Please be positive and upbeat in your interactions, and avoid making negative or pessimistic comments. Instead, focus on the potential opportunities.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 11
I bet there is an island full of penguins sitting around a meal of fish discussing what their new tariff rate will be. They may also be having a bit of a laugh about the author of the letter they are patiently awaiting.
Aussi
No. of Recommendations: 0
having a bit of a laugh about the author of the letter they are patiently awaiting.
Spankee isn't bright enough to outthink a real bird brain....
No. of Recommendations: 4
I'm still surprised that any of this is going on. The courts (IIRC) already said he doesn't have the power (i.e. to levy tariffs). That's Congress. So the related agencies should be ignoring him on this. Anyone who isn't should probably be arrested for not carrying out their sworn duties.
No. of Recommendations: 3
I'm still surprised that any of this is going on. The courts (IIRC) already said he doesn't have the power (i.e. to levy tariffs). That's Congress. So the related agencies should be ignoring him on this. Anyone who isn't should probably be arrested for not carrying out their sworn duties.
The ruling was stayed by the appellate court. So the state of the law right now is that the situation is unchanged from the status quo ante.
No. of Recommendations: 2
The ruling was stayed by the appellate court.
It hasn't been reversed by the next rung in the ladder (not sure what's above "appellate")? I would assume something like this would be fast-tracked through the courts more than other issues. We're talking about fundamental government workings, not another abortion bill. It's been five months.
No. of Recommendations: 5
It hasn't been reversed by the next rung in the ladder (not sure what's above "appellate")? I would assume something like this would be fast-tracked through the courts more than other issues. We're talking about fundamental government workings, not another abortion bill. It's been five months.
The ruling finding that the tariffs exceeded Trump's authority was only issued on May 28th. The permanent stay wasn't issued until June 10th (a temporary one was issued immediately). It's been only a month, really.
Although we're talking about fundamental workings, whether it's appropriate to stay matters pending appeal also depends a great deal on what the impact is on the parties, and how permanent it is. Generally speaking, courts are far less likely to use their equitable power (the power to issue injunctions) if the matter under dispute is money. If the federal government collects tariffs, and the appellate court agrees that the government shouldn't have collected those tariffs, it's relatively straightforward to reverse the impact on the parties and just have the federal government refund the money. For obvious reasons, you can't really do that with issues like abortion access, where delaying the effectiveness of the decision results in outcomes that cannot be reversed.
