foregoneconclusion

randominternetperson said: What happens when the Sec of Homeland Security orders her U.S. Customs and Border Production officers to collect tariff revenue from ships in port after a court as said those tariffs are null and void?

That would be obvious obstruction and contempt of court. A federal judge could potentially have U.S. Marshalls arrest officials involved in that. 

Jim_MAY said:

The Trump Administration will advance an appeal to the Supreme Court. Congress gave tariff powers to the Presidents long ago.

The Trump administration declared an emergency under the IEEPA statute to levy tariffs. But the IEEPA statute doesn't mention tariffs or taxes as a power that was granted under the IEEPA by Congress. In fact, the IEEPA has never been used by the executive to levy tariffs. It's only been used to apply sanctions to foreign countries. Per the Supreme Court, any statute used by the executive branch that has significant economic/political impact MUST contain specific language that supports the way the executive is using it. The SC has called this the Major Questions Doctrine. Since the IEEPA doesn't contain any language that specifies tariffs as a power granted by Congress, the Trump administration's use of the statute fails the Major Questions Doctrine and is unconstitutional as a result.

An example of this would be the Biden administration's first attempt at forgiving student loan debt under the HEROES Act. A lawsuit was filed that challenged the use of the statute for that purpose. The SC ultimately ruled that the HEROES Act didn't contain language specific enough to support the actions being taken by the executive and ruled the use to be unconstitutional. So if student loan forgiveness is considered a big enough economic/political issue for the SC to apply the Major Questions Doctrine, then the tariff actions by the Trump administration will obviously qualify as well. 

"Apple has long been the butt of the joke for gamers"

For AAA gamers only. Mobile games lapped the PC/console industry for revenue a long time ago. When Microsoft bought Activision/Blizzard, Candy Crush was the second most lucrative franchise that they acquired. Only Call of Duty was generating more $$. 

More proof that the President levying tariffs under the IEEPA is illegal. Not only is there no mention of tariffs or taxes in the language of the IEEPA, but there is also no mention of targeting domestic companies. The IEEPA was intended to be used for sanctioning foreign governments only. 

blastdoor said: of course it’s possible. It would just be more expensive to do that than pay the tariff, especially given that the tariff might not be there by the time the US supply chain is built.

A. Tariffs make imported materials and parts more expensive.
B. U.S. manufacturing relies heavily on imported materials and parts.

What do you think that adds up to?