randominternetperson

13485 said:

Another issue is that the president does not have the authority to levy and collect taxes, which is what his tariff scheme does. 

Per the US Constitution, Art 1 §8 Cl 1:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States".

It's quite amusing that Stephen Miller calls this decision a "judicial coup", given the pervasive usurpation of judicial and legislative authority by the White House and its clown cabinet. It's J6 2025 to be certain.

mfryd said:

foregoneconclusion said:

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. 

There are theoretical issues and practical issues.

From a theoretical standpoint, the Marshalls listen to the DOJ and Trump can't set tariffs.

From a practical standpoint, a Marshall's paycheck comes from the DOJ, and the Marshall's chain of command work for the DOJ.  This administration has a history of firing people who follow the law when it conflicts with Presidential orders.  Thus, a Marshall might be fired for attempting to enforce a court order against the Trump administration.  We have seen this in the US Attorney's office of the Southern District of New York, where they went through six high ranking officials who refused to follow an illegal directive.

Furthermore, the US Supreme Court has ruled that a sitting President cannot be charged with a crime for any official acts.  Executive orders and directives fall into that category.  Additionally, any official acts can't be used as evidence in a court of law, even after the President leaves office.

Let's look at a hypothetical situation.  Imagine a foreign government can't buy arms from the US because they have a history of supporting terrorism. They decide to offer the sitting President lucrative personal real estate deals, and a $200 million jet as an "incentive" for him to change US foreign policy to allow that country to purchase weapons.  Suppose they structure the deal, so that the Jet is technical given to the US Government, with the stipulation that when the President leaves office the jet goes to a private organization run by the retired President (i.e. his "presidential library").   Imagine that in this hypothetical situation, the President agreed.   

In the past, this would have been considered a bribe.  The President could have been charged with a crime while in office, or after he let office.  Under the new supreme court ruling the President is immune from prosecution for accepting bribes while in office, and after he leaves office.

Similarly, suppose someone donated a million dollars to the President in order to get a pardon for her son's tax fraud conviction.  Again the President is immune from prosecution.  While the person making the bribe can be prosecuted, you can't use as evidence that the President pardoned her son.  This makes it challenging to prosecute people who bribe the President.  Strangely, you can prosecute for attempted bribery, but if the President accepts and acts on the bribe, you can't use those actions as evidence in court.

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.

charlesn said:

nubus said:

randominternetperson said:

Afarstar said:

They might as well change iPhone and iPad numbering too. They missed iPhone 9 out altogether so iPhone 26 would make sense. 

The rumor I read yesterday says exactly that. iPad 26, MacBook Pro 26, iPhone 26.

So the current products would be:
MacBook Air M4 13=> MacBook Air 25 13
AirPods Max => AirPods Max 20
HomePod => HomePod 17bis
iPad Pro 24, iPad Air 25, iPad 25.... 3 different processors. 25 is less than 24 but better than 25.

Perhaps for iPhone but the current naming is mostly OK.

That's not how it would go and I offer that thought directly from what Apple is doing now. Go to Apple's website > Mac tab. See any model numbers? Now scroll down to Macbook Air (as just one example) and open the product page. Does Apple call it a Macbook Air M4? Nope. It's just Macbook Air, same as it has ever been, with the M4 chip listed in the product description along with other specs. Now go to the iPad tab, where you'll also see just model names and click on iPad Pro to open the product page. Does Apple call it the iPad Pro M4? Nope. Just iPad Pro with the M4 chip listed in the product description. This kind of simple clarity in product naming isn't hard or confusing to consumers--Apple has been doing it for decades with most of its main products but, for reasons unknown, believes that iPhones and a few other products need numbers in addition to model names. 

Afarstar said:

They might as well change iPhone and iPad numbering too. They missed iPhone 9 out altogether so iPhone 26 would make sense.