Extremely biased comment.

The SC ruling today:

1) Does not stop the president from enacting tariffs, at all. The dissents even spelled out that no actual change would come from this ruling.

2) The ruling creates the absurd scenario where the president can (under this specific law) totally ban ALL imports from a country on whim, but not partially via tariffs. It's akin to being able to turn the AC on or off, but not being allowed to set the temperature.

As usual, interesting discussion about the nuances of this ruling are happening on X. Reddit and HN comments are consistently low-signal like the above.

▲

tyre 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It’s not an absurd scenario. The law was written specifically to allow blocking imports from a country.

The nuance is that nothing Congress passed granted to right to tax. Additionally, they did grant the power to partially block imports. Nothing says you have to enact “no imports from Japan” vs. “no imports of networking equipment from Lichtenstein.”

▲

RetpolineDrama 5 hours ago | parent [-]

>The law was written specifically to allow blocking imports from a country.

The precise wording is regulate. The idea that "regulate" means you can turn it on or off with no in-between is beyond parody. Absurd. Hilarious. Farcical.

That said the headline is misleading and should be renamed, nothing is changing from this ruling.

	▲	Starman_Jones 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The precise wording is "investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit..."

▲

mexicocitinluez 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> discussion about the nuances of this ruling are happening on X

I'm sure they are lol.

▲

4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]