4 ms·

Does it really matter what a court finds, anymore? We don't exactly live in law-abiding times.

forgotoldacc 1y ago
A lot of people really seem to think this is the end of everything. But there are two options here. One is that some other irrelevant and obscure law from 200 years ago is dug up and used to justify the tariffs and another long court battle begins. The other is that the ruling is simply ignored, just like many others, and half the country will cry that the courts are being ignored and justice will rain down soon, and the other half will say hell yeah, ignore those woke courts. Every single judgement has gone this way for the past 9 years. I'm always amazed when people keep expecting different. It's like being surprised about the events in a 10 season long reality TV show. It's the same script everyday.
- UncleOxidant 1y ago
  > and half the country will cry that the courts are being ignored and justice will rain down soon, and the other half will say hell yeah, ignore those woke courts. Thing is, I think support for these tariffs is way less than 1/2 of the country. Even parts of MAGA have been expressing doubt about the tariffs (or at least the hamfisted way they've been implemented).
  - forgotoldacc 1y ago
    Apparently up to about 40% support them, depending on the poll. [1] That 40% seems absolutely unshakeable in their support. No matter what happens, that group will support it. And 40% is pretty close to half. [1] https://www.progressivepolicy.org/polling-u-s-public-is-against-trump-tariffs-by-about-60-36/ https://www.progressivepolicy.org/polling-u-s-public-is-agai...
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - somenameforme 1y ago
      It's not like people are just closing their eyes and trusting in leader. I'm part of that 40% (and probably substantially more given contemporary pollsters difficulty in reaching people like me [1]), and I think my rationale is quite sound. The fundamental reason is that we are creating an unsustainable system. When Germany chose to limit imports of Russian gas, they wrecked their economy. Many people, blinded by hindsight, wondered why they would have created such a dependency to begin with. But that completely ignores the fact that literally every other nation, including the US most obviously, has excesses of dependencies on other countries, many of which we aren't friendly with today, and even more that we won't be friendly with tomorrow. Times change. An 'advanced economy' is a misnomer, if not an outright facade. Supplanting agriculture, real manufacturing, and other core aspects of your economy with e.g. advertising driven high tech discretionary industries creates an inverted dependency. People don't need iPhones or Google. They do need food, the zillion things in your home labeled 'made in China', and gas. If those 'lesser economies' chose to stop selling to the US, they'd destroy the country. Offshoring all of these jobs also distorts the economy driving excesses of wealth inequality. Many of the jobs that used to lay between flipping burgers and writing code are the exact ones that have been hollowed out by offshoring. The fundamental problem we've created is that it's cheaper than make a widget half way around the world and ship it here than it is than it is to make it here. So how do we fix this? Tariffs are a blunt way to change this, but change it they do. The most probable outcome is that these providers will simply increase their prices which will, in turn, enable and motivate domestic competition and/or incentivize these companies to create onshore operations. [1] - https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/05/polling-2024-trump-bias/682834/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/05/polling-20...
      - forgotoldacc 1y ago
        > But that completely ignores the fact that literally every other nation, including the US most obviously, has excesses of dependencies on other countries, many of which we aren't friendly with today, and even more that we won't be friendly with tomorrow That's called trade. There's a recorded history of it going back about 5000 years (it goes back farther when you look at artifacts spread around the world before written history existed) and every great civilization partook in it and it's the reason they became known as great empires. Societies that went nowhere and quickly collapsed, notably, did not partake in this system.
- erulabs 1y ago
  Laws are laws and their age has no bearing nor does it make them irrelevant. The constitution is “from 200 years ago” too.
  - usefulcat 1y ago
    In theory, sure. In practice, it's only true when there is broad based respect for the law as a whole. I'm really not seeing evidence of that from this administration or its supporters. To put it very mildly. For example, according to the highest law in the land, the Constitution, he can't be elected again. Do you really believe that's going to prevent him from running, much less remaining in office should he win, having previously tried to overturn a legitimate election? The real question is, when he ignores the courts, what then? Normally that would be when Congress steps in. But even if Republicans didn't have a majority, impeachment would still require support from a decent number of them. Based on their behavior to date, how likely is that? Strict partisanship appears to be a serious failure mode for this particular form of government. As Congress has become more partisan, they've gotten less and less done, both legislatively and in terms of serving as a check on the executive branch.
  - forgotoldacc 1y ago
    I like how you focused on "200 years" and not the fact I said "irrelevant". Being old and irrelevant doesn't suddenly make it relevant, no matter how many people like to pretend it is to support their weekly stock pump and dump tariffs on/tariffs off schemes. And the court here is ruling that the tariffs weren't made in a way that follows the law/Constitution, so your anger is misdirected.
tdeck 1y ago
It depends on which community the ruling affects.
UncleOxidant 1y ago
[flagged]
- gchamonlive 1y ago
  [flagged]
- wredcoll 1y ago
  [flagged]
arunabha 1y ago
Yes, it does. Because it draws a clear line in the sand. The administration can choose to disobey the order, but that opens up individuals in the govt to potential prosecution later. That's why governments try fairly hard to go the legal route or at least maintain a fig leaf of explanations, however implausible. The supreme court might have declared the president to be immune for official acts, but that doesn't extend to govt officials blatantly choosing contempt of court. They have practical immunity in the current administration. A future administration might not look so kindly on such actions.
- mchannon 1y ago
  But now we have the “deathbed pardon” or the lame-duck preemptive blanket pardon, popularized by 46. Break the law all you want, long as the old boss or his successor is happy with you, you can’t be held accountable by the new boss.
  - arunabha 1y ago
    Yes, but even then, as an official, you don't know if you'll be sure to get one. A court ruling significantly increases the risk of wilful disobedience for officials and hence dramatically lowers the probability of being ignored.
- disqard 1y ago
  Hmmm, I think a "pardon factory" would counter that. (not supporting anything about the current strategy... just pointing out that the "line in the sand" doesn't imply that any individuals would actually get in trouble)
  - arunabha 1y ago
    Yeah, but then you're depending on a notoriously fickle and unreliable person wanting or remembering to do that when the time comes. Sure, if you're a true believer in the cause you'll take that risk, but a majority of the people in any administration are opportunists, not ideologues.

A lot of people really seem to think this is the end of everything. But there are two options here. One is that some other irrelevant and obscure law from 200 years ago is dug up and used to justify the tariffs and another long court battle begins. The other is that the ruling is simply ignored, just like many others, and half the country will cry that the courts are being ignored and justice will rain down soon, and the other half will say hell yeah, ignore those woke courts. Every single judgement has gone this way for the past 9 years. I'm always amazed when people keep expecting different. It's like being surprised about the events in a 10 season long reality TV show. It's the same script everyday.

UncleOxidant 1y ago
> and half the country will cry that the courts are being ignored and justice will rain down soon, and the other half will say hell yeah, ignore those woke courts. Thing is, I think support for these tariffs is way less than 1/2 of the country. Even parts of MAGA have been expressing doubt about the tariffs (or at least the hamfisted way they've been implemented).
- forgotoldacc 1y ago
  Apparently up to about 40% support them, depending on the poll. [1] That 40% seems absolutely unshakeable in their support. No matter what happens, that group will support it. And 40% is pretty close to half. [1] https://www.progressivepolicy.org/polling-u-s-public-is-against-trump-tariffs-by-about-60-36/ https://www.progressivepolicy.org/polling-u-s-public-is-agai...
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - somenameforme 1y ago
    It's not like people are just closing their eyes and trusting in leader. I'm part of that 40% (and probably substantially more given contemporary pollsters difficulty in reaching people like me [1]), and I think my rationale is quite sound. The fundamental reason is that we are creating an unsustainable system. When Germany chose to limit imports of Russian gas, they wrecked their economy. Many people, blinded by hindsight, wondered why they would have created such a dependency to begin with. But that completely ignores the fact that literally every other nation, including the US most obviously, has excesses of dependencies on other countries, many of which we aren't friendly with today, and even more that we won't be friendly with tomorrow. Times change. An 'advanced economy' is a misnomer, if not an outright facade. Supplanting agriculture, real manufacturing, and other core aspects of your economy with e.g. advertising driven high tech discretionary industries creates an inverted dependency. People don't need iPhones or Google. They do need food, the zillion things in your home labeled 'made in China', and gas. If those 'lesser economies' chose to stop selling to the US, they'd destroy the country. Offshoring all of these jobs also distorts the economy driving excesses of wealth inequality. Many of the jobs that used to lay between flipping burgers and writing code are the exact ones that have been hollowed out by offshoring. The fundamental problem we've created is that it's cheaper than make a widget half way around the world and ship it here than it is than it is to make it here. So how do we fix this? Tariffs are a blunt way to change this, but change it they do. The most probable outcome is that these providers will simply increase their prices which will, in turn, enable and motivate domestic competition and/or incentivize these companies to create onshore operations. [1] - https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/05/polling-2024-trump-bias/682834/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/05/polling-20...
    - forgotoldacc 1y ago
      > But that completely ignores the fact that literally every other nation, including the US most obviously, has excesses of dependencies on other countries, many of which we aren't friendly with today, and even more that we won't be friendly with tomorrow That's called trade. There's a recorded history of it going back about 5000 years (it goes back farther when you look at artifacts spread around the world before written history existed) and every great civilization partook in it and it's the reason they became known as great empires. Societies that went nowhere and quickly collapsed, notably, did not partake in this system.
erulabs 1y ago
Laws are laws and their age has no bearing nor does it make them irrelevant. The constitution is “from 200 years ago” too.
- usefulcat 1y ago
  In theory, sure. In practice, it's only true when there is broad based respect for the law as a whole. I'm really not seeing evidence of that from this administration or its supporters. To put it very mildly. For example, according to the highest law in the land, the Constitution, he can't be elected again. Do you really believe that's going to prevent him from running, much less remaining in office should he win, having previously tried to overturn a legitimate election? The real question is, when he ignores the courts, what then? Normally that would be when Congress steps in. But even if Republicans didn't have a majority, impeachment would still require support from a decent number of them. Based on their behavior to date, how likely is that? Strict partisanship appears to be a serious failure mode for this particular form of government. As Congress has become more partisan, they've gotten less and less done, both legislatively and in terms of serving as a check on the executive branch.
- forgotoldacc 1y ago
  I like how you focused on "200 years" and not the fact I said "irrelevant". Being old and irrelevant doesn't suddenly make it relevant, no matter how many people like to pretend it is to support their weekly stock pump and dump tariffs on/tariffs off schemes. And the court here is ruling that the tariffs weren't made in a way that follows the law/Constitution, so your anger is misdirected.

tdeck 1y ago

It depends on which community the ruling affects.

UncleOxidant 1y ago

[flagged]

gchamonlive 1y ago
[flagged]
wredcoll 1y ago
[flagged]

arunabha 1y ago

Yes, it does. Because it draws a clear line in the sand. The administration can choose to disobey the order, but that opens up individuals in the govt to potential prosecution later. That's why governments try fairly hard to go the legal route or at least maintain a fig leaf of explanations, however implausible. The supreme court might have declared the president to be immune for official acts, but that doesn't extend to govt officials blatantly choosing contempt of court. They have practical immunity in the current administration. A future administration might not look so kindly on such actions.

mchannon 1y ago
But now we have the “deathbed pardon” or the lame-duck preemptive blanket pardon, popularized by 46. Break the law all you want, long as the old boss or his successor is happy with you, you can’t be held accountable by the new boss.
- arunabha 1y ago
  Yes, but even then, as an official, you don't know if you'll be sure to get one. A court ruling significantly increases the risk of wilful disobedience for officials and hence dramatically lowers the probability of being ignored.
disqard 1y ago
Hmmm, I think a "pardon factory" would counter that. (not supporting anything about the current strategy... just pointing out that the "line in the sand" doesn't imply that any individuals would actually get in trouble)
- arunabha 1y ago
  Yeah, but then you're depending on a notoriously fickle and unreliable person wanting or remembering to do that when the time comes. Sure, if you're a true believer in the cause you'll take that risk, but a majority of the people in any administration are opportunists, not ideologues.