A federal appeals court on Thursday granted the Trump administration’s request to temporarily pause a lower-court ruling that struck down most of President Donald Trump’s tariffs.
The Trump administration had earlier told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that it would seek “emergency relief” from the Supreme Court as soon as Friday if the tariff ruling was not quickly put on pause.
Quote:
At the same time, the Trump administration aimed a barrage of criticism at the trade-court judges, accusing them of bias and abusing their power.
“The Supreme Court must put an end to this,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Thursday afternoon. “These judges are threatening to undermine the credibility of the United States on the world stage.”
“We are living under a judicial tyranny,” White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller wrote Thursday morning in response to the ruling, escalating his initial claim that “the judicial coup is out of control.”
__________________
The Quest stands upon the edge of a knife. Stray but a little, and it will fail, to the ruin of all. Yet hope remains while the Company is true. Go Flames Go!
Not all of them. The Fentanyl and "Liberation Day" tariffs are dead (for now anyways) but the Auto and Steel Tariffs remain (they had a different legal justification that this court wasn't being asked to weigh in on).
Yeah I know. Too bad for Que and Ont.
__________________
If you don't pass this sig to ten of your friends, you will become an Oilers fan.
Trump makes a tariff announcement in Pennsylvania: "We are going to be imposing a 25% increase -- we're gonna bring it from 25% to 50%, the tariffs on steel into the US."
Explaining the announcement he just made to increase steel tariffs to 50%: "I said to the group, 'Would you rather have a 40% increase?' Because I was thinking about 40 when I came. I said, 'Would you rather have a 40% or a 50%?' They said, 'Well take 50!' ... so congratulations."
I'm too exhausted to continue reading about this, but I am curious what they base these decisions on.
If he invoked the emergency act, then yes he can impose tariffs on enemy nations like us. That is pretty clear.
If Congress has not forced him to repeal the emergencies act, then the act is still in effect, and therefore his power to declare tariffs.
Or has something changed in the meantime?
Basically they just paused the verdict for the government to appeal. They didn't say the verdict was wrong, just that they're going to wait for the appeal before the change gets enforced.
I'm too exhausted to continue reading about this, but I am curious what they base these decisions on.
If he invoked the emergency act, then yes he can impose tariffs on enemy nations like us. That is pretty clear.
If Congress has not forced him to repeal the emergencies act, then the act is still in effect, and therefore his power to declare tariffs.
Or has something changed in the meantime?
I think it might come down to the question of is "Regulating Imports with a Reciprocal Tariff to Rectify Trade Practices that Contribute to Large and Persistent Annual United States Goods Trade Deficits" a valid reason to use the act. Looking through the list:
it's..well, a dogs breakfast. It does seem the pres can basically use it for any reason, including his misunderstanding of how international trade works. The check on the power is congress, who can revoke it at any time. Which means congress is party to all his actions, and should also be held to account by voters. In a rational world.
Basically they just paused the verdict for the government to appeal. They didn't say the verdict was wrong, just that they're going to wait for the appeal before the change gets enforced.
Which is stupid, its basically having lost in court, them ruling illegal what you are doing but then this appeals court saying 'nah, keep doing illegal while your appeal goes up'.
Which is stupid, its basically having lost in court, them ruling illegal what you are doing but then this appeals court saying 'nah, keep doing illegal while your appeal goes up'.
Which is how we want courts to be. We want the ruling paused in the direction that does the least harm.
Like with Roe v Wade some small court in Alabama shouldn’t be able to stop abortions nation wide.
So that’s why there is the initial ruling invalidating laws and then the apeal and then the fight over whether or not the law stays in place during the appeal and the fight whether the law stays in place while the decision on whether the law should stay in place during the appeal is made.
If we aren't there already, I fear that these shenanigans are going to devolve into a full-blown global tax/tariff/trade war.
Quote:
Section 899 says it will hit entities from “discriminatory foreign countries” — those that impose levies such as the digital services taxes that disproportionately affect U.S. companies.
France, for instance, has a 3% tax on revenues from online platforms, which primarily targets big technology firms such as Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple. Germany is reportedly considering a similar tax of 10%.
What does the proposed tax do?
Under the new tax bill, the U.S. would hit investors from such countries by increasing taxes on U.S. income by 5 percentage points each year, potentially taking the rate up to 20%, in addition to existing taxes.
The taxes in the EU will be far stickier than the TACO tariffs from the US.
__________________ It's only game. Why you heff to be mad?
It sure seems like the only reason he’s raising the steel and aluminum tariffs is because he’s super pissed about the TACO thing and he’s trying to prove to everybody that he’ll actually follow through on tariffs.
Also, according to CBC, Canadian officials have had zero clarification from the WH on whether or not there might be an exemption on the extra 25% for USMCA. At this point I’m thinking we should just pull a Mexico and not retaliate at all, since he’ll likely back down again within a week.
The Following User Says Thank You to direwolf For This Useful Post:
What was the one trade 'deal' trump made so far...steel and aluminum with the UK tariffs to zero.
Guess what...these new tariffs were announced as applying to them under Section 232.
So much winning! Incompetent boobs.
It's been the same song and dance for a decade now. He loves being the focus of attention. He creates a problem (tariffs) then negotiates them down and gets fellated by his cabinet for a job well done.
Think back to the first term where he asked Merkel 11 times at the G7 to "make a deal". She had to firmly remind him continuously that the EU and the US have a deal, and he can't make a trade deal exclusively with Germany.
Also, according to CBC, Canadian officials have had zero clarification from the WH on whether or not there might be an exemption on the extra 25% for USMCA. At this point I’m thinking we should just pull a Mexico and not retaliate at all, since he’ll likely back down again within a week.
I work with a lot of different Steel Fabricators. They're unanimous in not wanting broad based counter tarrifs on the US products many of them need.
As an example what most of the public refers to as I beams (and no they're not I beams)...those are no longer made in Canada. They're only produced in the United States, China, and sometimes from Korea, and occasionally the really heavy ones can come from Luxemburg of all places. In many cases owners do spec that the Chinese products are not permitted. So a counter Tariff on those now increases the cost for them, and it's pretty much a staple in Steel Construction. There are programs to eventually recover some of these costs, but it's a process that takes time, and a fair bit of administrative work to apply for. So it's a double whammy in that a lot of them can no longer sell to the US and are losing that revenue stream, but they're seeing their cost go up on a product that is essential to their business.
__________________ "Some guys like old balls"
Patriots QB Tom Brady
