Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | zeroonetwothree's commentslogin

If you read the linked article it is discussed

The average effect of tariffs on prices was less than 1% so it would be hard to notice

But without DOGE it would have gone up $2.51T

When they rule for Trump it’s proof they are just a rubber stamp. When they rule against Trump it’s somehow also proof they are a rubber stamp?

How do you get that from what I wrote?

How do you not see how they got that from what you wrote?

Is this a serious question? Hahah

SCOTUS rules for the rich and powerful. Most of the time Trump is aligned with them. Sometimes he does dumb shit like tariffs, or things that upset the order the rich and powerful want to maintain, and they rule against him.

Doesn’t this decision exactly prove the opposite?

Did you actually read it? Seems unlikely. I agree with the majority but I think the dissent does make some ok points.

NY v Trump was a state criminal case. The Supreme Court would not have been involved.

> NY v Trump was a state criminal case. The Supreme Court would not have been involved.

Bullshit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

SCOTUS overturns state laws and convictions plenty.

State criminal case: https://oklahomavoice.com/2025/02/25/u-s-supreme-court-tosse...

State laws held unconstitutional: https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/state-laws-held-uncon...


Yes but in practice they delegate this power to the executive. Congress doesn’t run the IRS themselves after all

> Yes but in practice they delegate this power to the executive.

No, they do not delegate the power to lay (set) taxes to the executive, they do assign the executive the function of collecting the taxes laid by Congress.

> Congress doesn’t run the IRS themselves after all

The IRS doesn't freely set taxes, it collects the taxes set by Congress.


The moment Congress authorizes that the Executive may use discretion then the Executive can effectively levy taxes. They may be wielding a bat owned by someone else, but who swings it is ultimately what's important.

Now I'm generally of the opinion that Congress shouldn't be allowed to give the Executive discretion but seems no one agrees with that and Congress would rather let the Executive write "not quite laws" on their behalf.


They don't delegate the policymaking. Tax code is always congressionally approved, and I'm unaware of any even remote argument that changing tax policy is delegated to the executive.

OTOH enforcement of congressional policies is basically always the role of the executive, so the fact that the IRS exists and does things doesn't really impact delegation.


That was on the emergency docket. This decision was the merits docket, which always takes much longer.

That's a distinction entirely invented by the court, and under their control.

The emergency docket is whatever they want to treat as an emergency. The decision not to treat this as such - it's hard to imagine many clearer examples of "immediate irreprable harm" - was clearly partisan.


I guess there are “hacks” on both sides?

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: