I suppose you could sanction every Chinese company or person importing assets into the United States, lol. Probably much easier pathways then that though.

Supreme court judges are about to get charged with mortgage fraud.

I might be really dumb here, but it seems like the ruling actually reinforces GATT/WTO, no?

Well there goes a lot of the leverage our president has in trade negotiations with other countries…. Stupid.

Biden used Tariffs did he not? Did he act illegally? How come no one sued him?

HoustonAggie11 said:

---

Biden used Tariffs did he not? Did he act illegally? How come no one sued him?

---

Would have to look at the scope. Some tariffs make sense. A lot of Trump's did not.

YouBet said:

---

HoustonAggie11 said:

---

Biden used Tariffs did he not? Did he act illegally? How come no one sued him?

---

Would have to look at the scope. Some tariffs make sense. A lot of Trump's did not.

---

He continued the tariffs on China from Trumps first admin.

The Law DJT used was very narrow for him, and he gambled and lost, juat go to Congress and get it done.

The Collective said:

---

I might be really dumb here, but it seems like the ruling actually reinforces GATT/WTO, no?

---

No it does not from what I am reading. But my assessment stems from what the Court could have done but didn't, namely make the decision prospective only.

HoustonAggie11 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

HoustonAggie11 said:

---

Biden used Tariffs did he not? Did he act illegally? How come no one sued him?

---

Would have to look at the scope. Some tariffs make sense. A lot of Trump's did not.

---

He continued the tariffs on China from Trumps first admin.

---

Yeah, but there were some tariffs that Trump did which were wholly nonsensical. Random tariffs against small countries where we literally have no way to resolve the trade deficit.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Question on IEEPA… are there any executive actions that have relied on IEEPA that levied any fines, fees, etc?

Because it would seem that those are all null and void now.

---

I believe that this is incorrect.

The list of things that the executive can do under the IEEPA is long.

SCOTUS said that this list does not include tariffs. That was the extent of the ruling. None of the other ways that Trump can regulate trade were impacted.

If I'm Trump, I go back to the countries wanting a refund, and threaten some tough regulatory measure that is not a tariff on the other country until we hammer out a new tariff under a different authority than the IEEPA.

"Sure, we can pay you back your tariffs. But, you are now limited to 100 trucks imported into the US a year under the IEEPA until we can get a new tariff in place for 10% more than before under the Trade Act. Or, you could settle with us, not ask for any refunds, and pay the new tariff at the same rate as the IEEPA rate as soon as it is authorized."

infinity ag said:

---

So what happens next? All tariffs go back to ZERO while others continues to tariff us???

---

Inquiring minds REALLY want to know. Is this the absolute disaster it seems? They will be partying in the streets of Beijing and Brussels tonight. What a kick in the nuts!!

YouBet said:

---

HoustonAggie11 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

HoustonAggie11 said:

---

Biden used Tariffs did he not? Did he act illegally? How come no one sued him?

---

Would have to look at the scope. Some tariffs make sense. A lot of Trump's did not.

---

He continued the tariffs on China from Trumps first admin.

---

Yeah, but there were some tariffs that Trump did which were wholly nonsensical. Random tariffs against small countries where we literally have no way to resolve the trade deficit.

---

"Liberation Day" was a complete disaster, regardless of any opinion about whether Trump's overall trade / tariff strategy has merit.

We were promised reciprocal tariffs. We did not get reciprocal tariffs, and Trump's explanation on how his tariff rates were reciprocal was asinine.

That said, it is hard to argue too much against the tariff policy thus far.

YouBet said:

---

HoustonAggie11 said:

---

Biden used Tariffs did he not? Did he act illegally? How come no one sued him?

---

Would have to look at the scope. Some tariffs make sense. A lot of Trump's did not.

---

Whether a tariff is legal and whether or not it makes economic sense are completely different questions. The latter is completely outside of the realm of the justice system.

BusterAg said:

---

YouBet said:

---

HoustonAggie11 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

HoustonAggie11 said:

---

Biden used Tariffs did he not? Did he act illegally? How come no one sued him?

---

Would have to look at the scope. Some tariffs make sense. A lot of Trump's did not.

---

He continued the tariffs on China from Trumps first admin.

---

Yeah, but there were some tariffs that Trump did which were wholly nonsensical. Random tariffs against small countries where we literally have no way to resolve the trade deficit.

---

"Liberation Day" was a complete disaster, regardless of any opinion about whether Trump's overall trade / tariff strategy has merit.

We were promised reciprocal tariffs. We did not get reciprocal tariffs, and Trump's explanation on how his tariff rates were reciprocal was asinine.

That said, it is hard to argue too much against the tariff policy thus far.

---

Correct, and to be fair to Trump, the actual tariffs implemented over time did not approach his initial Liberation Day idiocy. Last analysis I read was that the average tariff rate implemented was 12% which is a far cry from the numbers we typically saw on social media.

DeepETX_Aggie said:

---

Well there goes a lot of the leverage our president has in trade negotiations with other countries…. Stupid.

---

I disagree.

Plenty of leverage left to levy tariffs outside of the IEEPA, and to issue sanctions under the IEEPA. Just can't levy tariffs under the IEEPA.

BusterAg said:

---

YouBet said:

---

HoustonAggie11 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

HoustonAggie11 said:

---

Biden used Tariffs did he not? Did he act illegally? How come no one sued him?

---

Would have to look at the scope. Some tariffs make sense. A lot of Trump's did not.

---

He continued the tariffs on China from Trumps first admin.

---

Yeah, but there were some tariffs that Trump did which were wholly nonsensical. Random tariffs against small countries where we literally have no way to resolve the trade deficit.

---

"Liberation Day" was a complete disaster, regardless of any opinion about whether Trump's overall trade / tariff strategy has merit.

We were promised reciprocal tariffs. We did not get reciprocal tariffs, and Trump's explanation on how his tariff rates were reciprocal was asinine.

That said, it is hard to argue too much against the tariff policy thus far.

---

he was using those high tarrifs to bring the other country to the negotiation table not to enforce ridiculously high tarrifs.

So, the conclusion is basically what the market already factored in. The president:

1) just needs to "check another box" (i.e. reference a different act) to support and justify the tariffs besides the emergency declaration that was used to justified them, and

2) left it to the president to decide if and/or how to treat the revenue those tariffs already created for the federal Treasury.

Seems like the result is just messy (constant chaos and challenge) as opposed to changing much of anything.

BusterAg said:

---

YouBet said:

---

HoustonAggie11 said:

---

Biden used Tariffs did he not? Did he act illegally? How come no one sued him?

---

Would have to look at the scope. Some tariffs make sense. A lot of Trump's did not.

---

Whether a tariff is legal and whether or not it makes economic sense are completely different questions. The latter is completely outside of the realm of the justice system.

---

Yeah, I'm saying from a commonsense perspective that some of what he announced was objectively nonsensical. Don't need a justification from either side to tell me some of what he wanted to do was stupid.

WestAustinAg said:

---

---

Doesn't this hint that the tariffs that have been paid may still be legally collected, just under the wrong authority?

It almost seems like Kavanaugh is giving Trump a way to "cure" the illegality of his tariffs by using another avenue, and that alone would be enough of a mitigating step, and no refunds are required.

Gap said:

---

So, the conclusion is basically what the market already factored in. The president:

1) just needs to "check another box" (i.e. reference a different act) to support and justify the tariffs besides the emergency declaration that was used to justified them, and

2) left it to the president to decide if and/or how to treat the revenue those tariffs already created for the federal Treasury.

Seems like the result is just messy (constant chaos and challenge) as opposed to changing much of anything.

---

Just to add to #1...Trump used the path he did because it was the path of least resistance. He wanted to get tariffs done quickly so he swung for the fences.

His backup path(s) will require more parties to the agreement creating friction for him.

YouBet said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

YouBet said:

---

HoustonAggie11 said:

---

Biden used Tariffs did he not? Did he act illegally? How come no one sued him?

---

Would have to look at the scope. Some tariffs make sense. A lot of Trump's did not.

---

Whether a tariff is legal and whether or not it makes economic sense are completely different questions. The latter is completely outside of the realm of the justice system.

---

Yeah, I'm saying from a commonsense perspective that some of what he announced was objectively nonsensical. Don't need a justification from either side to tell me some of what he wanted to do was stupid.

---

Economically nonsensical is also outside of the purview of SCOTUS.

You can rightfully say that his use of the IEEPA was a legal stretch, and I would agree.

You can also say that some of his tariff threats were dumb, but again, never look at Trump's starting position in a negotiation to try and gauge what he is trying to accomplish.

Finally, I have said plenty about liberation day, and we agree on that, at least.

YouBet said:

---

Gap said:

---

So, the conclusion is basically what the market already factored in. The president:

1) just needs to "check another box" (i.e. reference a different act) to support and justify the tariffs besides the emergency declaration that was used to justified them, and

2) left it to the president to decide if and/or how to treat the revenue those tariffs already created for the federal Treasury.

Seems like the result is just messy (constant chaos and challenge) as opposed to changing much of anything.

---

Just to add to #1...Trump used the path he did because it was the path of least resistance. He wanted to get tariffs done quickly so he swung for the fences.

His backup path(s) will require more parties to the agreement creating friction for him.

---

Do you really think that passing tariffs under the Trade Act or her sisters is going to "create friction" for Trump?

It will take a bit longer, but, I doubt that there will be any "friction" in the sense that he will have any trouble at all getting things done.

BusterAg said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Gap said:

---

So, the conclusion is basically what the market already factored in. The president:

1) just needs to "check another box" (i.e. reference a different act) to support and justify the tariffs besides the emergency declaration that was used to justified them, and

2) left it to the president to decide if and/or how to treat the revenue those tariffs already created for the federal Treasury.

Seems like the result is just messy (constant chaos and challenge) as opposed to changing much of anything.

---

Just to add to #1...Trump used the path he did because it was the path of least resistance. He wanted to get tariffs done quickly so he swung for the fences.

His backup path(s) will require more parties to the agreement creating friction for him.

---

Do you really think that passing tariffs under the Trade Act or her sisters is going to "create friction" for Trump?

It will take a bit longer, but, I doubt that there will be any "friction" in the sense that he will have any trouble at all getting things done.

---

Yes. Friction is friction.

Considering he's having to work harder to keep the R's in line right now this will be one more thing on his plate he has to wrangle with all the talk of mid-terms looming.

Sounds like there are some avenues he can take without Congress, but they are temporary in nature.

YouBet said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

YouBet said:

---

HoustonAggie11 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

HoustonAggie11 said:

---

Biden used Tariffs did he not? Did he act illegally? How come no one sued him?

---

Would have to look at the scope. Some tariffs make sense. A lot of Trump's did not.

---

He continued the tariffs on China from Trumps first admin.

---

Yeah, but there were some tariffs that Trump did which were wholly nonsensical. Random tariffs against small countries where we literally have no way to resolve the trade deficit.

---

"Liberation Day" was a complete disaster, regardless of any opinion about whether Trump's overall trade / tariff strategy has merit.

We were promised reciprocal tariffs. We did not get reciprocal tariffs, and Trump's explanation on how his tariff rates were reciprocal was asinine.

That said, it is hard to argue too much against the tariff policy thus far.

---

Correct, and to be fair to Trump, the actual tariffs implemented over time did not approach his initial Liberation Day idiocy. Last analysis I read was that the average tariff rate implemented was 12% which is a far cry from the numbers we typically saw on social media.

---

Idiocy? His bombastic approach was intentional and smart. Got everyone's attention didn't it? Brought people to the table, didn't it? You want warm and fuzzy, slow to action approaches? **** that. We need shock and a jolt to get away from this globalism disaster.

As the Pres may "regulate ... importation" under the act, I don't see what stops him from saying, "China, I am banning all importation from you. Oh, you don't want that? Pay the US an importation fee of __%, or sign a trade agreement. Oh no, that is not a tariff, not a tax, that is an importation fee under my regulation of imports power granted to me by the act."
Or he can use the other tariff statutes. or he may get an authorization by Congress under the reconciliation process.
In short, it seems the practical effect of the SCOTUS ruling is merely to cost billions and throw chaos into the system, but not really affect the strategy of the Trump foreign trade policy.
But what do i know?

GenericAggie said:

---

YouBet said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

YouBet said:

---

HoustonAggie11 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

HoustonAggie11 said:

---

Biden used Tariffs did he not? Did he act illegally? How come no one sued him?

---

Would have to look at the scope. Some tariffs make sense. A lot of Trump's did not.

---

He continued the tariffs on China from Trumps first admin.

---

Yeah, but there were some tariffs that Trump did which were wholly nonsensical. Random tariffs against small countries where we literally have no way to resolve the trade deficit.

---

"Liberation Day" was a complete disaster, regardless of any opinion about whether Trump's overall trade / tariff strategy has merit.

We were promised reciprocal tariffs. We did not get reciprocal tariffs, and Trump's explanation on how his tariff rates were reciprocal was asinine.

That said, it is hard to argue too much against the tariff policy thus far.

---

Correct, and to be fair to Trump, the actual tariffs implemented over time did not approach his initial Liberation Day idiocy. Last analysis I read was that the average tariff rate implemented was 12% which is a far cry from the numbers we typically saw on social media.

---

Idiocy? His bombastic approach was intentional and smart. Got everyone's attention didn't it? Brought people to the table, didn't it? You want warm and fuzzy, slow to action approaches? **** that. We need shock and a jolt to get away from this globalism disaster.

---

yep liberation day was to get partners to the negotiating table nothing much, not a hard concept to understand

YouBet said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Gap said:

---

So, the conclusion is basically what the market already factored in. The president:

1) just needs to "check another box" (i.e. reference a different act) to support and justify the tariffs besides the emergency declaration that was used to justified them, and

2) left it to the president to decide if and/or how to treat the revenue those tariffs already created for the federal Treasury.

Seems like the result is just messy (constant chaos and challenge) as opposed to changing much of anything.

---

Just to add to #1...Trump used the path he did because it was the path of least resistance. He wanted to get tariffs done quickly so he swung for the fences.

His backup path(s) will require more parties to the agreement creating friction for him.

---

Do you really think that passing tariffs under the Trade Act or her sisters is going to "create friction" for Trump?

It will take a bit longer, but, I doubt that there will be any "friction" in the sense that he will have any trouble at all getting things done.

---

Yes. Friction is friction.

Considering he's having to work harder to keep the R's in line right now this will be one more thing on his plate he has to wrangle with all the talk of mid-terms looming.

Sounds like there are some avenues he can take without Congress, but they are temporary in nature.

---

They are not temporary in nature.

They just require a little more time. I would say, likely a very small amount of additional time.

But, the laws that Trump is relying on outside of the IEEPA are old, from the 1930's to 1970's, and have been relied on by previous POTUS plenty before with no challenges.

GenericAggie said:

---

YouBet said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

YouBet said:

---

HoustonAggie11 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

HoustonAggie11 said:

---

Biden used Tariffs did he not? Did he act illegally? How come no one sued him?

---

Would have to look at the scope. Some tariffs make sense. A lot of Trump's did not.

---

He continued the tariffs on China from Trumps first admin.

---

Yeah, but there were some tariffs that Trump did which were wholly nonsensical. Random tariffs against small countries where we literally have no way to resolve the trade deficit.

---

"Liberation Day" was a complete disaster, regardless of any opinion about whether Trump's overall trade / tariff strategy has merit.

We were promised reciprocal tariffs. We did not get reciprocal tariffs, and Trump's explanation on how his tariff rates were reciprocal was asinine.

That said, it is hard to argue too much against the tariff policy thus far.

---

Correct, and to be fair to Trump, the actual tariffs implemented over time did not approach his initial Liberation Day idiocy. Last analysis I read was that the average tariff rate implemented was 12% which is a far cry from the numbers we typically saw on social media.

---

Idiocy? His bombastic approach was intentional and smart. Got everyone's attention didn't it? Brought people to the table, didn't it? You want warm and fuzzy, slow to action approaches? **** that. We need shock and a jolt to get away from this globalism disaster.

---

Valid. Some of the people brought to the table had no reason to be brought to the table, but I guess that's neither here nor there at this point.

BusterAg said:

---

YouBet said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Gap said:

---

So, the conclusion is basically what the market already factored in. The president:

1) just needs to "check another box" (i.e. reference a different act) to support and justify the tariffs besides the emergency declaration that was used to justified them, and

2) left it to the president to decide if and/or how to treat the revenue those tariffs already created for the federal Treasury.

Seems like the result is just messy (constant chaos and challenge) as opposed to changing much of anything.

---

Just to add to #1...Trump used the path he did because it was the path of least resistance. He wanted to get tariffs done quickly so he swung for the fences.

His backup path(s) will require more parties to the agreement creating friction for him.

---

Do you really think that passing tariffs under the Trade Act or her sisters is going to "create friction" for Trump?

It will take a bit longer, but, I doubt that there will be any "friction" in the sense that he will have any trouble at all getting things done.

---

Yes. Friction is friction.

Considering he's having to work harder to keep the R's in line right now this will be one more thing on his plate he has to wrangle with all the talk of mid-terms looming.

Sounds like there are some avenues he can take without Congress, but they are temporary in nature.

---

They are not temporary in nature.

They just require a little more time. I would say, likely a very small amount of additional time.

But, the laws that Trump is relying on outside of the IEEPA are old, from the 1930's to 1970's, and have been relied on by previous POTUS plenty before with no challenges.

---

We will find out! I could be wrong.

GenericAggie said:

---

Idiocy? His bombastic approach was intentional and smart. Got everyone's attention didn't it? Brought people to the table, didn't it? You want warm and fuzzy, slow to action approaches? **** that. We need shock and a jolt to get away from this globalism disaster.

---

You can do that without:

1) Promising reciprocal tariffs leading up to Liberation Day, and then not presenting reciprocal tariffs.
2) Using a calculation to come up with your tariff amounts that is super easy to reverse engineer, obviously has no consideration to the trading partner's tariffs, and uses the trade deficit as the denominator.

The overall idea of a shock&awe announcement on tariffs was not a bad strategy. The execution was abysmal.

BusterAg said:

---

GenericAggie said:

---

Idiocy? His bombastic approach was intentional and smart. Got everyone's attention didn't it? Brought people to the table, didn't it? You want warm and fuzzy, slow to action approaches? **** that. We need shock and a jolt to get away from this globalism disaster.

---

You can do that without:

1) Promising reciprocal tariffs leading up to Liberation Day, and then not presenting reciprocal tariffs.
2) Using a calculation to come up with your tariff amounts that is super easy to reverse engineer, obviously has no consideration to the trading partner's tariffs, and uses the trade deficit as the denominator.

The overall idea of a shock&awe announcement on tariffs was not a bad strategy. The execution was abysmal.

---

This.

This decision just emboldened Congress, and they are no longer being cuchold.