foregoneconclusion

 "Originally, Apple prevented developers from telling consumers about ways to make payments for services and features that didn't go through Apple's systems."

This is not a factual statement. Apple prevented them from doing so in the app and in the App Store. But companies like Spotify, Amazon and Netflix were still able to get customers to make payments online regardless. Those companies could use customer sign-up information to communicate and there was also the more generalized exposure for customers via web advertising, web search and web sites. 

The key point, which is made in this article, is that the 1st Trump administration withdrew from NAFTA/TPP trade agreements and did new deals which were publicly promoted by Donald Trump as being significantly better than what they replaced. So it doesn't make the slightest bit of sense that Trump's 2nd administration is claiming trade with China, Mexico and Canada constitutes an "emergency". On top of that, use of the IEEPA to levy tariffs is blatantly unconstitutional going by the standard that the Supreme Court already set with the Biden administration's attempt at using the HEROES Act to forgive student loan debt. 

mfryd said: The bottom line is that even if it was a crime for the President to defy a court order, he cannot be prosecuted for it, and the US Marshalls would have no jurisdiction over the President.

Go back to the original post from Randominternetperson. He was talking about Department of Homeland Security officials and not the President. Donald Trump isn't going to be personally attempting to collect tariffs from importers.

mfryd said:

foregoneconclusion said:

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. 

One issue with that is that the U.S. Marshalls are under the Dept. of Justice.  The Dept. of Justice is under Trump.

This can make it problematic for the courts to enforce rulings against the wishes of a sitting President.

U.S. Marshalls serve both the DOJ and the Federal judiciary. Separation of powers = judge doesn't need sign-off from DOJ. 

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.