3 ms·
Wouldn't he be required to pay everyone back?
by sschueller 8mo ago
Wouldn't he be required to pay everyone back?
- Hamuko 8mo agoFrom what I saw on social media, SCOTUS said nothing about refunds, so it would be resolved in lower courts. https://bsky.app/profile/stevevladeck.bsky.social/post/3mfcfdply522j https://bsky.app/profile/stevevladeck.bsky.social/post/3mfcf...
- SilverElfin 8mo agoI suspect Trump will try to make it as difficult and painful for people to get their money back.
- chiengineer 8mo agoAfter handing over 10 billion to the board of peace and throwing away the lawsuit Sure just call the returns office in the east wing im sure theyll oh wait
- mraniki 8mo agoyeah. what a mess.
- hypeatei 8mo agoYes and Howard Lutnick's (the commerce secretary) former firm, that his sons manage, is betting on exactly that by buying rebates: https://www.wired.com/story/senators-probe-cantor-fitzgerald-tariffs/ https://www.wired.com/story/senators-probe-cantor-fitzgerald... For those out of the loop, Lutnick is a massive proponent of tariffs.
- SilverElfin 8mo agoIn a just world this would be true. But multiple people from the administration have already talked about how they would resist such a ruling. So what we are probably going to see is obstructionism. They will try to claim that the tariffs are valid under a different set of laws than the one they previously used. Maybe the alternative justification will itself be illegal. But it will linger until the court strike it down separately. It’s a loophole in the system.