The point of this thread is to discuss the impact if eventually upheld by the Supreme Court.

On one hand, less inflationary pressure from tariff costs.

On the other hand, he'll probably just try to implement tariffs using other laws on the books. He's very committed to them.

Feels like a prolonged period of uncertainty that won't be good for business, consumers, or the economy.

It's incredible how obsessed he is with implementing a policy he fundamentally understands so poorly. From evidently not knowing the difference between a trade deficit and a tariff imposed by another country to apparently sincerely believing the exporter pays the tariff not the purchaser on the importing end.

I think you have the right of it. Businesses wil be in a real bind for months, maybe many months.

I would not want to have a Dem to have the right to declare "everything" an emergency.

OTOH, if we are going to raise taxes, this is one of the least objectionable, leaving out the pain it creates for business, especially small businesses.

List out which tariffs are affected by this ruling. Without that, impossible to answer.

Not a great thread. Sorry.

This exercise has illustrated there can be a positive case for tariffs if applied selectively to protect strategic industries or level the playing field with other countries who charge us tariffs. No issue with that.

But the broad one-size-fits-all tariffs to try and force smaller countries to buy as much stuff from us as we do from them is off base and incredibly disruptive.

Hopefully this court ruling forces him to be more selective in his approach.

Im Gipper said:

---

List out which tariffs are affected by this ruling. Without that, impossible to answer.

Not a great thread. Sorry.

---

The appeals court rejected his claim for authority to implement sweeping tariffs under IEEPA. Don't have a specific list, but it sounds like most of them are considered illegal.

If the thought was that tariff revenue would fill some of the budget deficit gap from the tax cuts, and then the tariff revenue is in question/does not happen…does that cause treasury rates to spike UP?

That would be a big mess.

Thought the ruling also said that all tariffs stay in place until it all plays out.

I think what it ultimately means is if he wants sweeping tariffs, he is going to have to make his case to Congress like our Founding Fathers meant under Article 1 Section 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

I think he will be able to keep selected tariffs based on anti dumping duties and the like.

He'll go another route and continue to impose tariffs
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal-court-strikes-down-trump-tariffs-illegal-federal-law-appeals-ruling.amp

chris1515 said:

---

If the thought was that tariff revenue would fill some of the budget deficit gap from the tax cuts, and then the tariff revenue is in question/does not happen…does that cause treasury rates to spike UP?

That would be a big mess.

---

If anecdotes out of row crop country are true the big mess has already arrived

Ironic that it's not constitutional to impose tariffs on our trade partners that tariff our goods, but it's a-ok for our government to tax the living **** out of US citizens and businesses

Highway6 said:

---

Ironic that it's not constitutional to impose tariffs on our trade partners that tariff our goods, but it's a-ok for our government to tax the living **** out of US citizens and businesses

---

Imposing tariffs is absolutely constitutional. Just not the way Trump is trying to do it.

If Trump tried by emergency order to tax US citizens that would also be unconstitutional.

agsalaska said:

---

Highway6 said:

---

Ironic that it's not constitutional to impose tariffs on our trade partners that tariff our goods, but it's a-ok for our government to tax the living **** out of US citizens and businesses

---

Imposing tariffs is absolutely constitutional. Just not the way Trump is trying to do it.

If Trump tried by emergency order to tax US citizens that would also be unconstitutional.

---

Right, but our income tax was started to fund the military in WW1. I think that ended about 100 years ago

Highway6 said:

---

Ironic that it's not constitutional to impose tariffs on our trade partners that tariff our goods, but it's a-ok for our government to tax the living **** out of US citizens and businesses

---

That's not what the Court ruled

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

List out which tariffs are affected by this ruling. Without that, impossible to answer.

Not a great thread. Sorry.

---

The appeals court rejected his claim for authority to implement sweeping tariffs under IEEPA. Don't have a specific list, but it sounds like most of them are considered illegal.

---

Close to 1/3 of the tariffs are not from the IEEPA. So unless you know which are and which aren't, how are you going to do any analysis?

He usurped Congressional power to implement tariffs. And Congress allowed it.

Bad Trump. Bad Congress!

dmart90 said:

---

He usurped Congressional power to implement tariffs. And Congress allowed it.

Bad Trump. Bad Congress!

---

I'll give you the star, because you are so right.

But for both, it is so true to form. Feckless congress, imperial Trump. At least Trump's characteristic is sometimes absolutely what we need. I have nothing good to say about congress.

If SCOTUS rules against Trump, I assume his people have several options ready to circumvent etc. Also, Trump should submit all the actual signed trade deals to the Congress for approval.

Im Gipper said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

List out which tariffs are affected by this ruling. Without that, impossible to answer.

Not a great thread. Sorry.

---

The appeals court rejected his claim for authority to implement sweeping tariffs under IEEPA. Don't have a specific list, but it sounds like most of them are considered illegal.

---

Close to 1/3 of the tariffs are not from the IEEPA. So unless you know which are and which aren't, how are you going to do any analysis?

---

I am confused as well. What does that ruling actually mean?

Simple fix.

Massive deregulation, not the mamby pamby bull**** to date.
GUT spending.
Cut taxes, especially corporate but actually all taxes, to zero.


MFG actually moves back, and the people of the US aren't subjected to more "tax" in the form of higher prices for goods.

Why doesn't Trump just get the tariffs approved by Congress????

Too much work?

Actual Talking Thermos said:

---

It's incredible how obsessed he is with implementing a policy he fundamentally understands so poorly. From evidently not knowing the difference between a trade deficit and a tariff imposed by another country to apparently sincerely believing the exporter pays the tariff not the purchaser on the importing end.

---

lol what an out of touch post

chris1515 said:

---

Why doesn't Trump just get the tariffs approved by Congress????

Too much work?

---

lol what modern President has ever done that

What has Congress passed? At all?

It's a completely dysfunctional body.

Highway6 said:

---

Ironic that it's not constitutional to impose tariffs on our trade partners that tariff our goods, but it's a-ok for our government to tax the living **** out of US citizens and businesses

---

And it is legal to bring in all kinds of scumbag immigrants from countries like Somalia.

What next?

Court says canceling H1B is illegal so we should give all our jobs to foreign nations just because are a nice bunch of people??

I hope congress has to vote on tariffs. It would be the "man choosing a button" meme at its most extreme. Do republicans vote to raise taxes? Do democrats vote in support of Trump? Dilemmas abound!

Maybe we could avoid all of this and have Congress pass the tariffs instead of Presidential fiat? It's time get back into the business of lawmaking.

If we were a serious country, we would at least cut spending back to 2019 levels because there is zero reason to have increased baseline spending by $2T per year because of a respiratory virus.

We wouldn't even have to have tariffs other than addressing actual reciprocal use cases.

But, I realize asking Washington DC to be accountable and responsible is a pipe dream so we will just watch it all burn down over time.

Highway6 said:

---

Ironic that it's not constitutional to impose tariffs on our trade partners that tariff our goods, but it's a-ok for our government to tax the living **** out of US citizens and businesses

---

so you want a king. Who rules by fiat, and not by laws passed by congress.

Well, what happens now?
Are the tariffs dead in the water?

chris1515 said:

---

Why doesn't Trump just get the tariffs approved by Congress????

Too much work?

---

No, he likes being the boss. It's it DNA

Y'all want morons like AOC and MTG voting on Tarrifs ?

Lol

infinity ag said:

---

Well, what happens now?
Are the tariffs dead in the water?

---

Still in a place until 10/14 and he will appeal to SCOTUS