U.S. Supreme Court strikes down tariffs.

Batscout

Batscout

Explorer
Joined
May 9, 2024
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Location
Ohio
Fresh development:

On Friday, the US Supreme Court threw the trade landscape into disarray by issuing a ruling that invalidated the core of President Trump's second-term tariff agenda.

In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the 6-3 decision looks poised to bring an immediate end to a large portion of the tariffs Trump unveiled last year on "Liberation Day," which relied on a 1977 statute known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). That law lets the president declare an economic emergency and respond, yet it does not list tariffs among the permitted remedies.


https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/trump-administration-us-iran-02-20-
 
My guess is that not a single cent will be shaved off prices, either here or in the States. ...Firms are already out there claiming that if they get that money back (though they'd already recovered it by charging us more), they could bring prices down and boost pay — and neither of those things is going to materialize.... Back where I live, they swore casinos, fracking and legalizing medical weed would bring our property taxes down. What we actually got was somewhere between 25 and 75 bucks a year.
 
Batscout said:

Fresh development:

On Friday, the US Supreme Court threw the trade landscape into disarray by issuing a ruling that invalidated the core of President Trump's second-term tariff agenda.

In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the 6-3 decision looks poised to bring an immediate end to a large portion of the tariffs Trump unveiled last year on "Liberation Day," which relied on a 1977 statute known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). That law lets the president declare an economic emergency and respond, yet it does not list tariffs among the permitted remedies.


https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/trump-administration-us-iran-02-20-
Click to expand...
This ruling doesn't eliminate the possibility of using other methods to impose them.
 
Does this have any peptide angle that anyone here wants to get into? If so, go ahead. If not, this is probably better saved for dinner with the family — I'm sure your kids would be thrilled to hear more of your political takes.
 
Last year, tariffs added roughly $11k to what I owed on a shipment that had already departed before the tariffs were even announced. Not a huge deal, but a refund would be welcome. Earlier, a few months prior to the tariff, I placed a separate order worth almost double, yet customs clearance on that one ran only about 1/10th of the cost.
 
Perhaps the car dealer will hand back part of what I paid, given the way the tariffs pushed the price up. A guy can dream....
 
Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 gives Trump a path to broaden tariffs, and he could also lean further on Section 232 by citing national security grounds. Both tools have precedent behind them, and if crafted tightly they may hold up under review.

Just don't let any of that interfere with my portfolio... Becoming a millionaire was not quick for me....
 
DjJoshua said:

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 gives Trump a path to broaden tariffs, and he could also lean further on Section 232 by citing national security grounds. Both tools have precedent behind them, and if crafted tightly they may hold up under review.

Just don't let any of that interfere with my portfolio... Becoming a millionaire was not quick for me....
Click to expand...
However, this ruling might not settle the matter for good. Several legal routes persist—ranging from the Trade Expansion Act to the Trade Act of 1974, and even laws dating back to the Depression—that could let Trump reclaim forceful trade authority
 
Alright, I attempted to steer this one back on course, but it appears no one could come up with a peptide-related angle. Political discussions aren't allowed on glp1f. For enjoyable political chats, I'd suggest nextdoor.

Closing this thread.
 
Back
Top