| ▲ | bickfordb a day ago |
| The latest temporary tariffs are also likely illegal. |
|
| ▲ | teeray a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| Justice delayed is justice denied. There should be an express lane for litigation similar actions like this. |
| |
| ▲ | stefan_ 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | There is an express lane, it's reserved for the government appealing cases, in which any and all injunctions are halted because the court has unilaterally decided to interpret "not being able to do illegal shit" as "great harm" while there is no harm in sending people to torture prisons abroad on the flimsiest of evidence. They sure took their time with this one. | |
| ▲ | vuln a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | we can’t even do that with violent criminal let alone white color criminals. lol | | |
| ▲ | amenhotep 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | This is a silly point. Courts aren't sitting around umming and ahhing about whether they should issue an arrest warrant to get x violent criminal off the streets, the system wastes minimal time in apprehending them and putting them in jail. At THAT point things slow to a crawl - because there's no longer the urgent incentive to act to prevent further harm. Whereas in these cases the government is potentially harming the entire public every single day that the courts don't act. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | NetMageSCW a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I thought those were on very solid ground commonly used by past administrations? |
| |
| ▲ | bickfordb a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Section 122 has rarely been used. State AGs announced lawsuits today: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/05/trump-tariffs-state-ags-sue-... | |
| ▲ | loeg 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Section 122 is only supposed to be applied to address balance of payments deficits, which are essentially zero with floating currency exchange rates (since the 70s). They're also limited to 15% and 150 days. (Judges will not look favorably on Trump trying to just restart the same tariff for another 150 days after the first expire.) | |
| ▲ | dragonwriter 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I thought those were on very solid ground commonly used by past administrations No, Section 122 tariffs have never been used prior to Trump turning to them after the Supreme Court decision striking down the IEEPA tariffs, and, the states suing the Administration argue, the explicit sole statutory purpose for which they were allowed in the 1974 law creating the power can only possible to exist under a fixed-exchange-rate monetary system, which the US has not had since 1976. |
|
|
| ▲ | badgersnake a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Well if it works, they’re gonna keep doing it. |
