does.

> it seems like the were fulfilling their legal obligation (at the time)

Rather, their illegal obligation (at the time)?

It was clear from the start these import tariffs are illegal. Only congress can set them. It says so in the constitution! Hand waving at some pretend emergency doesn't give you the right to ignore constitutional law.

The logistics companies should probably have fought these clearly illegal tariffs from the start. Instead they played along and collected the fees. There's probably some interesting legal precedence here to be made, should this argument hold in court.

Post reply on HN