65
I think this is an ELI5 question. The Supreme Court squashed all of Trumps sweeping tariffs. Then Trump comes along saying 10 percent global tariff isn't that what the SC just squashed? (lemmy.world)
submitted 8 months ago by to c/explainlikeimfive@lemmy.world
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Or is he really that dumb think ok they blocked tariffs on all the countries on my list. So I will one up them by doing a global tariff. Explain to me the thinking behind that? Sorry you have to debase yourself to understand Trump mind. no sarcasm.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 32 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Which, when they rule with a decision worded so narrowly (as they like to do), is sort of a wink to Trump that his behavior isn’t discouraged, but technically he just did it incorrectly and got caught. 6 to 3, of course.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 27 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    To play devil's advocate here, the Supreme Court's job is to interpret whether a specific thing is lawful or not according to the Constitution. It's not to encourage or discourage any general behavior or to enforce morality (any more than a system of laws already does, anyway).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 11 points 8 months ago

    True; however, from the text of the opinion:

    Many statutes grant the Executive the power to “regulate.” Yet the Government cannot identify any statute in which the power to regulate includes the power to tax. The Court is therefore skeptical that in IEEPA—and IEEPA alone—Congress hid a delegation of its birth-right power to tax within the quotidian power to “regulate.”

    While taxes may accomplish regulatory ends, it does not follow that the power to regulate includes the power to tax as a means of regulation. Indeed, when Congress addresses both the power to regulate and the power to tax, it does so separately and expressly. That it did not do so here is strong evidence that “regulate” in IEEPA does not include taxation.

    It’s a little more subtle, but what I’m picking up is, Hey Trump’s legal team (ya clowns), in this instance, you should find a way to “regulate” that does not involve “taxation” because that falls under congress’ jurisdiction. This is your way to do it. But it will be lost on Trump, of course, because he’s madder than a rattlesnake at a Thai wedding.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent