Tariffs Catch-All

  • Thread starter Thread starter BubbaOtis
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 4K
  • Views: 135K
  • Politics 
None of this shit is legal. He has no authority to impose tariffs on Brazil for political reasons, nor any of this other shit. Who cares, though. He's fucking us over.

Think about this bit of moronism: he's imposing tariffs on everyone . . .and also demanding that South Korea buy a bunch of LNG. Fabulous. Guess what happens when supply is limited and demand is artificially boosted. Higher prices, on top of higher prices. He's lucky that South Korea probably won't actually buy any of that shit they supposedly promised.
 

Countries Promise Trump to Buy U.S. Gas, and Leave the Details for Later​

U.S. trading partners are committing to buy more gas than they need or than the U.S. can produce, at least in the short term.

www.nytimes.com

Countries Promise Trump to Buy U.S. Gas, and Leave the Details for Later

U.S. trading partners are committing to buy more gas than they need or than the U.S. can produce, at least in the short term.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
 
IMG_8400.jpegIMG_8401.jpeg

(Posting because of the Pakistan oil statement - his subsequent post about a South Korea trade “deal” was already posted above).

IMG_8399.jpeg
 
IMG_8396.jpeg

On Eve of Tariff Deadline, Trump’s Trade War Faces Key Court Test​

A federal appeals panel will hear arguments from states and businesses that seek to invalidate the president’s tariffs.

www.nytimes.com

On Eve of Tariff Deadline, Trump’s Trade War Faces Key Court Test

A federal appeals panel will hear arguments from states and businesses that seek to invalidate the president’s tariffs.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

“
U.S. businesses and state leaders will urge a federal appeals court on Thursday to invalidate many of President Trump’s tariffs, just one day before he is set to expand his global trade war with withering new duties on America’s closest trading partners.

… The legal saga began this spring when a group of businesses and a coalition of states each sued the Trump administration on grounds that the president had vastly overstepped his authorities in the design of some of his steepest tariffs. A federal trade court agreed, determining in Maythat Mr. Trump did not have “unbounded” powers to impose duties as he saw fit.

The trade court ordered the White House to unwind those taxes on imports. But the Justice Department quickly appealed and soon secured a temporary halt to the mandate, allowing the president’s tariffs to remain in place. Lawyers for the Trump administration had argued that an abrupt end to the president’s policies would have sowed chaos and undermined its negotiations to broker more favorable trade agreements around the world.…”
 
nycfan said:
IMG_8396.jpeg

On Eve of Tariff Deadline, Trump’s Trade War Faces Key Court Test​

A federal appeals panel will hear arguments from states and businesses that seek to invalidate the president’s tariffs.

www.nytimes.com

On Eve of Tariff Deadline, Trump’s Trade War Faces Key Court Test

A federal appeals panel will hear arguments from states and businesses that seek to invalidate the president’s tariffs.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

“
U.S. businesses and state leaders will urge a federal appeals court on Thursday to invalidate many of President Trump’s tariffs, just one day before he is set to expand his global trade war with withering new duties on America’s closest trading partners.

… The legal saga began this spring when a group of businesses and a coalition of states each sued the Trump administration on grounds that the president had vastly overstepped his authorities in the design of some of his steepest tariffs. A federal trade court agreed, determining in Maythat Mr. Trump did not have “unbounded” powers to impose duties as he saw fit.

The trade court ordered the White House to unwind those taxes on imports. But the Justice Department quickly appealed and soon secured a temporary halt to the mandate, allowing the president’s tariffs to remain in place. Lawyers for the Trump administration had argued that an abrupt end to the president’s policies would have sowed chaos and undermined its negotiations to broker more favorable trade agreements around the world.…”
Click to expand...
“… The hearing on Thursday, to be convened by a panel of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, is a key step in what will surely be a fight that lands at the Supreme Court.…

… Mr. Trump has sought to apply some of the most painful duties in a novel way, by tapping a decades-old economic emergency statute that does not once mention the word tariff. To justify that strategy, the president has cited an evolving set of crises he must contain, including the flow of fentanyl into the United States and the country’s persistent trade deficit with other nations.

… The hearing on the states’ case has been consolidated on appeal with the similarly successful lawsuit brought by the Liberty Justice Center on behalf of businesses including VOS Selections, a wine importer in New York. Lawyers for those companies told the panel of appellate judges this month that “no other president in the statute’s nearly 50-year history has claimed that it authorizes tariffs.”

… government lawyers told the court that it owed “substantial deference” to Mr. Trump on how to respond to a national emergency. …”
 
Just heard Neil Katel (sp?) explain how the constitution and several cases over the years make it clear you need congressional approval. Of course this SCOTUS...........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top