Live data from Hacker News

Judge orders government to begin refunding more than $130B in tariffs

wsj.com

811–820 of 843 posts

Re: Judge orders government to begin refunding more than $130B in tariffs

#811
post #806
post #748

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not unchecked power. The very fact the courts overturned it proof the power is checked.

That's true in theory, but really missing the point. In practice these checks come far too late. The court system is notoriously overworked and slow. In this case, most of these tariffs will not be returned because the government will make it an administrative nightmare to claim it back. In other matters the damage is even harder to roll back.

It’s a ton of work to put together a case and bring it to court - we’re talking months of research and writing for complex cases.

It’s not realistic to assume the courts can strike down something days after it happens if it takes months to put an argument together.

But I’ve been rather impressed by how fast the Supreme Court makes decisions when cases are brought quickly (likely much less complex).

Re: Judge orders government to begin refunding more than $130B in tariffs

#812
post #803
post #787

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Woah. 1) You seem to think I'm some sort of GOP-pedo-billionaire sympathiser; nothing could be further from the truth. I'll help you slam the prison door and throw away the key. 2) No-one mentioned Epstein in this part of the discussion until you did - I thoughts we were discussing tariffs. I was responding to someone saying that, in the context of the tariff mess , they blame the people who voted for Trump, and "the…

You made a choice to focus on one (less important) half of the equation, and that choice comes with consequences - including obfuscation of the actual perpetrators, who commit crimes against humanity. We have had years of this which enabled our current situation. I don't think it is the right choice to make. I was not going to pretend to understand your motives via text - not enough information. So I was responding t…

I focused on the part of the comment that I was replying to that I disagreed with.

Without wanting to be overly reductive, this is the point of discussion: to focus on the points of disagreement, for the purposes of understanding, alignment, or persuasion.

I would have thought that this was obvious, and how people expected discussions to work. I would have said that needing to be thorough and explicitly state each point of agreement, alongside addressing the points of disagreement, was frustrating and unnecessary. But maybe I'm wrong on this, so thank you (genuinely) for giving me this to reflect on.

(RE: "triggered" - maybe re-read what you wrote. Responding to an ostensibly benign comment about the background cause of Kamala being chosen as the candidate, with "such a wonderful way to keep attention focused anywhere but on the almost half the country still supporting a murderous cabal filled with people covering for a bunch of (other??) people who raped children to get pleasure from the sexual torture" certainty comes over as disproportionately and inappropriately emotional and angry in word and tone, to this observer.)

Re: Judge orders government to begin refunding more than $130B in tariffs

#813
post #742

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no single root cause in a complex system of checks and balances. Many parts need to fail for things to get as bad as they are now. Trying to reduce everything to a single fault is either stupid populism or blatant propaganda.

IMHO the highest court, which is tasked with delivering timely justice, ought to make their decisions in a reasonable amount of time, and not allow legally questionable executive actions to continue while the legal question is unanswered. You may consider that populist, but my opinion is that SCOTUS has derelicted their constitutional duty in these trying times.

I agree, but derelicition of duty by SCOTUS during this regime does not explain why a 34-times convicted felon and insurrectionist was even allowed to run for office again. Nor does it explain why the entire Senate keeps rolling over for every wet fart coming from the office of the Pedophile Of The United States.

You can find many other valid issues with the US system listed in this thread. Most of them are valid criticisms, and many of them identify a different underlying cause. Pointing them out or even focusing on a single one is not necessarily populist -- but insisting that there is a singular root cause is.

Re: Judge orders government to begin refunding more than $130B in tariffs

#814
post #752

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what I just said

I know you're being cute, but businesses generally don't pass all the costs of increased COGS on to customers.

Not being cute, being a realist who exists in this world, so take your condescending nickname and go read up on tariffs, will ya, babe.

The Bottom Line: While the goal of a tariff is often to protect domestic industry, the immediate effect is almost always a "consumption tax" paid by the person at the end of the line: you.

Re: Judge orders government to begin refunding more than $130B in tariffs

#815
post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah it's not insider trading. It's just that someone on the inside engaged in trade... Cmon guys you know there's a difference!

You're right, trading by insiders is not necessarily inside trading. Look it up, it's a pretty interesting nerdsniping blackhole.

Written by an insider. Well played.

Re: Judge orders government to begin refunding more than $130B in tariffs

#816
post #771

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1.) Supreme court literally decided that Trump can not commit crime while in the office. Full stop. 2.) Trump was convinced of felony. That does not apply to him, because he is a president. 3.) This administration ignores the courts. > If you genuinely want Trump to go to jail , get Congress to create actual laws that he’d be breaking, They actually did made those laws. Supreme court decided to either rewrite those l…

> 2.) Trump was convinced of felony. That does not apply to him, because he is a president. There are cases for which Trump should have been tried, but the NY one about mislabeling funds was not one of them. It was a massive reach, and I bet you Meanwhile he pressured georgia secretary of state to "find votes", in a recorded call; he should have been tried for this but it didn't get brought to the courts. This was a…

> Half the country voted for this.

Actually, not half the country.

> At some point this is democracy in action.

Actually, no, winning election in democracy does not mean you get to be a tyrant to whome laws dont apply.

Also, seems like my point about law not applying to Trump stands entirely. None of your arguments actualy disagree with that claim.

Re: Judge orders government to begin refunding more than $130B in tariffs

#817

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you genuinely want Trump to go to jail , get Congress to create actual laws that he’d be breaking, with actual clear unmistakable language about its consequences. Trammel up the votes in the midterms. SCOTUS will enforce it: they have done so, every time, when Congress is clear and decisive. They have indicated as much! The judicial branch is the only one left doing its job. The law applies. You don’t like how i…

I wish you made some concrete points rather than condescendingly rephrasing your opinion different ways a few times. SCOTUS has actively thwarted the current administration’s efforts : - tariffs - national guard deployment - foreign aid - deportation of man to Salvador These cases , as well as the cases they’ve ruled in favor of the administration , have been couched in reasoning based on the actual laws passed by co…

Occasional rare result like that does not prove or show or even imply supreme court is not ideologically driven or heavily biased.

And suprene court justices themselves literally say so in their dissents.

Re: Judge orders government to begin refunding more than $130B in tariffs

#818

Earlier quoted context omitted.

War - history won't agree with you. Trump started Iran. Biden got us into supporting Ukraine on the other side of the planet. I like neither. Crime - I don't care about "going down for years". I look at Chicago where I work, and people in my office these days make sure they are out of the south part of downtown before the dark. The guy's business started nosediving 5 years ago, and you mention Trump again? Jeez. Anyw…

Iran and Ukraine are not even remotely comparable situations.

Not to me. Both involve us in wars that have nothing to do with us, both are sucking away the money that could be spent on improving things domestically instead of spending it on MIC. Both use lame excuses for justification (WMD vs "fighting for democracy".) One is about protecting private equity access to Ukrainian agriculture, the other one is about denying China access to heavy crude. Both are likely to be losers. I am sick of both.

Re: Judge orders government to begin refunding more than $130B in tariffs

#819
post #790

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DHL is massive scam company. I ordered a tent from overseas and they classified it as both a food product and an aluminum product and charged me 600 bucks in tariffs. I'm fighting to get it back but they keep ignoring me with polite "were really busy" replys.

A product can be both, according to the current US administration. DHL is not necessarily at fault here.

You can eat aluminum? I can't myself. Because it can doesn't mean it should...

Re: Judge orders government to begin refunding more than $130B in tariffs

#820
post #817

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish you made some concrete points rather than condescendingly rephrasing your opinion different ways a few times. SCOTUS has actively thwarted the current administration’s efforts : - tariffs - national guard deployment - foreign aid - deportation of man to Salvador These cases , as well as the cases they’ve ruled in favor of the administration , have been couched in reasoning based on the actual laws passed by co…

Occasional rare result like that does not prove or show or even imply supreme court is not ideologically driven or heavily biased. And suprene court justices themselves literally say so in their dissents.

Ok fair point.
Post reply on HN