Trump Introduces New 10% Tariff Following Supreme Court Ruling

32 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Really. Do you really not understand the difference between Trump and Trump's?

That explains a lot.

Explain the difference, if you can.

On NO..you mean all the maga mob waiting for their big tariff rebate checks along with the big doge checks are going to get to see first hand how their conman has once again made fools of them?

Fool me once shame on you, Fool me over and over and over....uh DUH.

2 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

I think the Supreme Court is flawed.

It shouldn’t be possible for it ever have a split opinion down partisan lines.

There job isn’t to make the law, it’s to interpret it and it’s actually very simple, it makes not a fig of difference whether they think what he is doing is good for the country, it’ should be a black and white interpretation. There was no emergency, he usurped the powers of congress.

The big issue is how to stop this sort of thing happening again.

I think being aligned Democrat or Republican should preclude you from serving as a Supreme Court justice.

What if a nominee is a closet Democrat or Republican?

3 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Equating Trump with Law and Order is a bit like equating Miley Cyrus with nuclear physics.

unclear how.

explain

Didn't see it mentioned yet. The new tariffs are only valid for 150 days then they expire unless ratified by Congress. Don't think that's going to happen with the midterms a couple of months away.

5 hours ago, JimHuaHin said:

So, the US Supreme Court announces that Trump's tariffs are illegal, and Trump immediately announces new tariffs - is that not contempt of court and illegal?

Time for the US Criminal in Chief to go to prison.

No. The use of IEEPA has been ruled against. That's all. Seems you either haven't educated yourself on the SCOTUS ruling or don't understand it. He can still apply tariffs and stay within the confines of the ruling.

31 minutes ago, papa al said:

unclear how.

explain

Anytime a corollary or a metaphor has to be spelled out and explained, it's going to fall upon deaf ears.

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

How is that to be determined?

40 minutes ago, Hawaiian said:

What if a nominee is a closet Democrat or Republican?

I think SCOTUS should be replaced with AI, ultimately, all judges will be anyway.

I think there also needs to be an AI that immediately steps in if anyone in a high public office lies and a retraction and apology is then forced by the AI arbiter.

Likewise, AI should be capable of impeaching and removing a president if he/she breaks the constitution and refuses to immediately fix it.

The situation where the President, Senate,Congress and SCOTUS are all supporting one party could ultimately lead to a dictatorship.

Something needs to change.

19 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

I think SCOTUS should be replaced with AI, ultimately, all judges will be anyway.

I think there also needs to be an AI that immediately steps in if anyone in a high public office lies and a retraction and apology is then forced by the AI arbiter.

Likewise, AI should be capable of impeaching and removing a president if he/she breaks the constitution and refuses to immediately fix it.

The situation where the President, Senate,Congress and SCOTUS are all supporting one party could ultimately lead to a dictatorship.

Something needs to change.

I believe it happened three times where the Democrats controlled the three branches.

4 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Prison certainly seems like the most appropriate place for this career criminal and fraudster who continues to resist anything resembling Law and Order even though he falsely ran as that type of candidate.

Equating Trump with Law and Order is a bit like equating Miley Cyrus with nuclear physics.

South Korea's just shown the US what should have happened to Trump. The fact that 77m instead voted him in as president a second time, after fraud convictions and sexual abuse verdicts, shows the country has lost both its moral compass and its spine.

This is actually the problem the world faces with the US. It ain't Kansas any more. Major global reshuffle underway and the US will be much poorer in every respect (in particular with regards to respect) when it's over - probably over the next generation or two.

But: it's what you voted for (or stayed at home for).

So you get a hefty fine and suspended sentence for consuming cocaine, and you immediately tell the court you're going to go out and buy some meth asap.

1 hour ago, dinsdale said:

Seems you either haven't educated yourself on the SCOTUS ruling or don't understand it. He can still apply tariffs and stay within the confines of the ruling.

Neither have you. To apply tariffs he needs to get Congress to enact it into law to apply permanent tariffs. That's not going to happen.

1 hour ago, JBChiangRai said:

I think SCOTUS should be replaced with AI, ultimately, all judges will be anyway.

I think there also needs to be an AI that immediately steps in if anyone in a high public office lies and a retraction and apology is then forced by the AI arbiter.

Likewise, AI should be capable of impeaching and removing a president if he/she breaks the constitution and refuses to immediately fix it.

The situation where the Presid

Who feeds the AI?

2 hours ago, gargamon said:

Didn't see it mentioned yet. The new tariffs are only valid for 150 days then they expire unless ratified by Congress. Don't think that's going to happen with the midterms a couple of months away.

So create anopther mess that would further disrupt people and biz life all so you can try and prove you can twist a loophole around when the supreme court just told you that you are wrong. What a sad little excuse for a man who can never ever admit that he was and is wrong. Nobody wants your tariffs...what part of that do you fail to grasp? Vote this entire regime out of office and then impeach and remove trump before he creates even more chaos and death.

5 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Equating Trump with Law and Order is a bit like equating Miley Cyrus with nuclear physics.

I say, that is rather unfair. We don't know whether Miley Cyrus could master at least some basics of nuclear physics; we can be sure that if the fat orange man tried his hand at it he would be certain to end up glowing in the dark - and adding yet more to the toxic waste which flows from both ends!

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

So you are saying the same thing you have been saying for over ten years. Shocking.

Huh? I've been saying for 1 year that Trump's tariffs were illegal; that has been proven to be correct by the Supreme Court.

He is clearly going to ignore the Supreme Court, which will inevitably lead to yet more cases, and rulings, probably rather more rapidly processed than this one.

14 minutes ago, newnative said:

Huh? I've been saying for 1 year that Trump's tariffs were illegal; that has been proven to be correct by the Supreme Court.

What you said was: "Total disregard for the law--time for him to be impeached."

14 minutes ago, JAG said:

He is clearly going to ignore the Supreme Court, which will inevitably lead to yet more cases, and rulings, probably rather more rapidly processed than this one.

He is not now, nor has he ever ignored the Supreme Court.

Here's the upshot. SCOTUS has ruled that Trump used the wrong statute to impose tariffs. It did not rule that he cannot impose tariffs. Section 122 is being initiated but this has a limit of up to 150 days (allows for a 15% limit) after which Congressional approval is needed.

Where were the lefties why Biden was defying the court?

3 hours ago, gargamon said:

the midterms a couple of months away

I didn't realise it's September. Silly me I thought is was February and the mid-terms are nine months away.

13 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

I didn't realise it's September. Silly me I thought is was February and the mid-terms are nine months away.

You can't do math either then I guess. 150 days from now when the 10% tariffs need to be ratified is when?

6-3 verdict says something, though it should have been 9-0. Maybe the Supremes have huevos after all. Hope T.rump will be charged again for the 10%.

On another note. Thai Customs is charging VAT, tariffs, and duties. The tariffs Customs is charging are entirely arbitrary not relating to the tariffs each country levies on Thai goods. I contest it every time.

Stock Market took a nice bump on Friday after the news. Be nice to see it peak before taking some cash.

10 minutes ago, gargamon said:

You can't do math either then I guess. 150 days from now when the 10% tariffs need to be ratified is when?

Please. I posted 150 days and I posted up to 15% limit in relation to Section 122. You posted the mid-terms are a couple of months away. Admit you screwed up.

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

What you said was: "Total disregard for the law--time for him to be impeached."

Correct. Said that today. Stand by it. And, last February, I posted that his tariffs were illegal. Supreme Court has now agreed that they are.

6 minutes ago, newnative said:

Correct. Said that today. Stand by it. And, last February, I posted that his tariffs were illegal. Supreme Court has now agreed that they are.

Some of his tariffs were illegal

9 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Some of his tariffs were illegal

An indication that you are not a native English speaker. For native English speakers, it is commonly understood that "some" generally does not mean "most". Someone who's first language was nt English would understandably fail to understand that nuance.

It is widely reported that most of the tariffs imposed by the American government were through IEEPA, at about 75% of all tariffs. Its these tariffs that have been declared as illegal. Thus most, not some of the tariffs were declared illegal.

28 minutes ago, newnative said:

Correct. Said that today. Stand by it. And, last February, I posted that his tariffs were illegal. Supreme Court has now agreed that they are.

It has been determined that a small number of tariffs are allowed to stand, about 25% of the tariffs imposed. eg Steel and aluminium tariffs were allowed to stay. The response, a blanket 150 day 10% tariff indicates that the intent is a taxation by the back door, because no American corporation will plan strategy based on a 150 day horizon.

It is likely that the US government will be forced to reimburse corporations ($200bn?) monies that were never escrowed. Here is where the plot thickens. If you wanted to enrich corporate supporters, then you could pass tariffs that you know wouldn't make it through a conservative-dominated court (traditionally, its the left who are in favour of protectionism, and its the right who are in favour of tariff elimination). Companies would get a reimbursement, with no requirement for them to refund their customers. Easier than passing corporate tax cuts. Moreover, the money collected has already been spent, providing a cover to enact further budgetry cuts to programmes that some members of the present government have a dogmatic opposition to, notably public healthcare, education, social security, veterans administration spend. They can blame the judges.