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

811–820 of 1001 posts

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

#811

Post by keernan »

fuzzfactor wrote: post #763
keernan wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>apparently so ill defined in law that 9 justices can't agree on it That is not how the Supreme Court works. SCOTUS is a political body. Justices do one thing: cast votes. For any reason. If they write an opinion it is merely their post hoc justification for their vote. Otherwise they do not have to explain anything. And when they do write an opinion it does not necessarily reflect the real reason for the way they vo…

>downvoting without explaining is ... just ... Like I've said before, if you can't tell whether it's a bot or a real person voting, it doesn't matter anyway. Might as well be a bot either way. corrective upvote made

It never occurred to me that bots are voting on threads. In the age of AI agents, that's pretty dumb of me.

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

#812

Post by judahmeek »

anthonypasq wrote: post #518
blackjack_ wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

its truly bizarre that anyone with this view could get approved by congress. its so antithetical to the entire american political system. just blows my mind how spineless congress as an institution has been for decades.

Repealing the 17th amendment will once again incentivize the Senate to choose Supreme Court justices who seek to strengthen federalism & decentralize power

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

#813

Post by rawgabbit »

xorcist wrote: post #790
fn-mote wrote: post #669

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 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…

Yeah. But the guys collecting the tariffs can get guys with guns to back them up. FEDEX and UPS got the “law” on their side.

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

#814

Post by Forgeties79 »

skeletal88 wrote: post #754
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?

This has nothing to do with tariffs and everything to do with us companies hsving an unfair advantage or justnot following EU regulations. Or musk trying to interfere in our politics and supporting extreme right wing parties. Also us government having access to our cloud data, etc. All our advertising money goes to the US to google/fb, because everyone is using them, not because they are inherently better at anything…

So many of you keep using the word “unfair.” What is so unfair? What can these countries do that we cannot?

Have you considered all the advantages the US has over some of these countries? Is that not “unfair”? I would say the US’s relationship with the Internet is certainly an advantage even if we call it “fair.”

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

#815

Post by mandeepj »

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)

> 4) Seller gets to keep the returned tax money as pure profit

Seller may not reduce the price as well. Thus, continues to keep the raised price due to tariffs as free profit.

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

#816

Post by lentil_soup »

carlosjobim wrote: post #426
jjtwixman wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tariffs are bad, there's no double think.

Then where are the hackers in this comment section calling out for the European Council to strike down European tariffs like the US supreme court did? Where were they before Trump?

Which European tariffs are these?

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

#817

Post by QuadmasterXLII »

csense wrote: post #151

I don't think tariffs should be imposed capriciously at the President's whim. But I do think tariffs are an appropriate policy tool that should be used to protect US companies against overseas competitors that get government subsidies or other unfair advantages: Low wages, safety regulations, worker protection, environmental rules, etc.

This has the air of getting congratulated for getting shanked in an alley while running to the hospital in hopes of getting treated for appendicitis. A knife, after all, is an appropriate surgery tool.

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

#818

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

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]

If you listen to the oral arguments, this issue was discussed at length.

There are two reasons for this distinction:

1. That's what congress decided. They get to determine tariffs, not the president. If the president doesn't like the law congress passed, he doesn't get to just ignore it.

2. Congress is very jealous of the right to tax and spend. They do not want to hand over this power to the president. Tariffs are taxes. If the president can just impose whatever tariffs he wants, he can raise revenue without asking congress for permission. That would grant the president enormous power to go around congress. Banning imports from a country does not bring in revenue for the president, so it doesn't pose the same risk to congress' power.

Trump has been trying to create a situation in which he can both raise revenue (through tariffs) and spend it however he wants (e.g., through DOGE's arbitrary changes to government spending) without ever asking congress. If he succeeds, the balance of power will be completely destroyed. The president will rule alone.

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

#819

Post by SideQuark »

tracker1 wrote: post #655
ragazzina wrote: post #621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The question was for a specific example, not some moral vague strawman.

The question is a good one, right to the heart of the claim. Without specific examples, especially ones that are not post selected (i.e., pick all tariffs at a point in time and see of that was beneficial), it is silly to claim tariffs are useful when there is ample evidence of when they cause significant harm to the economy.

So, have a case for a timepoint where the set of tariffs ended up being demonstrably beneficial for an economy?

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

#820

Post by SideQuark »

freeone3000 wrote: post #742
ragazzina wrote: post #621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Auto tariffs have kept Detroit producing automobiles despite various other entrants, while still being low enough for foreign competition.

At significant loss to the consumer. Sure a tariff can benefit a subset of people, by costing others even more.

We could also do this without tariffs by simply taking money from some group and handing it to another.

Post reply on HN