Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
6 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

https://www.tradecomplianceresourcehub.com/2025/05/27/trump-2-0-tariff-tracker/

nope.  All countries are being assessed a 10% tariff - unless they are country specific in which case they are probably delayed or on hold country by country.   The key here is that if there is a specific country agreement, then that supersedes the 10% and we are collecting nothing.

I will retract "everything" and acknowledge the byzantine set of rules, orders and nincompoopery.  

There are tariffs being collected, I've seen't it personally.   Guess some countries were stupid enough not to have been in the over ridden category.  Lol.

Posted

order creates more chaos…

https://apple.news/ALAP3WQTdSZ-NLkF7GFyR1A

A federal court on Wednesday ruled President Trump does not have the authority under economic emergency legislation to impose sweeping global tariffs.

Why it matters: The U.S. Court of International Trade's ruling could bring the administration's trade war to a screeching halt.

By blocking entirely most categories of tariffs, the court effectively wiped out most of the regime Trump put in place since taking office.

Driving the news: The court, ruling in two separate cases, issued a summary judgment throwing out all the tariffs Trump imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA.

Trump used the 1977 law, which had never before been invoked in a tariff situation, to unilaterally impose sweeping trade levies worldwide.

The two groups of plaintiffs — businesses and states — sued on the grounds that the president's orders violated the Constitution's grant of authority over import duties to Congress.

The administration filed a notice of appeal soon after the ruling, per multiple reports.

Zoom in: "The question in the two cases before the court is whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 ("IEEPA") …

"The court does not read IEEPA to confer such unbounded authority and sets aside the challenged tariffs imposed thereunder."

Tariffs imposed under a different legal authority called Section 232 — including on imports of autos, steel and aluminum — are unaffected by the ruling.

For the record: The court, which gets relatively little attention compared to most other federal courts, has jurisdiction over civil cases arising from trade disputes.

The three judges who heard the case were Reagan, Obama and Trump appointees

  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Kyrie Eleison said:

order creates more chaos…

https://apple.news/ALAP3WQTdSZ-NLkF7GFyR1A

A federal court on Wednesday ruled President Trump does not have the authority under economic emergency legislation to impose sweeping global tariffs.

Why it matters: The U.S. Court of International Trade's ruling could bring the administration's trade war to a screeching halt.

By blocking entirely most categories of tariffs, the court effectively wiped out most of the regime Trump put in place since taking office.

Driving the news: The court, ruling in two separate cases, issued a summary judgment throwing out all the tariffs Trump imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA.

Trump used the 1977 law, which had never before been invoked in a tariff situation, to unilaterally impose sweeping trade levies worldwide.

The two groups of plaintiffs — businesses and states — sued on the grounds that the president's orders violated the Constitution's grant of authority over import duties to Congress.

The administration filed a notice of appeal soon after the ruling, per multiple reports.

Zoom in: "The question in the two cases before the court is whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 ("IEEPA") …

"The court does not read IEEPA to confer such unbounded authority and sets aside the challenged tariffs imposed thereunder."

Tariffs imposed under a different legal authority called Section 232 — including on imports of autos, steel and aluminum — are unaffected by the ruling.

For the record: The court, which gets relatively little attention compared to most other federal courts, has jurisdiction over civil cases arising from trade disputes.

The three judges who heard the case were Reagan, Obama and Trump appointees

The Supreme Court will rule that "Article I" is a typo that should read "Article II." 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

so the tariffs get knocked down, which will pump up the stock market, which he will then take credit for.

did i miss anything?

yep. The narcissist can’t walk around with a hard on all day because he knows the entire world’s economies rise and fall at his stupid social media posts.    I’m not sure everyone realizes how important that is to him.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

yep. The narcissist can’t walk around with a hard on all day because he knows the entire world’s economies rise and fall at his stupid social media posts.    I’m not sure everyone realizes how important that is to him.

the narrative should be that “the judges saved the economy”.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Posted
12 hours ago, Kyrie Eleison said:

Tariffs imposed under a different legal authority called Section 232 — including on imports of autos, steel and aluminum — are unaffected by the ruling.

Is anyone completely certain if the 10% baseline tariffs were "emergency power" tariffs or "Section 232" tariffs?

Posted

so it dawns on me Trump‘s play might be to get Mike Johnson to whoop up some legislation giving Trump the congressional authority to do tariffs with some guidelines and slight limitations that might result in a different judicial interpretation.

but if that is the play - that seems like it would empower all of the GOP hardliners to use that vote as a bargaining chip in the discussions with the Senate about the one big beautiful bill’s deficit increasing aspect.   Plus, you would have the purple state/ potentially in election jeopardy Republicans - who could previously attempt to blame tariffs and damage to the economy from tariffs on Trump - but if forced vote to give Trump tariff power now would put the responsibility for any subsequent failure on them personally for that vote when they had a chance not to do it. so maybe Johnson does not get the votes that Trump wants, and it always turns out well for someone who offended Trump.

Which is all to say that shit is gonna get really interesting over the next month.  I would love to see Trump and Johnson try to get legislation only to have Johnson not be able to deliver and be kicked out as Speaker….hopefully with a shit show of a House  Speaker election like the last few. 

in reality, we were just waiting this summer to see what hurricane hits where - and how fun it will be when Trump says FEMA can’t help.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Is anyone completely certain if the 10% baseline tariffs were "emergency power" tariffs or "Section 232" tariffs?

You’re not getting your tariff money, and you’ll like it!!

j/k

The former

The orange shit gibbon can assign percentages to countries because it involves no research or knowledge or expertise in the type of materials and goods flowing from each country.  That is why trade deals take years. 

I am Bigly hoping that the appellate court reviewing this decision will mention the white house comments that “"It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency.”

Appellate courts love hearing that they do not have the authority to review legislative or executive actions for their constitutionality.

Edited by Gatorubet
  • Like 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

You’re not getting your tariff money, and you’ll like it!!

j/k

The former

The orange shit gibbon can assign percentages to countries because it involves no research or knowledge or expertise in the type of materials and goods flowing from each country.  That is why trade deals take years. 

I am Bigly hoping that the appellate court reviewing this decision will mention the white house comments that “"It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency.”

Appellate courts love hearing that they do not have the authority to review legislative or executive actions for their constitutionality.

I finally found an article that made that explicitly clear.  The whole thing is completely unmanageable.  To be clear, I have friends/acquaintances with businesses that are paying tariffs based on the 10% baseline for imports.  I wonder if they will get that money back?

Posted
Just now, Hookah Horns said:

Joe Scarborough said that SCOTUS will reverse based on congress delegating the power to trump...by not passing a joint resolution to stop the tariffs. I'm just about done watching "the news."

what took this long?

Posted
3 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

Joe Scarborough said that SCOTUS will reverse based on congress delegating the power to trump...by not passing a joint resolution to stop the tariffs. I'm just about done watching "the news."

This does not jive with part of the decision that says that Congress can only delegate the tariff authority if direction and limitations accompany that grant of authority.

This, of course, ignores the ancient common law exception of Clarence needing a newer, nicer RV.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
2 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

This does not jive with part of the decision that says that Congress can only delegate the tariff authority if direction and limitations accompany that grant of authority.

You doubt Constitutional Scholar Joseph Scarborough?

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
Posted

Plaintiffs have a week to say why the stay is bullshit, Trump has until June 9 to explain why the three Satan worshiping child abusing judicial activists were wrong and should be hung.

Trump told the appellate court that they were going to run to daddy in the Supreme Court by Friday to make the bad people in the lower courts go away. So I’m assuming that they will not ask the Supreme Court to do anything until after June 9 now -  whenever the circuit court rules on the request for a stay pending resolution of the appeal.   If the circuit court doesn’t grant a stay, I assume they run to the Supreme Court then.  

And it looks like the circuit court has stayed Trump from changing any currently implemented tariff positions until it’s all figured out.

But at least business interests have the clarity on tariffs that they so deeply desire.  

 

 

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

To recap:

Trump announces delay on EU tariffs: Market up. 

Court announces halting tariffs: Market up

Court announces halt to halting tariffs: Market up. 

I like to make fun of Trump and his taco as much as the next guy but the market is at a point where they don’t want to sell anymore because of it. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
40 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Plaintiffs have a week to say why the stay is bullshit, Trump has until June 9 to explain why the three Satan worshiping child abusing judicial activists were wrong and should be hung.

Trump told the appellate court that they were going to run to daddy in the Supreme Court by Friday to make the bad people in the lower courts go away. So I’m assuming that they will not ask the Supreme Court to do anything until after June 9 now -  whenever the circuit court rules on the request for a stay pending resolution of the appeal.   If the circuit court doesn’t grant a stay, I assume they run to the Supreme Court then.  

And it looks like the circuit court has stayed Trump from changing any currently implemented tariff positions until it’s all figured out.

But at least business interests have the clarity on tariffs that they so deeply desire.  

 

 

 

 

Hanged.

I mean, they might be hung too (at least the two male judges on the panel), and their missus probably wish they were but that's besides the point.

Posted
4 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Hanged.

I mean, they might be hung too (at least the two male judges on the panel), and their missus probably wish they were but that's besides the point.

*missuses

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
53 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Hanged.

I mean, they might be hung too (at least the two male judges on the panel), and their missus probably wish they were but that's besides the point.


IMG_3559.jpeg.54c0828a37af228f14c95270ada9af9f.jpeg

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 3
  • Haha 2
Posted
8 hours ago, Chuckie Finster said:


Correct. Dems need to hammer the Taco thing until it kills him. Reactions like the one yesterday are not sustainable.

T.A.C.O. should become the only thing anyone thinks about when they see or hear trump. It should be hammered into the public psyche mercilessly from now on. No matter what he does or says the response should be trump will always go chicken shit. 

Of course that is too aggressive for the genteel Democrats

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 3


×
×
  • Create New...