Tariffs Catch-All

  • Thread starter Thread starter BubbaOtis
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 4K
  • Views: 150K
  • Politics 
Calheel said:
I just read the bill. Bond has to be paid at time injunction is issued. The retroactive application of that law would probably be struck down on Article III grounds. Shoot, the prospective application of that law would probably be struck down on Article III grounds.
Click to expand...
I agree that it should be struck down, but I'm not sure it will be. I'm more bullish on the inherent judicial power to punish contempt than maybe the courts and certainly the Supreme Court.

But I think they styled it as a jurisdictional bar precisely as an attempt to get around the Article III argument.
 
nycfan said:
“… As market economist David Rosenberg of Rosenberg Research put it in a Wednesday note: “The question is, at what point will the President’s credibility become impaired because you only get so many tries at kicking the tariff can down the road … As for the markets, they are playing the role of dog in President Trump’s impersonation of Ivan Pavlov.”

…
Essaye said that while the TACO trade has worked, investors shouldn’t get complacent. Don’t look past the fact that the tariff burden is now higher and will slow growth and inflation, he said.

Investors can play the TACO trade in the short term by buying cyclical sectors, such as consumer discretionary

XLY
+2.95%
, tech
XLK
+2.38%
, financials
XLF
+1.76%
, and energy
XLE
+0.87%
, which tend to get hardest after tariff threats but tend to bounce back biggest, he said, recommending they spread a full position out over the course of a day or two after the initial threat.

What about a long-term play? The best bet there is to ignore the TACO trade, Essaye said.

“What will determine the next 15%-20% in this market isn’t Trump’s tariff talk. Instead, it’s the economy and whether it can hold up amidst tariffs, policy volatility, higher interest rates, no Fed rates cuts and pressure on consumer spending,” he said.…”
Click to expand...

nycfan said:


A little more detail on second court blocking tariffs.
Click to expand...

round and round she goes...where it stops nobody knows

 
Just an administrative stay, doesn't mean anything. But I very much doubt the Supreme Court is going to let the Federal Circuit have the last word here.
 
superrific said:
Just an administrative stay, doesn't mean anything. But I very much doubt the Supreme Court is going to let the Federal Circuit have the last word here.
Click to expand...
Probably not but Federal circuit is hearing it en banc and in a relative hurry (briefings due June 5 and June 9).
 
Last edited:
nycfan said:
Probably not but DC circuit is hearing it en banc and in a relative hurry (briefings due June 5 and June 9).
Click to expand...
DC circuit? Appeals from the CIT go to the Federal Circuit. Maybe you're referring to the other case? I didn't see where that one was filed.
 
superrific said:
DC circuit? Appeals from the CIT go to the Federal Circuit. Maybe you're referring to the other case? I didn't see where that one was filed.
Click to expand...
You are right, Federal Circuit. Was typing without thinking.
 
I think we all know how this ends. I am not a lawyer. I don't think that one needs to be a lawyer to understand the fundamental tenets of our Constitution and founding. The corrupt Supreme Court will come to Trump's defense, thus aiding and abbetting the felon. I want those scoundrels on record for doing so.

I also want the spineless MAGAt party on record here. There is no Republican party anymore, they have all sold their souls to the felon in Chief. I want them to be forced to vote on, and approve of this nonsense, which they would surely do. They have the power to do so (not Trump) so let them have this on their record.
 
nycfan said:
No. Your joke implied I was doing nothing while I was actually subject to intellectual torture.
Click to expand...
IOW, the joke didn't land. The intent was ironic: I knew you were working hard, but the job can seem like doing nothing to people who don't know what's involved. The subtext, perhaps, was that sometimes the work can be so excruciating that staring at the wall might seem wonderful by comparison. I didn't know you were at the moment being tortured, but it is a deal practice after all. Anyway, since your takeaway was completely opposite from what was intended, it's fair to say that the joke sucked and that's why I edited it. Apologies.
 

Trump’s Team Plots Plan B for Imposing Tariffs​

If a court appeal fails, president’s advisers are considering a stopgap tariff regime​


🎁 —> https://www.wsj.com/economy/trade/t...96?st=wFRJus&reflink=mobilewebshare_permalink

“… First, the administration is considering a stopgap effort to impose tariffs on swaths of the global economy under a never-before-used provision of the Trade Act of 1974, which includes language allowing for tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days to address trade imbalances with other countries, the people said. That would then buy time for Trump to devise individualized tariffs for each major trading partner under a different provision of the same law, used to counter unfair foreign trade practices.

That second step requires a lengthy notification and comment process, but is seen by administration officials as more legally defensible than the tariff policy that was found to be illegal this week. The alternative provision has been used many times in the past, including for Trump’s first-term tariffs on China.

…
All of the options under consideration now were discussed in the early weeks of the administration, but officials opted to instead impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, also known as IEEPA. The law had never been used before to impose tariffs but allowed the administration to move quickly to impose levies on virtually every global trading partner.

In its decision Wednesday, the U.S. Court of International Trade struck down Trump’s use of IEEPA to address trade deficits. In doing so, the court pointed to Section 122, the measure Trump’s team is now weighing as a stopgap policy, saying part of federal law already grants explicit authority to address “large and serious balance-of-payments deficits.” …”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top