8 comments

  • tim-tday 6 hours ago ago

    So, illegally?

  • duxup 7 hours ago ago

    The SCOTUS's largely hands off methods and "let the cases work it's way through the system" effectively means they're out of the game and Trump can do what he wants.

  • bediger4000 7 hours ago ago

    Trump is penalizing everyday citizens and taxpayers because SCOTUS said his clearly illegal tariffs were illegal? Am I understanding this correctly?

    • duxup 7 hours ago ago

      SCOTUS has a role in this too. I know folks are cheering on their decision yesterday BUT: Early on they effectively decided that inconveniencing the powerful (Trump) was worse than we the people being illegally taxed for a year and didn't do anything until later / let the case roll through the system. And now ... he's at it again.

      His actions are entirely predictable, he has said he would do it, and it means that it SCOTUS sticks to their game plan that lead us to their last decision ... SCOTUS is not relevant and illegal taxes continue while new cases spin up and the SCOTUS majority folds its arms.

      In the meantime as individuals who were illegally taxed, I doubt we see a dime back.

      • mytailorisrich 7 hours ago ago

        My understandung is that the US Supreme Court is a "passive judicial body". It cannot take the initiative and must wait until a case is put before it like is usual for a court.

        The new 15% tariffs are apparently according to the 1974 Trade Act which allows the President to increase tariffs up to 15% for up to 150 days.

        • duxup 6 hours ago ago

          SCOTUS can potentially take up a case at any point and it could had they wished decided the tariffs would not go into effect until they ruled.

        • krapp 7 hours ago ago

          The Supreme Court can just make up its own rules. It made up its power of judicial review. Who's going to decide that they can't take initiative if they decide to?

        • iAMkenough 5 hours ago ago

          “Passive” in the sense there’s no rule they can’t “actively” take bribes then make decisions to passively allow unconstitutional action by the other branches of the “checks and balances”