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

971–980 of 1001 posts

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

#971

Post by watwut »

EgregiousCube wrote: post #875
parineum wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...but we disagreed with him. This one time. They've actually done so numerous times already and have several cases on the docket that look to be leaning against him as well. There's a reason why most serious pundits saw this ruling coming a mile away, because SCOTUS has proven to not be a puppet of the administration.

Yeah. If you look a little closely you'll see their current project is to establish the "major questions doctrine," which ultimately reduces executive power by stopping Congress from giving it all to the executive. It looks pro-POTUS when it reduces the power of executive agencies, and it looks anti-POTUS when it reduces the power of executive orders. It's really about resetting what powers Congress can delegate.

It is not. The conservative justices work to create imperial presidency with no checks, except in major economical issues that threaten to harm themselves.

And even this ruling had 3 of them objecting, claiming tariffs should stand.

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

#972

Post by bdelmas »

padjo wrote: post #892
bdelmas wrote: post #890

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure what you are not understanding since you know there are 3 branches. The judicial has no say on this. The judicial branch is more and more pushing political agenda when it’s not their role. Tariffs were always part of the executive branch, it’s by itself an executive action in the spirit of the law. Still if the US decides that it should not be part of the executive branch anymore, it is not to the judic…

You said the DoJ, which is part of the executive. The judicial branch just ruled on a matter of law. That's what they do. Also the power of the purse has always been with congress, the constitution is very clear on that. Finally the notion that the US is stripping power from the executive is honestly farcical. The exact opposite has been happening for decades now. If you are a US voter then the reason for the current…

You know what after digging more into the subject I can say that you are effectively right. So thank you for taking the time and commenting on that. I still think it should be a tool a US president can have. Congress is not fast enough to put pressure and removing it as much as the executive branch can do. I think that this and similar economic tools are critical just seeing how thing are unfolding and how the future is going to look like.

For DOJ ya I meant the judicial branch.

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

#973

Post by cmurf »

originalvichy wrote: post #755
cmurf wrote: post #654

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You are correct. My country does not have the similar separation of powers the US has. I do not understand why Americans have a hard time realizing this: the President and other elected officials work for YOU. They literally run for office to get the position, and they get voted in. Why would someone let an elected official enrich themselves and their friends with your money? Why would the legislative branch allow th…

>Why would someone let an elected official enrich themselves and their friends with your money? Why would the legislative branch allow that?

Republicans in Congress were elected expressly to allow Trump to do as he wishes.

>A populace with a functioning representative democracy deserves its leaders.

Yes. Despite Trump himself being a fascist, the government continues to operate as a representative democracy. Most Congresscritters have their thumbs up their asses waiting for things to get much worse, which mirrors the vast majority of voters.

Is it national apathy? Decadence? Addiction to the drama, anger and depravity of Trump TV?

Elect an abuser, get abused. Is this surprising?

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

#974

Post by Broken_Hippo »

projektfu wrote: post #943
Broken_Hippo wrote: post #888

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indiana has sometimes required that for decades, though I think they finally adjusted the law a little after online purchases became popular. Indiana charges sales tax like a lot of states, but only on things sold in the state or from a company located in the state. If you ordered something from California or overseas, no sales tax was charged. The law required you to track these purchases and report it on your tax r…

Yeah, most states that have sales taxes have "use taxes" to cover this case and the case of a wholesale item (no tax) being used in house. It gets enforced primarily in retrospect and on big ticket items that the state does see, like a vehicle purchase.

Heh. Indiana charged sales tax at when you registered the vehicle the first time unless you had paperwork proving otherwise.

Very common for a private sale to put the price cheap, but not free - $200 charged sales tax on $200 and a free car was charged on the estimated value.

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

#975

Post by kernal »

klipt wrote: post #842
kernal wrote: post #834

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Free trade is leftist now? I thought a minute ago "communist China" was the protectionist one and "free capitalist America" was the one in favor of free trade.

Did you even see the press conference? There is now an additional 10% tariff. Like I said before, your short term victory was quickly extinguished with additional tariffs. The Supreme Court just ruled that this specific tariff tactic could not be used. So an alternative tariff plan quickly replaced it.

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

#976

Post by f33d5173 »

aliceryhl wrote: post #893
bgentry wrote: post #77

The actual decision: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdf

Hmm, I read some of the decision, and now I'm not sure what to make of all of it. When I came to the opinion from Jackson, J., I found it extremely compelling. He says this: ... But some of TWEA’s sections delegating this authority had lapsed, and “there [was] doubt as to the effectiveness of other sections.” Accordingly, Congress amended TWEA in 1941, adding the subsection that includes the “regulate ... importation…

Jackson is a woman just fyi.

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

#977

Post by dmix »

goldfish3 wrote: post #527
dmix wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most dangerous part of the current admin is the fealty he demands from congress and how exploits his popularity to be a kingmaker in local elections. This is something FDR did heavily in the 1930s to expand his own power and bully congress into passing the New Deal. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/purge-1938 He also used legally questionable executive orders like crazy.

Can always count on HN to mindlessly equivocate.

There's a long legacy in America which has led to the expansion of the executive branch. It didn't start with Trump. Almost every power he's abusing was recklessly laid down in prior administrations/congress. FDR caused lots of controversy with how he acted and there was a pull back from executive power, including administrative laws currently slowing Trump down.

There's lots of other examples, such as the various emergency powers, including a large string of them for terrorism during Bush and expanded during Obama.

I've been posting about this issue on HN long before Trump was in power and plenty of journalists were documenting it.

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

#978

Post by conductr »

hermanzegerman wrote: post #916
conductr wrote: post #885

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally think it should not get refunded. There’s no sane way to get it back to its source. And no one group should be making profit from it. Best if it stays with the government like a federal forfeiture so in theory we all benefit from it as citizens , maybe it goes against the national debt or lessens our deficit next year.

So illegal actions shouldn't have consequences for anyone? That's a good way to deter such acts in the future

That’s a separate issue from where the already paid tariffs should go

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

#979

Post by conductr »

ngc248 wrote: post #905
conductr wrote: post #885

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally think it should not get refunded. There’s no sane way to get it back to its source. And no one group should be making profit from it. Best if it stays with the government like a federal forfeiture so in theory we all benefit from it as citizens , maybe it goes against the national debt or lessens our deficit next year.

Government is a poor spender, we should not be handing them more money

We all participate in this system through, most of “us” passively. Use the normal means to enact the change you want to see

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

#980

Post by Spivak »

techblueberry wrote: post #705
liquidise wrote: post #626

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Gorsuch concurring is quite the read, but wish more Americans internalized its final paragraph (excerpts below). Yes, legislating can be hard and take time. And, yes, it can be tempting to bypass Congress when some pressing problem arises. But the deliberative nature of the legislative process was the whole point of its design. ... But if history is any guide, the tables will turn and the day will come when those…

I agree with Gorsuch, and I love this idea, but until the legislative branch abandons procedures that prevent the deliberation from happening in the first place, this will keep happening.

There is a balance to be struck to avoid a completely ineffectual congress but I'm not sure a legislative body biased towards action is one you would actually want. Making it easier to kill bills than pass them has a natural stabilizing effect which I think is a net good for the country.
Post reply on HN