Tariffs Catch-All

  • Thread starter Thread starter BubbaOtis
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 5K
  • Views: 175K
  • Politics 
nycfan said:
Who would constitute everyone? Lots of different fact patterns and claims to be resolved — importers who directly paid the tariffs, but what about the exporters who claim they ate the tariffs in their pricing? What about American businesses and consumers who paid the cost of an importer’s tariff costs via higher prices?

Sorting all that out is a mess. Which is why it would’ve made a lot more sense to stay the application of these tariffs pending this decision. Of course, the Trump Administration argued that there was no need for a stay because refunds could be calculated later if needed.
Click to expand...
Oh totally agree its a mess. But we were all taxed illegally and the process should start?
 
mpaer said:
Oh totally agree its a mess. But we were all taxed illegally and the process should start?
Click to expand...
The folks with claims need to go file with the Court of International Trade (or maybe there will first be an administrative claims process with Customs and Border Patrol?).
 

IMG_5108.jpeg

justthenews.com

Roberts court shuts door on tariffs but leaves room for Trump to prevail

In a 6–3 opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court held that IEEPA does not grant the president authority to impose tariffs. The ruling struck down the tariffs at issue in the case.
justthenews.com justthenews.com

“… Importantly, however, the court did not hold that the president lacks tariff authority altogether. Rather, it concluded only that IEEPA is not a valid statutory foundation for such measures. The opinion left intact the president’s ability to rely on other trade statutes enacted by Congress….”

Talk about spin. Yeesh. I guess Trump was so outraged because he totally won.
 
Will be interesting to see how foreign nations respond

. The Peter Thiel dream of no income tax and a McKinley govt funedd solely b ytarifss died today.
 
IMG_5118.jpegIMG_5119.jpeg

I don’t think the statutory 15% worldwide tariff has been legally tested, actually — certainly not the underlying basis for declaring an imbalance cited by Trump as requiring emergency correction. Nor has the likelihood that he’ll just reissue the tariff emergency when his 150 days elapses (if the tariffs aren’t first stayed for the ridiculousness of the basis given, which they might be by lower courts but SCOTUS will probably reverse any stay as they did in the IEEPA case) ever been tested.
 
IMG_5120.jpeg

www.nytimes.com

Trump Says He Will Raise Global Tariff to 15 Percent

The move signaled that the president would press ahead with steep global tariffs despite the legal setback from the Supreme Court.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

“… At least temporarily, exports from all countries will now face a 15 percent tariff rate, regardless of their trade practices, or the concessions they have made. Some trade experts said that those rates could end up benefiting lower-cost producers in places like China and other Asian nations, whose goods would be relatively cheap even after a 15 percent tariff rate.“
 
heelslegup said:
SCOTUS handed Cong Rs a midterms lifeline yesterday. Trump has already blown that up.
Click to expand...
Nah, I don't think so. The damage is already done. Prices aren't going to come down from the tariffs ending. The narrative has already been set in everyone's mind, and the president's mockery of the affordability issue has basically already branded the GOP on this issue
 
nycfan said:
Click to expand...

That blog post is very likely incorrect. Simon Lester is a trade policy guy, not an attorney or at least not a Supreme Court attorney. For instance, he thinks the following paragraph militates against the 122 tariffs. It does not, and in fact it almost guarantees that the Supreme Court will uphold:

This was the situation in 1971. But, it no longer applied by the time the Trade Act was introduced. In March 1973, the United States adopted a system of floating exchange rates, which allows currency values to adjust according to market forces. This eliminated the need for the government to maintain reserves to defend a fixed dollar value. As economist Milton Friedman explained, “a system of floating exchange rates completely eliminates the balance-of-payments problem. The [currency] price may fluctuate but there cannot be a deficit or a surplus threatening an exchange crisis.”

Supreme Court doctrine says that Congress does not pass useless statutes. So if the balance-of-payments problem goes away under floating rates, and we were in a floating rate environment, the Supreme Court will say that the statute has broader application than a strict balance of payments deficit. They will also defer to the president. Note that the statute is very specific: in fact, it requires the president to impose tariffs under certain factual predicates.

But anyway, even if the administration would lose on the merits, any attempted injunction against those tariffs would be stayed. Of that I am nearly 100% sure. So the 150 day clock will run out before the Supreme Court lifts a finger.

Edit: Simon Lester is an attorney, but he's very strictly a trade guy. Even worked at the WTO appellate body. In other words, he's really out of step with what the Supreme Court has been doing. He might be right on the merits, but I very much doubt the Supreme Court would see the case as he does.
 
This may have been covered here already but let’s assume the 122 tariffs are not invalidated or stayed in the next 150 days. We get to late July, a little over three months before the midterms, and the tariffs are about to expire. Congress takes up legislation that has no chance of succeeding, but that forces vulnerable Pubs to either vote for extremely unpopular tariffs or defy Trump, who will tee off on them.

How is the 122 dynamic not an absolute disaster for the Pubs? I mean, I’m all for it. I’m just trying to understand why the smart people on Trump’s team like Wiles think this is a workable plan.
 
lawtig02 said:
This may have been covered here already but let’s assume the 122 tariffs are not invalidated or stayed in the next 150 days. We get to late July, a little over three months before the midterms, and the tariffs are about to expire. Congress takes up legislation that has no chance of succeeding, but that forces vulnerable Pubs to either vote for extremely unpopular tariffs or defy Trump, who will tee off on them.

How is the 122 dynamic not an absolute disaster for the Pubs? I mean, I’m all for it. I’m just trying to understand why the smart people on Trump’s team like Wiles think this is a workable plan.
Click to expand...
Because Trump doesn't care about Susie Wiles. He has invested so much in his tariffs he's not going to let them go. I mean, when has Trump ever backed down unless forced?

I suspect the more likely outcome is the shenanigans we are seeing in the US attorneys office. The tariff will be put on for 150 days. Then it will lapse, and they will renew it. Just like the Tik Tok deal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top