Tariff ruling.

[Crepitus]

 

[mudwhistle]

A new legal basis will need to be used to justify them.

Nah....that's the courts overstepping their authority.

They can't tell the POTUS how to run the State Department.

 

[Blaster]

They are supposed to be objective arbiters of constitutional law.

They weren't objective.

 

[Clipper]

On the whole, he's DOMINATED American politics for the last 11 years.
You, OTOH, haven't dominated anything other than probably some 911 calls from neighbors.


Trump doesn't do that shit. He moves on, unlike the stupid people who hate him. He'll have something lined up pronto. Because he's smart and tough, unlike his opposition.

Trump getting his ass handed back to him by SCOTUS is considered "winning" by MAGA loser's like you.

Cry harder, in your beer, loser.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Example: the widget importer sells his widgets for $1.00. Then a 10% tariff is imposed. He now sells his widgets for $1.10. His profit is unchanged.

In an idyllic world yes.

But increasing the cost of an item will likely drive away a portion of the consumer base. So he's faced with two options

1) Keep the cost as is to maintain his profit margin, or

2) Lower the cost of his widgets by 10 cents to keep them at the intended price and maintain consistent consumption of his product.

 

[TemplarKormac]

They weren't objective.

Then why did they rule against him?

 

[TemplarKormac]

And that's precisely what he's doing, no?

 

[Doc7505]

Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s sweeping tariffs, upending central plank of economic agenda

The Supreme Court has struck down President Donald Trump’s far-reaching global tariffs, handing him a significant loss on an issue crucial to his economic agenda.

apnews.com

<~~~~~~~~~~>
You are blind to what just happened. The Supreme Court struck down specific tariffs that were based on the IEEPA law and left in place ALL the tariffs that Trump placed on countries because of “national security.” So what does Trump do? He immediately goes out and restores the same tariffs by declaring “national security.” Nothing has changed. The tariffs still apply and now there is legal clarification. The president has “plenary power” under the Constitution, when it comes to “national security.” Checkmate! It was the perfect boomerang

​

 

[mudwhistle]

 

[Eman623]

In an idyllic world yes.

But increasing the cost of an item will likely drive away a portion of the consumer base. So he's faced with two options

1) Keep the cost as is to maintain his profit margin, or

2) Lower the cost of his widgets by 10 cents to keep them at the intended price and maintain consistent consumption of his product.

The left has been saying that tariffs are a "tax on consumers - 100% correct" and "who pays for he tariffs?", the answer of course being the consumer. I guess that was just a talking point and the actual answer is more complicated.

So how much gets passed along and how much gets eaten by the importer? He can get relief for the part he eats, but the consumer should be getting the part that got passed along.

 

[Clipper]

"I own your pathetic little soy boy ass, pal."

It was quite a sight watching Trump go thru the "seven stages of grief" today live & on the air for the whole world to see. Him having his ass handed back to him by SCOTUS really gave him the "sads".

Kleenex?

 

[Crepitus]

"I own your pathetic little soy boy ass, pal."

You missed the press conference, I guess?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Nah....that's the courts overstepping their authority.

They can't tell the POTUS how to run the State Department.

Then checks and balances are meaningless.

 

[Arresmillao]

The Supreme Court finally follows the constitution and strikes down the inept tariffs enacted without congressional approval by the convicted criminal donald trump. With the certain change in congress in 9 months, the crazy maga agenda becomes stifled. Congratulations to the conscientious right wing judges that joined the progressive ones in correcting the course of the country, it is the true "liberation day".

 

[ElmerMudd]

I am a racist homophobic transphobic misogynist who wants to kill grandma.

Can a lefty explain to me the specific economic impact of these specific tariffs and why it is good for the USA to not have these specific tariffs?

Thanks.

You don't get it. It is about a President following the principles written into our constitution by the founding fathers. He needs to issue tariffs it using current law. There is multiple ways Trump can legally get tariffs through.
Most conservatives do not support tariffs.

The last Republican president to agressively issue tariffs was Hoover with disatorous results.
Trump's results 2025. The trade deficit grew. It was not reduced. Manufacturing jobs were lost. The US consumer absorbed the majority of the cost of tariffs

Republican President Herbert Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (Tariff Act of 1930) on June 17, 1930. This legislation raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods to record levels, causing retaliatory tariffs from other countries, stalling international trade, and significantly deepening the Great Depression.
Key details regarding this event include:

• Goal: Initially intended to protect U.S. farmers and manufacturers from foreign competition following the 1929 stock market crash.
• Impact: Contrary to its goals, it led to a freeze in foreign markets, caused U.S. exports to plummet, and contributed to widespread bank failures.
• Opposition: Over 1,000 economists urged Hoover to veto the bill.
• Outcome: The economic downturn worsened, with U.S. GDP dropping significantly and triggering a global trade war.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The left has been saying that tariffs are a "tax on consumers - 100% correct" and "who pays for he tariffs?", the answer of course being the consumer. I guess that was just a talking point and the actual answer is more complicated.

So how much gets passed along and how much gets eaten by the importer? He can get relief for the part he eats, but the consumer should be getting the part that got passed along.

Oh and a third option: increase the cost by 10 cents to offset the loss of the increased price due to the tariff.

 

[Lockback]

Then checks and balances are meaningless.

I think this was a monumentally stupid ruling.
But you're right ... we need the checks and balances. Even when they're dumb and wrong.

 

[excalibur]

History says the Court is wrong.

Since the 1790s, Congress has consistently delegated to
the President power over foreign commerce, including the
power to impose duties on imports. "

'Practically every volume of the United States Statutes' " contains broad delega-
tions to the President in the area of foreign commerce. Id.,
at 80, n. 5 (quoting Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U. S.,
at 324).

...

Congress likewise delegated to the President the power
to set duties on imports. In 1815, Congress delegated to the
President the power to lower reciprocal duties when he was
"satisfied" that other nations' trade practices no longer op-
erated "to the disadvantage of the United States." Act of
Mar. 3, 1815, ch. 77, 3 Stat. 224.

In 1824, Congress delegated to the President the power to lower and to reim-
pose duties in response to foreign nations' trade practices.
See Act of Jan. 7, 1824, 4 Stat. 2–3. Throughout the early
decades of the Republic, Congress continued to delegate to
the President similar powers over duties on imports on a
regular basis. See, e.g., Act of May 24, 1828, ch. 111, 4 Stat.
308; Act of May 31, 1830, ch. 219, 4 Stat. 425; Act of July
13, 1832, ch. 207, 4 Stat. 578–579. Presidents frequently
changed the rates of duties on imports as to various foreign
nations pursuant to these delegations.​

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

 

[Lockback]

You missed the press conference, I guess?

Don't care.
Tomorrow's another day.
And Trump will still be President.
And will still be winning.
And you'll still be a disturbed nothing.

 

[Robert W]

It was quite a sight watching Trump go thru the "seven stages of grief" today live & on the air for the whole world to see. Him having his ass handed back to him by SCOTUS really gave him the "sads".

Kleenex?

I voted for Trump and still support him. However, his rants today against the Supreme court was him being him and being very wrong to attack the Supreme court. Sure, their ruling is wrong as Alito, and the 2 other justices decided, but they were helpful to Trump by explaining the right way to talk.