SCOTUS Rules Against Trump Administration IEEPA Tariffs

[OlDawg]

54 minutes ago, TheMissingBand said:

That’s an overreach… but i do like having a health department around to make sure that things are sanitary around those restaurants… food temps, extermination schedules , etc. 

@thetragichippy knows. He and I usually agree on quite a bit. I'm surprised he likes the government involvement in rate setting. There's a good example of the differences between a conservative and a libertarian. One wants to control a social behavior based on their own moral values. (Even though it's an admirable desire.) The other doesn't.

[UT alum]

2 hours ago, OlDawg said:

@thetragichippy knows. He and I usually agree on quite a bit. I'm surprised he likes the government involvement in rate setting. There's a good example of the differences between a conservative and a libertarian. One wants to control a social behavior based on their own moral values. (Even though it's an admirable desire.) The other doesn't.

What does the other one want? To control social behavior using a different set of values, or just let social behavior run its course with no attempt to shape outcomes?

[OlDawg]

1 hour ago, UT alum said:

What does the other one want? To control social behavior using a different set of values, or just let social behavior run its course with no attempt to shape outcomes?

The latter—as long as that individual’s behavior does no harm to others. It’s called personal liberty of the individual. A rare commodity nowadays.

Here’s a little story I’ll just throw out there.

There’s 3 bankers with credit cards. A customer comes in asking about credit cards.

• First banker says, "HI. I'm a Liberal banker. I'll give you a credit card, and take care of everything for you as long as you use it like I tell you."
• Second banker says, "Hi. I'm a Conservative banker. I'll help you get a credit card with low interest rates, a low credit limit so you don't overextend, and credit counseling to teach you how to responsibly use your new card."
• The third banker says, "Hi. I'm a libertarian banker. Here's my credit card offerings. Just pick the one that you like best. But remember, you're responsible for all charges."

Neither banker in and of themselves are good or bad. Neither card in and of itself is good or bad. Each is a choice based on personal priorities.

[thetragichippy]

6 hours ago, OlDawg said:

@thetragichippy knows. He and I usually agree on quite a bit. I'm surprised he likes the government involvement in rate setting. There's a good example of the differences between a conservative and a libertarian. One wants to control a social behavior based on their own moral values. (Even though it's an admirable desire.) The other doesn't.

Do you disagree with price gouging laws?  
 

Banks have had restrictions and last 20 years have had to jump through hoops to stay profitable

Research

Frank - Dodd Act - Obama

Credit Card Act 2009

CRA 1977 - (big one that causes banks to loan to lower income)

I’m not big on government oversight, but at the same time I do not like predatory lending

 

 

 

 

[OlDawg]

10 hours ago, thetragichippy said:

Do you disagree with price gouging laws?  
 

Banks have had restrictions and last 20 years have had to jump through hoops to stay profitable

Research

Frank - Dodd Act - Obama

Credit Card Act 2009

CRA 1977 - (big one that causes banks to loan to lower income)

I’m not big on government oversight, but at the same time I do not like predatory lending

 

 

 

 

 

22 hours ago, OlDawg said:

I don't like government interference in private lending markets. Protecting against predatory lending practices? Sure. Setting rates? No.

While I don't think limiting some people's access to 'easy credit' is a bad thing, it's not government's job.

I answered your question 11 posts ago.

The test for any law/regulation should be - Is this the LEAST INTRUSIVE way of handling KNOWN PROBLEM xxx? If the answer is 'No', it's a bad law/regulation.

For a Federal Law, the additional question should be - Is this a NATIONAL KNOWN PROBLEM, or is it local?

 

[Reagan]

 

Trump don't play!

[UT alum]

46 minutes ago, Reagan said:

 

Trump don't play!

If the court makes a ruling you don’t like, give it the one finger salute and do what you want to anyway. A fine example of citizenship from the country’s leader. 

[UT alum]

4 hours ago, OlDawg said:

 

I answered your question 11 posts ago.

The test for any law/regulation should be - Is this the LEAST INTRUSIVE way of handling KNOWN PROBLEM xxx? If the answer is 'No', it's a bad law/regulation.

For a Federal Law, the additional question should be - Is this a NATIONAL KNOWN PROBLEM, or is it local?

 

Question for you regarding Trump’s bellowing about other countries better pay up regardless of the court ruling. Other countries don’t pay tariffs. United States importers  pay the cost of tariffs. If they are deemed illegal by the highest court in the land, how does the Orangutan in chief force any importer to pay? It would be against the law if they did.

[TheMissingBand]

IEEPA tariffs were found to be illegal, not the others. But the others weren’t the basis of the suit that was before the court. I’m curious if subsequent suits will prove that the others weren’t legal either?  
 

The best part of all is watching people like Reagan celebrate how tough and cool Trump is when he’s just raising the cost of so many things that you need or want.  “Higher prices!!! Yeah!!!”

[thetragichippy]

15 minutes ago, UT alum said:

If the court makes a ruling you don’t like, give it the one finger salute and do what you want to anyway. A fine example of citizenship from the country’s leader. 

Biden did the same thing paying off college debt for votes….

Trump is using another statute, he is not defying the court……and you know that…..

 

[HangPDFs]

5 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

Biden did the same thing paying off college debt for votes….

Trump is using another statute, he is not defying the court……and you know that…..

 

What about 

[OlDawg]

18 minutes ago, UT alum said:

Question for you regarding Trump’s bellowing about other countries better pay up regardless of the court ruling. Other countries don’t pay tariffs. United States importers  pay the cost of tariffs. If they are deemed illegal by the highest court in the land, how does the Orangutan in chief force any importer to pay? It would be against the law if they did.

My thoughts on the situation right now--and knowing I am not a policy by tariff fan--are I'm not sure why Trump didn't just tell the American people they just received about a 50% price cut to help with affordability, that the original intent of the global tariffs was accomplished with some better trade deals, and now the Administration would use the tariff rules approved by SCOTUS in a more targeted manner to benefit the U.S. consumers and businesses. This would have settled everything down, and businesses would have had more stability for planning.

Instead, he acts like a spoiled child, and berating SCOTUS--which I don't like at all. This kind of crap is exactly why they ruled the way they did.

Any other tariff imposed will be challenged in court, We'll go around again.

Apparently, we have a choice between idiots and Socialists. Woo Hoo!

[UT alum]

12 minutes ago, OlDawg said:

My thoughts on the situation right now--and knowing I am not a policy by tariff fan--are I'm not sure why Trump didn't just tell the American people they just received about a 50% price cut to help with affordability, that the original intent of the global tariffs was accomplished with some better trade deals, and now the Administration would use the tariff rules approved by SCOTUS in a more targeted manner to benefit the U.S. consumers and businesses. This would have settled everything down, and businesses would have had more stability for planning.

Instead, he acts like a spoiled child, and berating SCOTUS--which I don't like at all. This kind of crap is exactly why they ruled the way they did.

Any other tariff imposed will be challenged in court, We'll go around again.

Apparently, we have a choice between idiots and Socialists. Woo Hoo!

Any tariff levied under IEEPA authority is illegal. If importers refuse to collect, what could Trump legally do?

[UT alum]

27 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

Biden did the same thing paying off college debt for votes….

Trump is using another statute, he is not defying the court……and you know that…..

 

Not according to what he said in Reagan’s post just above.

[OlDawg]

5 minutes ago, UT alum said:

Any tariff levied under IEEPA authority is illegal. If importers refuse to collect, what could Trump legally do?

Not sure what you’re asking. IEEPA was done immediately upon SCOTUS ruling.

Tariff collection under IEEPA was stopped.

[UT alum]

1 minute ago, OlDawg said:

Not sure what you’re asking. IEEPA was done immediately upon SCOTUS ruling.

Tariff collection was stopped.

Read his words on Truth Social posted be Reagan above. “Any country that wants to”play games” with the ridiculous Supreme Court decision” basically better watch out. Sound like he’s going to ignore it, or replace it with other illegal means.

[OlDawg]

5 minutes ago, UT alum said:

Read his words on Truth Social posted be Reagan above. “Any country that wants to”play games” with the ridiculous Supreme Court decision” basically better watch out. Sound like he’s going to ignore it, or replace it with other illegal means.

He’ll try to justify another section to impose ‘tougher’ tariffs long term according to his thinking. Since he’s flapping his yaps again, he’s already providing ammo for future lawsuits.

The ‘other means’ you mention aren’t illegal by default. They have to be justified, and appropriately used.

But, there will still be lawsuits. There will still be uncertainty for businesses. That means slower growth for the economy as a whole.

[Reagan]

8 minutes ago, UT alum said:

Any tariff levied under IEEPA authority is illegal. If importers refuse to collect, what could Trump legally do?

No -- to use IEEPA as a reason for certain tariffs were ruled against.  Not the tariffs themselves.  He'll just switch over to different statues as a reason for the same, and more, tariffs.  

[Boyz N Da Hood]

15 minutes ago, Reagan said:

No -- to use IEEPA as a reason for certain tariffs were ruled against.  Not the tariffs themselves.  He'll just switch over to different statues as a reason for the same, and more, tariffs.  

Provide something besides X to back this

[Reagan]

3 minutes ago, Boyz N Da Hood said:

Provide something besides X to back this

Any time I post something from X that is not true feel free to prove it wrong.  I've never been opposed to being corrected.  

[UT alum]

17 minutes ago, Reagan said:

No -- to use IEEPA as a reason for certain tariffs were ruled against.  Not the tariffs themselves.  He'll just switch over to different statues as a reason for the same, and more, tariffs.  

Tomato, tomato. Difference is, his tariff actions will have to be either temporary or approved through appropriate channels. As I’ve said, Trump doesn’t play well with others. If he wants it, it is deemed appropriate. This won’t end well

[UT alum]

3 minutes ago, Reagan said:

Any time I post something from X that is not true feel free to prove it wrong.  I've never been opposed to being corrected.  

I don’t play on X. Besides, it is not a legitimate source of facts.

[UT alum]

28 minutes ago, OlDawg said:

He’ll try to justify another section to impose ‘tougher’ tariffs long term according to his thinking. Since he’s flapping his yaps again, he’s already providing ammo for future lawsuits.

The ‘other means’ you mention aren’t illegal by default. They have to be justified, and appropriately used.

But, there will still be lawsuits. There will still be uncertainty for businesses. That means slower growth for the economy as a whole.

DOW down 660 on uncertainty created by the Chaos-in-Chief.

[Boyz N Da Hood]

9 minutes ago, Reagan said:

Any time I post something from X that is not true feel free to prove it wrong.  I've never been opposed to being corrected.  

In other words "I have nothing"

[OlDawg]

15 minutes ago, UT alum said:

DOW down 660 on uncertainty created by the Chaos-in-Chief.

Typically, I’m a selective buyer in situations like this. It’s one of the reasons I was able to retire very early, and live off investments for the last 10+ years.

Not right now. His behavior and its effects for longer term uncertainty have me on hold. Not long after his 150 days are up, we’ll have mid-terms to add another level of uncertainty.

I’ll just watch and hold for a bit. Not a seller. Just not a buyer.