Tariffs Catch-All

  • Thread starter Thread starter BubbaOtis
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 4K
  • Views: 150K
  • Politics 
1moretimeagain said:
Click to expand...



“… The court ruled in favor of a permanent injunction, grinding Trump’s global tariffs to a halt before “deals” with most other trading partners have even been reached. That means the bulk – but not all – of Trump’s tariffs are put in a standstill.

The order halts Trump’s 30% tariffs on China, his 25% tariffs on some goods imported from Mexico and Canada, and the 10% universal tariffs on most goods coming into the United States. It does not, however, affect the 25% tariffs on autos, auto parts, steel or aluminum, which were subject to Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act – a different law than the one Trump cited for his broader trade actions.

Stock futures surged on the ruling. Dow futures rose nearly 500 points, or 1.1%. The broader S&P 500 futures were up 1.4%, and Nasdaq futures were 1.6% higher in afterhours trading.

The lawsuit was filed by the libertarian legal advocacy group Liberty Justice Center in April and represented wine-seller VOS Selections and four other small businesses that claimed they had been severely harmed by the tariffs. The panel came to a unanimous decision, publishing an opinion on the VOS suit and also one by twelve Democratic states brought against the Trump tariffs.…”
 
Calheel said:
I have been waiting for this ruling. The constitution gives Congress the power to regulate trade, not the executive. And although Congress has slowly let the executive usurp that power, it is good to see that the courts will not let the constitution be a meaningless document. Let's see if this case (and the related cases) make it up to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Congress has capitulated every which way they can but when push comes to shove I can't see them voting to actually enact these tariffs.
 
nycfan said:


“… The court ruled in favor of a permanent injunction, grinding Trump’s global tariffs to a halt before “deals” with most other trading partners have even been reached. That means the bulk – but not all – of Trump’s tariffs are put in a standstill.

The order halts Trump’s 30% tariffs on China, his 25% tariffs on some goods imported from Mexico and Canada, and the 10% universal tariffs on most goods coming into the United States. It does not, however, affect the 25% tariffs on autos, auto parts, steel or aluminum, which were subject to Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act – a different law than the one Trump cited for his broader trade actions.

Stock futures surged on the ruling. Dow futures rose nearly 500 points, or 1.1%. The broader S&P 500 futures were up 1.4%, and Nasdaq futures were 1.6% higher in afterhours trading.

The lawsuit was filed by the libertarian legal advocacy group Liberty Justice Center in April and represented wine-seller VOS Selections and four other small businesses that claimed they had been severely harmed by the tariffs. The panel came to a unanimous decision, publishing an opinion on the VOS suit and also one by twelve Democratic states brought against the Trump tariffs.…”
Click to expand...

“… the Trump administration has not met that criteria for an emergency, the plaintiffs alleged. The lawsuit also alleges IEEPA doesn’t give the president the power to enact tariffs in the first place, and even if it was interpreted to, it “would be an unconstitutional delegation of Congress’s power to impose tariffs,” according to a statement.

The court concurred in its ruling that Trump lacked the authority to declare a national emergency in order to impose those tariffs.

“IEEPA does not authorize any of the worldwide, retaliatory, or trafficking tariff orders,” the panel of judges said in their order Wednesday. “The worldwide and retaliatory tariff orders exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs. The trafficking tariffs fail because they do not deal with the threats set forth in those orders.”

… The Department of Justice lawyers argued that the tariffs are a political question – meaning it’s something that the courts can’t decide.

But the plaintiffs said IEEPA makes no mention of tariffs.

“If starting the biggest trade war since the Great Depression based on a law that doesn’t even mention tariffs is not an unconstitutional usurpation of legislative power, I don’t know what is,” Somin said in April….”
 
nycfan said:
“… the Trump administration has not met that criteria for an emergency, the plaintiffs alleged. The lawsuit also alleges IEEPA doesn’t give the president the power to enact tariffs in the first place, and even if it was interpreted to, it “would be an unconstitutional delegation of Congress’s power to impose tariffs,” according to a statement.

The court concurred in its ruling that Trump lacked the authority to declare a national emergency in order to impose those tariffs.

“IEEPA does not authorize any of the worldwide, retaliatory, or trafficking tariff orders,” the panel of judges said in their order Wednesday. “The worldwide and retaliatory tariff orders exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs. The trafficking tariffs fail because they do not deal with the threats set forth in those orders.”

… The Department of Justice lawyers argued that the tariffs are a political question – meaning it’s something that the courts can’t decide.

But the plaintiffs said IEEPA makes no mention of tariffs.

“If starting the biggest trade war since the Great Depression based on a law that doesn’t even mention tariffs is not an unconstitutional usurpation of legislative power, I don’t know what is,” Somin said in April….”
Click to expand...
“… Lawyers warned that that the government may ask a higher court to block the implementation of the block while they appeal it. The immediate higher court is the federal circuit, though it could potentially go right to the Supreme Court.

The United States Court of International Trade is a federal court in Manhattan that handles disputes over customs and international trade laws.“
 
nycfan said:


“… The court ruled in favor of a permanent injunction, grinding Trump’s global tariffs to a halt before “deals” with most other trading partners have even been reached. That means the bulk – but not all – of Trump’s tariffs are put in a standstill.

The order halts Trump’s 30% tariffs on China, his 25% tariffs on some goods imported from Mexico and Canada, and the 10% universal tariffs on most goods coming into the United States. It does not, however, affect the 25% tariffs on autos, auto parts, steel or aluminum, which were subject to Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act – a different law than the one Trump cited for his broader trade actions.

Stock futures surged on the ruling. Dow futures rose nearly 500 points, or 1.1%. The broader S&P 500 futures were up 1.4%, and Nasdaq futures were 1.6% higher in afterhours trading.

The lawsuit was filed by the libertarian legal advocacy group Liberty Justice Center in April and represented wine-seller VOS Selections and four other small businesses that claimed they had been severely harmed by the tariffs. The panel came to a unanimous decision, publishing an opinion on the VOS suit and also one by twelve Democratic states brought against the Trump tariffs.…”
Click to expand...

Stocks surged and the MAGAs will claim victory for their brilliant negotiator.
 
nycfan said:


He rants like a badly behaved child …

“… Biden. This country was dying. You know we have the hottest country anywhere in the world. I went to Saudi Arabia, the king told me, he said you’ve got the hottest [tries to say country, says kum], we have the hottest country in the world right now. Six months ago this country was stone cold dead. We had a dead country. We had a country people didn’t think was going to survive and you ask a nasty question like that. Uh It’s called negotiations and you set a number and if you go down you know if I set a number at a ridiculous high number and I go down a litttle bit you know a little bit they want me to hold than number you know 145% tariff, even I said that really got up. You know how it got? Because of fentanyl and all and many other things and you added it up. I said where are we now? We’re at 145% and I said wooo that’s high. We were very nice to China. I don’t know if they’re going to be nice to us but we were very nice to China. And in many ways I think we really helped China tremendously because you know they were having great difficulty because we were basically going cold turkey with them … because of the tariffs. I knew that. But don’t ever say what you said. That’s a nasty question…”
Click to expand...

The woman behind him looks drunk.

This reporter might be on to something. We recall how he hated being called weird. Every reporter should start calling him chicken, it will send him over the edge. Of course that would mean we would end up with JD....
 
Just guessing there won't be any trade deals for awhile.

But the coolest thing might be what it does to farmers. Our tariffs don't affect the counter tariffs China and other countries have levied. Which means the markets for farmers are screwed. And if there is no tariff money coming in then it will be pretty hard to bail farmers out. Will be fun watching Trump explain this to them.
 
BlueSmoke said:
Just guessing there won't be any trade deals for awhile.

But the coolest thing might be what it does to farmers. Our tariffs don't affect the counter tariffs China and other countries have levied. Which means the markets for farmers are screwed. And if there is no tariff money coming in then it will be pretty hard to bail farmers out. Will be fun watching Trump explain this to them.
Click to expand...
1. It will not be hard to bail them out with or without tariffs.
2. I would expect all of the counter tariffs to be paused during any pause of American tariffs. Well, all that matter. The Chinese ones don't matter that much because tariffs don't drive the structure of China's import policies.
3. I don't think it's cool to screw over farmers like this. Yes, I enjoy FAFO to some degree, but here the FO seems disproportionate. It's not "oh, you voted for deportations but don't like the fact that your neighbor got deported." It's more like, "your guy used you as cannon fodder, like he said he would" and up until this point I'm okay with chortling, but what you're suggesting is like adding, "and he's still sending the cannon fodder into the barbed wire after the war is over"
4. The tariffs are not dead yet, not until the Supreme Court has its say.
 
BlueSmoke said:
Just guessing there won't be any trade deals for awhile.

But the coolest thing might be what it does to farmers. Our tariffs don't affect the counter tariffs China and other countries have levied. Which means the markets for farmers are screwed. And if there is no tariff money coming in then it will be pretty hard to bail farmers out. Will be fun watching Trump explain this to them.
Click to expand...
He will just tell them to eat it, since they got to own the libs.
 
superrific said:
1. It will not be hard to bail them out with or without tariffs.
2. I would expect all of the counter tariffs to be paused during any pause of American tariffs. Well, all that matter. The Chinese ones don't matter that much because tariffs don't drive the structure of China's import policies.
3. I don't think it's cool to screw over farmers like this. Yes, I enjoy FAFO to some degree, but here the FO seems disproportionate. It's not "oh, you voted for deportations but don't like the fact that your neighbor got deported." It's more like, "your guy used you as cannon fodder, like he said he would" and up until this point I'm okay with chortling, but what you're suggesting is like adding, "and he's still sending the cannon fodder into the barbed wire after the war is over"
4. The tariffs are not dead yet, not until the Supreme Court has its say.
Click to expand...
I feel bad for them also, it's a demanding job with little gratitude or reward, but if any group should have had an idea how bad the tariffs are, this group should have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top