this post was submitted on 29 May 2025
327 points (99.4% liked)

World News

47165 readers
2294 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary: Congress has not delegated (and may not delegate) all power over tariff enactment to the president. It would violate the separation of powers.

The Court of International Trade said the U.S. Constitution gives Congress exclusive authority to regulate commerce with other countries that is not overridden by the president's emergency powers to safeguard the U.S. economy.

"The court does not pass upon the wisdom or likely effectiveness of the President's use of tariffs as leverage," a three-judge panel said in the decision to issue a permanent injunction on the blanket tariff orders issued by Trump since January. "That use is impermissible not because it is unwise or ineffective, but because [federal law] does not allow it."

top 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] random_character_a@lemmy.world 56 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Hissy fit, whining and insubordination incoming.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

followed by SCROTUS' capitulation and groveling.

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm not sure. The admin has been threatening the justices lately, albeit indirectly. They might use this to make a point.

[–] taladar@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The also have an incentive to preserve their own power when not declaring every branch of the government other than the executive obsolete.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

The also have an incentive to preserve their own power

That's a misunderstand of human nature imho. I don't think they do - at least not as a legal body. It turns out personal comfort and wealth is just fine for several of them. Who cares if you can rule over cases when you have a shiny new motor home and are spending the weekend at a wealthy friend's island?

It's how corruption works.

[–] ExtantHuman@lemm.ee 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

You don't get any more bribes if you hold no power worth getting bribes for.

These are greedy people. There's never "enough" for them. Closing off that channel is not in their own self interests.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 week ago

You don’t get any more bribes if you hold no power worth getting bribes for.

You ever wonder why dictatorships across the world have courts? Because they give the dictator legitimacy. That is why you bribe judges. You can be absolutely servile to the dictator but still have worth.

[–] turtlesareneat@discuss.online 0 points 1 week ago

That’s what you’d expect, but we’ve seen them pretty OK with the erosion for years now. Lately it seems like maybe there’s one collective backbone among the nine of them, but I’m not convinced of anything just yet.

[–] UltraMagnus0001@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Also the supreme court will allow king Trump

[–] hefejefe@lemm.ee 33 points 1 week ago (2 children)

This always seemed to be the outcome, I’m just surprised it took this long for the court to speak up? Like hello, it’s been MONTHS of this nonsense.

Time to reign this rogue president in. Congress better do its job, and not let one man break the backbone of American democracy.

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 23 points 1 week ago

Actual law doesn't work how Taco uses it. Judges can't just declare something is unlawful. There are hearings, procedures, evidence and thought. This is how the law actually works.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

This specific court most certainly has very special processes and procedures that other courts don't follow.

[–] MyOpinion@lemm.ee 18 points 1 week ago (4 children)

I was wondering. How could one person fuck up trade this bad? This can’t be how things were ment to run.

[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 16 points 1 week ago

Congress is letting him. A forceful united Congress could prevent this from ever happening, but they're all a bunch ot bloodless dickless empty suits

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Basically a bunch of rich dudes with land who knew how to read Greek and Latin and were steeped in the philosophy of the time had stars in their eyes and believed that they could come up with something that would work specifically based on the good will and good faith of all the actors involved. They were very naive about human nature and did not put in any real protections against bad actors.

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Eh, it was actually their second attempt. Their first one failed pretty hard (the articles of Confederacy) so they made adjustments. I think they would be shocked that we stuck with their second attempt this long (and through a civil war, no less).

IIRC, in the first attempt the federal government was much weaker overall and the state governments had their own executives and stuff and the whole thing kinda wound up being a bureaucratic nightmare. In their second attempt they thought it might be best to have a reasonably powerful executive.

They were naive in some ways and definitely made mistakes and were racist slavers and genocidal generally speaking, but yeah.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I didn't even know a trade court existed until now.

And now I'm wondering what took them so long. Trump's been wreaking havoc unilaterally, with Congress' endorsement, for months. Hopefully between this and losing Congress in a year and a half, we'll his power blunted sufficiently.

[–] you_are_it@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 week ago

It is interesting will they weasel them out anyway, i.e. is the country very deeply compromised

[–] dugmeup@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Now they will go cry to papa Alito and uncle Clarance

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

hmmm...

By now Don TACO and co know tariffs are a disaster policy (hence his chickening out)... Navarro is a hack and this is very very public and evident by now.

If anything, this gives them a out that allows them to save some face. If they had an iota of a neuron left, they would take it, roll back the mess they made and blame the courts to keep the MAGAtards happy... so then won't, they'll fight tooth and nail to keep the insanity going LOL

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 week ago

Uncle Thomas, Clarence

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago

so the USA gets to pay it all back now, right?

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 week ago

Cool

So why did you allow him to pull this shit for months, wrecking the US economy (bwhahahahha, you got what you voted for!), alienating allies and so forth?

The US is the laughing stick of the world now. Not that I care much about it, but dude, why did you allow Clusterfuck Mc Clownface to do this for so long?

Gutted. I was enjoying that.