• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

The Tariff argument

 
 
 
Elixir

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
36,123
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Watching Trump's fast-talking (fast croaking) solicitor general spew a wall of bullshit, dodge questions and conflate issues.
Boy, these guys are good at deceit, evasion, false equivocation and rationalization.
What a depressing performance. In a real democracy he'd have been dismissed from the room after his third or fourth disingenuous misrepresentation of constitutional provisions. Dems talk about actual tariff laws, this guy misrepresents precedents...

ETA: Why can't trump find someone whose delivery is somewhere between Susan Collins slow talking and rapid fire never-pause-run-over-the-opposition-by-never-shutting up? And where does he find people with voices that are so fucked up it sounds like they're gargling sand, making it painful to even hear them? Between this guy and secretary Brainworm, diction as an art has been destroyed, like everything else the Felon touches.
 
Last edited:
Their role model is Trump himself, who was once the master of pivot, attack, lie, repeat. These days, he can still pivot, but he ends up in a series of cuckoo way stations, where each sentence has no connection with its fellow sentences. Some of his recent word salads are total gibberish. (Go to YouTube and enter 'trump babbles' for example after example of Trump babbling like a confused assisted living resident.)
You're right about Brainworm -- how does anyone in his department listen to that? I could listen to that voice only if it was, say, my dying grandpa, and he was at last discussing the terms of his will. Even then, as soon as I knew what my cut was, it would be, "The doctors want you to zip it, Paw-Paw. You're taxing our -- I mean, your energy."
On the lies, look at that awful Leavitt woman. When a reporter at last got her to respond to Trump's ridiculous Unabomber story, she gave a completely nonsensical "answer" that avoided all the lies he had told. Good Christian woman, no doubt.
 
Last edited:
So Gorsuch opened the door for the Solicitor General to provide reasoning why Trump should be allowed to have these tariffs, but kind of shuts the door while doing it, however... he might have been planting a seed suggesting that in providing this authority Congress knew it was a ceding its power in providing that authority, therefore anything Trump does is okay and if Congress wants to undo it, they need to pass a law.

I didn't see much in the way of Major Doctrines being at issue here. This bench is super supportive of the Executive Branch (when run by the GOP). But generally, the breadth of the tariffs and how arbitrary they are seems to fly in the face of both Congressional Law and the Constitution.

I have a feeling this is 5-4 or 6-3 in favor of Trump. There is always the other issue of standing. The authority belongs to Congress, Congress needs to seek the solution by passing legislation or enforcing their legislation. They haven't, and the people bringing this up don't have standing.
 
Consensus is SCOTUS wasn't too favorable for the tariffs.

My thoughts, I remember listening to the Presidential immunity case. And they wouldn't touch what Trump did with a 20-ft pole. And then they ruled immune from just about anything.

I wouldn't bet on any outcome for this case.
  • They could rule that there is no standing, therefore no change without touching the issue.
  • They could rule that the tariffs must be allowed because they can't mingle too deeply in the minutia of the Presidency.
  • They could rule Trump exceeded his authority as provided by the law and reverse the tariffs.
  • They could rule Trump exceeded his authority as provided by the law, but the lower courts need to look at every single tariff and determine which ones weren't right.... and create a ridiculously convoluted test to determine that.
  • Alito might write a 250 page decision that spends 237 pages on the origins of the words "tariff" and "tax". dating to the whatever the Phoenicians based it on, in order to suggest the tariff isn't a tax or about money at all.
I think it is all fair game with this court.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
They could rule Trump exceeded his authority as provided by the law, but the lower courts need to look at every single tariff and determine which ones weren't right.... and create a ridiculously convoluted test to determine that.
Click to expand...
That would be my bet.
Also, if such reviews show that he has exceeded his authority and has done so as an official act, he can keep right on exceeding his authority until and unless he is impeached and convicted.
 
Spacetime Inhabitant said:
Jason Harvestdancer said:
I never imagined I'd see people in this forum oppose a tax.
Click to expand...
There are several taxes that I don't think should exist, such as payroll tax and stamp duty on house buying. Do you have these in the US?
Click to expand...
We do not have stamp duty (sales tax on real estate transactions) but we do have property tax (annual levy on the value of the real estate). I believe the UK also has that but understand they haven't adjusted the taxable basis of the property in some time (maybe since sometime in the 1990s?) Updates are regular and more frequent here. Dunno about Oz...

US payroll tax includes 12.4% of first $176k or so of wages (limit rises each year) to fund public pensions and 2.9% on all wages to fund public health insurance (benefits generally only available to those aged 65 and over). These taxes are paid equally by employer and employee (6.2% and 1.45% each). There are also fairly small amounts paid by the employer to fund modest benefits available in some cases for a limited time to employees who are made redundant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom