When will there be a ruling on the Tariff lawsuits?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Stock market should be up tomorrow.

It was down this evening because markets don't like it when they don't know who is in charge. And this ruling constitutes a HUGE blow to Trump himself, who ran on and pushed for tariffs personally. Evidently this case will go to the Supreme Court, and I'm sure some tariffs will end up sticking.

So be careful trading, PP. It's going to zig-zag some more.

I don't know why anyone thinks a conservative supreme court (well, 3 conservatives and 2 that have become right wing nut jobs) will support tariffs.

My guess is that the Supreme Court will uphold this ruling likely 7-2. It's not even a difficult decision.

The tariffs implemented under other provisions which have to be implemented by industry/product are the ones that may stick. Those are very difficult to implement because you have to go through all the industry codes and apply them one-by-one since they don't apply to 100% of those products. Hence, the steel and aluminum tariffs will remain...but again, there are all kinds of exemptions to those.

Wish I agreed with you, but after the presidential immunity ruling, any concept of Roberts linkage to precedent/ideology/etc is not supported by the evidence anymore. They just ruled the president has the authority to fire heads of agencies without cause, where the enabling legislation specifically said "the president can't fire the agency head except for cause".

I can't remember some of the exact cases, but the justices tend to be truly conservative on fiscal issues.

Also, Trump himself really has screwed up the case. You can't claim you need 145% tariffs on China one week...and then just drop them the next, yet literally China didn't do anything.

Also, it was a huge mistake to blame trade deficits for anything. As everyone has pointed out...trade deficits have existed for eternity, yet the country is doing just fine. Also, it's unrealistic to think that Nicaragua which grows tons of bananas that can't be grown in the US, is not going to have a trade deficit with the US.

Even the entire concept of a trade deficit isn't correct (as plaintiffs have pointed out)...you have to look at goods and services, and when you include services, we run a surplus with essentially everyone.

That is how conservatives would analyze this case but SCOTUS isn't conservative, they are MAGA.

Alito and Thomas…but not so much the others.

I guess we will see. WSJ believes Supreme Court will fairly easily side with the lower court which is why the administration is busy with Plan B which will have far fewer tariffs, and take longer to implement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Stock market should be up tomorrow.

It was down this evening because markets don't like it when they don't know who is in charge. And this ruling constitutes a HUGE blow to Trump himself, who ran on and pushed for tariffs personally. Evidently this case will go to the Supreme Court, and I'm sure some tariffs will end up sticking.

So be careful trading, PP. It's going to zig-zag some more.

I don't know why anyone thinks a conservative supreme court (well, 3 conservatives and 2 that have become right wing nut jobs) will support tariffs.

My guess is that the Supreme Court will uphold this ruling likely 7-2. It's not even a difficult decision.

The tariffs implemented under other provisions which have to be implemented by industry/product are the ones that may stick. Those are very difficult to implement because you have to go through all the industry codes and apply them one-by-one since they don't apply to 100% of those products. Hence, the steel and aluminum tariffs will remain...but again, there are all kinds of exemptions to those.

Wish I agreed with you, but after the presidential immunity ruling, any concept of Roberts linkage to precedent/ideology/etc is not supported by the evidence anymore. They just ruled the president has the authority to fire heads of agencies without cause, where the enabling legislation specifically said "the president can't fire the agency head except for cause".

I can't remember some of the exact cases, but the justices tend to be truly conservative on fiscal issues.

Also, Trump himself really has screwed up the case. You can't claim you need 145% tariffs on China one week...and then just drop them the next, yet literally China didn't do anything.

Also, it was a huge mistake to blame trade deficits for anything. As everyone has pointed out...trade deficits have existed for eternity, yet the country is doing just fine. Also, it's unrealistic to think that Nicaragua which grows tons of bananas that can't be grown in the US, is not going to have a trade deficit with the US.

Even the entire concept of a trade deficit isn't correct (as plaintiffs have pointed out)...you have to look at goods and services, and when you include services, we run a surplus with essentially everyone.

That is how conservatives would analyze this case but SCOTUS isn't conservative, they are MAGA.

Alito and Thomas…but not so much the others.

I guess we will see. WSJ believes Supreme Court will fairly easily side with the lower court which is why the administration is busy with Plan B which will have far fewer tariffs, and take longer to implement.

There is almost nothing Trump could not do if he took his time. If he went through the normal process, which would take at least a year -- they would have stuck. I agree there is no way this sticks.