Can someone explain the SCOTUS tariff situation ? They'll decide if what Trump did was constitutional and legal or what ? If so, how does the Supreme Court analayze economical policies, that seems odd.
>>525881861It's not about policy, but whether the President has the right to do it. Congress is the one who's supposed to decide on taxes and tariffs are a tax.
>>525882154Gotcha. But didn't the Republicans have the Congress ? Why didn't he make the vote the taxes ? While already signing his own.
>>525881861In the past it was always a job that belonged to congress. If SCOTUS tells Trump to follow the law, it potentially carries the implication that he will have to give back the money he has taken. Trump's numbers on how much money is involved are a lie, and giving the money back will expose this embarrassment.
>>525881861
>>525883150Kek. That would be funny. But isn't SCOTUS majority pro-Trump ?
>>525881861>If so, how does the Supreme Court analayze economical policies,They don't. But they decide whether policies are legal according to the Constitution. That's their only job.
>>525883284That is why this is suspenseful. They might just say "fuck it", and let the king rule as he whims.
>>525881861Congress passed a law giving the President the power to tariff countries. Costco didn't like that so they sued and said Congress shouldn't have done that. The conservatives said their arguments were stupid, the liberals seethed, and it is a 6-3 decision for Trump.
>>525881861>If so, how does the Supreme Court analayze economical policiesThey evaluate the appeal based on constitutional law and generally attempt to reconcile their ruling with precedents they have set, paying particular attention to how the ruling can affect the day-to-day function of courts and on-going cases.Do you remember when they axed Roe vs. Wade, and all the liberal women started screeching they were being forced to give birth by the Supreme Court? Basically the Supreme Court rescinded their ruling, which kicked all abortion policies back down to state courts and legislatures instead of having one big broad policy for all 50 states plus US territories.
>>525883185Clueless based Irishman.
>>525883394>They might just say "fuck it", and let the king rule as he whims.It's very likely that they will, primarily because they're going to have to reconcile their decision against the existence of legislation that Trump invoked while instituting the tariffs like the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.The Supreme Court basically has to address each individual argument made in the appeals process, determine whether constitutional law prohibits the activity. But then that's the caveat: It has to be PROHIBITED by constitutional law for them to rule against it. As far as I'm aware there is no hardline prohibition against the President instituting tariffs, only the provision that Congress has the power to do so. That power is not necessarily solely their own, especially since the President has been given power by Congress to do so in some circumstances.
>>525882509he was bargaining using tariffs at one point he tariffed China 140% then dropped it when they folded, then raised it again etc. he couldn't do that and be unpredictable if he had to a vote on it first.
I work for a company which increased prices due to tariffs. The customer pays more now.Tariffs are, effectively, a sales tax without representation.
>>525883941Here's another factor: If the Supreme Court rules against Trump then any company that did this is has now illegally extorted their customers and will be facing class action lawsuits.
>>525883839This makes sense. I guess that's the difference between a policy/law and using tarrifs as a weapon on a whim
>>525883403John Roberts is always a wild card, same with Amy Barrett, and Gorsuch.
>>525884022>I guess that's the difference between a policy/law and using tarrifs as a weapon on a whimThe difference gets real blurry when it's in legalese. By all accounts Trump followed the policies he invoked to the letter. Declared national emergency, exercised emergency economic powers, and pointed at international drug cartels and trade deficits as the emergency. On paper all of this tracks. The Supreme Court, then, has to explain how and why it doesn't track in order to rule against it.
>>525884001No
>>525884391So you think businesses can impose tariffs on the American people if the President can't impose it on foreign nations, then walk away with their money like nothing happened? kek
>>525883407>>525884375Great insight. Thx.
>>525883284Trump's commerce secretary lutnick has a large firm Cantor Fitzgerald and they sold a bunch of tariff refund futuresI think it can be summarized as this Trump is doing illegal tariffs It goes to the courts Trump's commerce secretary tells people it's illegal you can 5x your moneyTrump tells supreme court it'll be the end of America if the laws aren't changed This is democracy in action with a little GDP from our commerce secretary
>>525883787>It has to be PROHIBITED by constitutional law for them to rule against it.Where does the constitution prohibit abortion control then?
President cannot impose taxes, tariffs or levies without congressional approval. The last thing a conservashit supreme court wants to do is give the president that power.So it's looking likely that the SCOTUS will cuck Trump on the tariffs. Which is good because it's just a bullshit tax on Americans.
>>525886049>Where does the constitution prohibit abortion control then?The 10th Amendment.
>>525886141Does it give women a right to bare wombs or some shit?
>>525882509The Republicans in Congress are generally free traders. But they are beholden to their primary voters who are Trump cultists so they'll sit on their hands, but they won't actively work to promote tariffs. If there were secret votes in Congress all conceivable tariff authority would already have been taken from Trump with a veto-proof majority, but Republicans there fear not just losing their seats but maybe even physical harm from Trumpist crazies.
>>525884461>impose tariffs on the American peopleNigger, tariffs increase the cost of products. That increase has to be paid for by the costumers. That's how tariffs work, the whole idea is that costumers will see an imported lightbulb costing 2.20 $ and an American-made lightbulb with a cost of 2 $ and choose the American instead of the Chinese because it's more expensive.Except the US doesn't have the capacity to manufacture all the shit they tariffed and worse yet: the senile orange retard put tariffs on raw materials, chemicals and pieces which means that even goods manufactured in the USA have their production costs increased.
>>525881861>If so, how does the Supreme Court analayze economical policies, that seems odd.They're not analysing the economic validity of Trump's policies, they're determining whether or not he had to right to implement them without approval from congress. Nothing odd about it
>>525884461The companies increased the price of their products, which they're legally entitled to do for practically any reason. You can try and make the argument that they were effectively charging a tarrif on consumers but legally and technically they weren't.
>>525881861Orange nigger rigged the supreme court, this is all just for show. Don't worry MIGAmutts, you will be getting your 500% tariffs, but you will not be getting your $2000 stimulus checks, because Trump forgot he ever promised that. Dementia Don at it again.
>>525881861https://youtu.be/04lW1vpZbfQ
