Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Tariffs Catch-All

  • Thread starter Thread starter BubbaOtis
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 4K
  • Views: 124K
  • Politics 
What is the status of these tariffs legally? I think there was a nationwide injunction against them, IIRC, but then the Supreme Court said no nationwide injunctions -- so would the tariffs continue to apply to all non-parties, or is this a case where complete relief requires nationwide relief. If there's a plaintiff that isn't an importer but rather a downstream buyer, it could argue that any tariffs that increase the price they pay would injure them, thus they would have standing.

But maybe the supreme court stayed the injunction. I can't even keep track any more.
 
HintonJamesHeel said:
Because of situations like Covid. China turned off all supply of masks and equipment they made to keep it for them wives. That’s not a way to have a supply chain.
Click to expand...
1. But pharma is manufactured everywhere, not just China. I suppose if we piss off everyone in the world, maybe nobody would want to help us but hey, maybe avoid that.

2. We still manufacture pharma here. Why does it ALL need to be here.

3. It's much easier and cheaper to buy a stockpile than to spend godawful amount of resources on duplicative manufacturing.

4. I don't think you understand the benefits of trade.
 
superrific said:
1. But pharma is manufactured everywhere, not just China. I suppose if we piss off everyone in the world, maybe nobody would want to help us but hey, maybe avoid that.

2. We still manufacture pharma here. Why does it ALL need to be here.

3. It's much easier and cheaper to buy a stockpile than to spend godawful amount of resources on duplicative manufacturing.

4. I don't think you understand the benefits of trade.
Click to expand...
You wouldn’t want to move all of it here. You’d want a majority here and solid second and third source elsewherez
 
superrific said:
What is the status of these tariffs legally? I think there was a nationwide injunction against them, IIRC, but then the Supreme Court said no nationwide injunctions -- so would the tariffs continue to apply to all non-parties, or is this a case where complete relief requires nationwide relief. If there's a plaintiff that isn't an importer but rather a downstream buyer, it could argue that any tariffs that increase the price they pay would injure them, thus they would have standing.

But maybe the supreme court stayed the injunction. I can't even keep track any more.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure it was stayed by circuit court or supreme court (or maybe even district court). I think there was some period of time before the order was supposed to go into effect.
 
nycfan said:
IMG_7856.jpeg
Click to expand...
"Why make a deal with a man who will surely break it?"

This should be the basic question EVERYONE "dealing" with Trump should ask. Foreign countries, Republicans, Democrats, the media, universities, lawyers, judges, government workers, the markets, and most importantly, the American people, should be skeptical of anything and everything that comes out of Trump's McPie Hole.
 
I have no issue with the government looking at stuff we would need to produce for national security reasons.
I doubt that applies to very many of the countries for which we are adding tariffs.
And if this is about national security, adding tariffs seems like a really dumb way to go about it.
 
Bobfripp said:
$10,000 for an electric car? China is going to bury us. We're getting left behind, and Trump is making it much worse.

🎁 -> https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/08/...e_code=1.U08.fWuT.vORqmQ_Jspw1&smid=url-share
Click to expand...

Ford CEO Jim Farley didn’t mince words at the recent Aspen Ideas Festival, describing China’s rapid rise in the electric vehicle (EV) market as the “most humbling experience” of his career.

"Their cost, their quality of their vehicles is far superior to what I see in the west." Farley said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top