The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Tariffs in the second Trump Administration [SPLIT]

Kavanaugh would find that the language means exactly what it says if this was a Dem president.
 
^^ I believe you are correct and now I’m left to consider how the really really religious justice turned out to be the least political one in my forming opinion.
 
Norri said:
Well they are interpreting the law in question as what those words mean and if I had the opportunity I would enjoy being locked in a room with Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Barrett and let them duke it out as one (Barrett) said the law’s language clearly does not allow Trump to use it as he has and the other says it certainly does. And to think english is the native language of both.
Click to expand...
Read the dissenting opinion. It's not interpretation. There's more pretzel-making than an Auntie Anne's.
 
One of the shit-show aspects of Trump's tariffs is, because they weren't legislated in an orderly fashion, the accounting methods to track tax collection wasn't in place. In a typical sales tax or VAT tax, the taxes are accounted for separately as each taxing authority collects the tax; the taxes are stated separately on a receipt.

Economists estimated that each American household paid $1,700 in Trump's tariffs in 2025, while SCOTUS sat on this case for 10 months.

Good luck in figuring out what tariffs were collected and paid. The Tangerine Terror would impose and eliminate tariffs nearly daily. When a company would show up and pay a bribe tribute, they were given an exception. Other than seeing that shit was more expensive, it is hard to know what amounts you paid in tariffs, so you cannot request that you be refunded the illegal tariffs that were incorporated into things that you bought in 2025.
 
Consumers won't get anything back, but it could be a financial bonanza for the companies and importers that paid tax because it likely did show up on the manifests and orders.

They will likely be entitled by the courts (those that are suing) almost immediately to claim a refund.

For the others, they will likely have to rely on a court ruling that they are entitled to a rebate and then wrestle their claims through the government slow walk process.

It won't be long before there is more noise that this was only ever another Trump scam.

Oh. And by the way. Don't expect any companies to lower their prices because the tariffs have been struck down.
 
rareboy said:
Consumers won't get anything back, but it could be a financial bonanza for the companies and importers that paid tax because it likely did show up on the manifests and orders.
Click to expand...

The PR war has started, though. :ROFLMAO:

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker (D) on Thursday called on President Trump to “cut the check” and issue refunds to American taxpayers after the Supreme Court struck down a cornerstone of his economic agenda, tariffs.

“The Supreme Court just confirmed what we already know. Trump’s tariffs are illegal. He did it without the support of Congress or the voters, and you paid the price,” Pritzker said in a short video posted on the social platform X.

He claimed Trump “illegally took $1,700 from every American family,” a figure that falls within the range cited in Yale Budget Lab research from March of last year, which projected an average household loss of between $1,600 and $2,000 due to the tariffs.
Click to expand...



rareboy said:
Oh. And by the way. Don't expect any companies to lower their prices because the tariffs have been struck down.
Click to expand...
SCOTUS gave Trump a lifesaver- lower prices, a lift to economic growth in an election year.

What did Trump do? He put on another set of concrete galoshes and imposed yet another illegal 10% universal tariff that will set up yet another round of price increases and litigation that will likely find the new tariffs to also be illegal.

The reality is that Presidents can do little that really impacts the long-term economy but they can do a lot of damage on the short-term. The elections are in 8 months and he's likely sunk his chances to maintain complete control of Washington DC after the new Congress is seated in January, 2027.
 
It seems to be a baffling double down.

Or a frantic last gasp to grift bribes from countries and businesses before it all falls apart.

This is what was partly behind my comment above that the noise will now increase about how these illegal tariffs have hurt the consumer and economy.

The SC must also see it for what it is and because it is global, you would think that they would issue some guidance that this new 10% tariff is not legal or binding.

I suspect that the new tariff was just noise to show his supporters that Trump had not lost and that he can defy the Court (which he can because of the Roberts Court decision that gives him immunity from committing illegal acts)

But the balloon has deflated. Trump and his cabal will no longer be seen as a meaningful threat in global trade.

All they have done is to steer most of the countries he has tried to hurt away from the US as partners and allies as we recreate new multilateral trade agreements that exclude the US government interference.
 
rareboy said:
... SC must also see it for what it is and because it is global, you would think that they would issue some guidance that this new 10% tariff is not legal or binding.
Click to expand...
There's a series of flaws in the US Constitution and it has to do with the Judicial Branch. In order to get something in front of SCOTUS, it has to wind through the court system, often starting in a District Court, then Appeals Courts and then SCOTUS "decides" if they want to hear the case. Or in some cases, SCOTUS rejects the case by saying that the plaintiff "doesn't have standing" and can't bring the case.

This means that battles between Congress and the White House can take months or even years to resolve.

On the other side of this, the White House can go directly to SCOTUS and via the "shadow docket" get an emergency stay or an emergency ruling. If you're Biden, the Court either delays or rules against you. If you're Trump, the Court can release an opinion in a matter of days and it's usually in your favor.

This tariff thing should have taken days to resolve back in April, 2025. Instead, the Court dragged its feet for 10 months, allowing obviously illegal tariffs to be collected for nearly a year. And even when they did finally issue an opinion, three justices who apparently have never read the Constitution, found a reason to try to rule in Trump's favor, attempting to creating an executive taxation power that has never existed in 250 years of the Republic.

Reforms are needed. One of Biden's big fuck-ups was to not deal with the Court's issues and among Pelosi's and Schumer's big failures was never taking up the Court dysfunctional process issues in legislation.
 
The Guardian opinion piece does sum it up pretty well.

It’s high time that the high court realize that Trump’s elevator doesn’t go all the way to the top. Remember last December when he wrote that if the supreme court ruled against him in the tariffs case, that would be “the biggest threat in history” to US national security. In October, he said something even more ludicrous: that if the tariff ruling went against him, it “would literally destroy the United States of America.” (When I woke up this morning. the US was still standing,)
Click to expand...

www.theguardian.com

Trump’s global tariffs have finally been overturned. What next? | Steven Greenhouse

The US supreme court ruled against the president. Let’s hope the court removes its pro-Trump glasses on other issues and stands up for the rule of law
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

What he was projecting when he made these ludicrous claims was that this ruling would be the biggest threat to him, both personally and to his power and that it would literally destroy him because it would destroy so much of his power both domestically and internationally.

What is missing in all of this is a well deserved slam against Congress for not exerting their power to end this farce either.

I will never understand the delay in this ruling. It should have been swift and perfunctory, but it seems like the SC's owners have been on board with Trump swinging his tiny dick
on the international stage and the home front for a year...maybe because they were waiting to see if this tired and false approach would, in fact, reshape the economy and the global map the way they wanted.

It has not. Instead, there is more unemployment, decline in buying power, no Greenland or Canada as imperial conquests in sight and the increasing likelihood that they will lose Congress. And US power and markets are shrinking daily under his wildly undisciplined approach to trade.

So maybe some of them finally told Roberts enough. And maybe some of the dissents were just intended to be ridiculously performative so that there was a demonstration that the right wing Court hadn't abandoned their wannabe king entirely, but so weak that they would never stand up in future arguments.
 
Secretary Bessent :rotflmao:

www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com

'Did Not Rule Against Trump’s Tariffs': Bessent Offers Alternative Interpretation

Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent delivered an alternative interpretation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on Friday that struck down the legal basis for the president’s sweeping global tariffs, which the justices ruled was an unlawful use of executive authority. “President Trump will...
www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com
 
The truest thing he said:

The Secretary, commenting on whether consumers will get refunds from the approximately $175 billion in tariffs already collected, also said, “I got a feeling the American people won’t see it.”
Click to expand...

But I suspect that he is right. TrumpCo. will be frantically looking to use 'alternative measures'...but none of these have the clout or range of the IEEPA or they would have been the first go-to.

With a strong suspicion that they would lose, Bessent and Nutlick and the rest of the lickspittles have had months to have those measures in place to seamlessly carry on this economic bullying but they haven't even apparently tried.

At the moment, it seems that all the WH has is bluster and spin. Because they have lost big.
 
bafkreibxkrrhcdpc3ie4hwn3tzqouutxbmpmvawbi7xyjkkizot3zkmvqe@jpeg
 
David Frum states the case against Trump...something that must have influenced the case against Trump tariffs...that six of the Justices recognized.

In the 1630s, King Charles I tried to tax English people without the consent of their legislature. He lost his head.

In the 2020s, Donald Trump tried to tax Americans without the consent of Congress. He just lost his case.

A tariff is a tax. The Trump tariffs imposed in and after April 2025 were projected to raise as much as $2.3 trillion over 10 years. The Constitution assigns authority over taxes, including tariffs, to Congress. It does so for reasons that date back to English constitutional history: An executive who can tax without permission from elected representatives is on his way to becoming a tyrant.
Click to expand...

www.theatlantic.com

The Supreme Court Delivers Trump a Humiliating Gift

Finally, a check on the president’s tariff powers.
www.theatlantic.com www.theatlantic.com

As much as TrumpCo. tried to lie to the US Americans, at the end of the day, the government had to agree in court that the tariffs were paid by the US companies and consumers in the end and so constituted taxation...that it was a lie that tariffs were paid by the country being tariffed by Trump.

To have the power to tax without the will of the people paying the tax is anathema in western democracies. The American British colonies fought a war of indepence over this.

Some other good news though.

Congress, which colluded in this tax grab will also be seeing their balance sheets in a new way. Their members know it would be suicide to attempt to resurrect Smoot-Hawley which deepened and lengthened the Depression.

So maybe some of the unlimited spending on regressive policies like mass deportation at a staggerng cost per person might start to get reined in? Probably not...but $2.3 trillion dollars not being looted by the Feds at the consumer level might re-exert more pressure on corporations paying their fair share or even paying taxes at all.
 
So Team Trump has spent the last day carefully crafting their boss's response...they are reaching pretty far with this...including making it clear that they believe the President is above the SC by declaring that they will ignore the decision. 'NO! I DIDN'T LOSE, YOU LOST!'

In a way, I read this as having been created for an audience of One, because the rest of us know that the wind is now out of his sails.

As I noted above, all these magical new ways to charge tariffs have always been there...but have a lot more statutory restraints than the IEEPA...going back to Smoot Halwley (1930)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot–Hawley_Tariff_Act is not the flex that Kavanuagh and Trump want it to be...it was a disaster for the US and in fact became the reason for so many other trade negotiations up to the present.


All of these lack the sweep and power that the IEEPA pretext has allowed and will mire down TrumpCo. in more arcane legal and congressional challenges on a sector by sector basis.
It will be a hard sell, for instance to convince the consumer that all merchandise from a country constitutes a 'threat to national security'...that is a pretty high bar and the manufacturers and retailers aren't going to be buying into it. Even a compliant Department of Commerce, which has to conduct a 270 day investigation for some tariffs is going to be a drag on Trump's threats against other countries. Because every month that goes by, his time is getting shorter.

It is also going to be a lot harder to even get a trade deal with any other country or trading bloc holding TEA 1962, TA 1974, or Smoot Hawley over their heads.

im.jpg​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top