7 ms·
The ruling was 6-3 with Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh dissenting. Kavanaugh's dissent is particularly peculiar as he wrote 'refunding tarif
by arunabha 7mo ago
The ruling was 6-3 with Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh dissenting.
Kavanaugh's dissent is particularly peculiar as he wrote 'refunding tariffs already collected could be a “mess” with “significant consequences for the U.S. Treasury.”'
So, the justification is that undoing an illegal act is going to be unwieldy for the govt, so presumably, as a corollary, the govt must be allowed to continue doing illegal acts. This honestly reads as a blanket support for Trump personally, than any reasoned legal argument.
- padjo 7mo agoThat's Kavanaugh for you.
- mordnis 7mo agoI think this is normal for the supreme court, I've heard that they largely upheld abortion in the 1992 case because they thought it would be a mess to undo, even though they thought the original ruling was unconstitutional.
- tracker1 7mo agoI think it was more that they felt that the judgement should include instructions to dismiss any remedial action, not that the actions should continue. Without reading the dissent(s), I can't really say... In the end, the people who bought products that paid more won't get it back... and who will receive the difference is the middle-men who will just pocket the difference profiting from both ends.