mfryd

mknelson said:

Apple's easy defence: the stock price history.

It was on a pretty steady upward trend until the end of 2024. The big fall was after Trump announced his tariffs.

The stock price history is not a sure fire defense.  The claim can be made that had Apple delivered on its promises, then the stock price would be much higher than it is today.

In other words the price increase from AI never materialized.

However, this is not a reason to prohibit running Mac OSX on an iPad.   Users should have a choice as to which OS they run.

williamlondon said:

AppleZulu said:

mikethemartian said:

Apparently an appeals court has lifted the first court block in tariffs but a second court has also placed a new block.

Hey, great. More instability. Just what every American business needs to thrive. This administration's Big Plan is really working!




Wait. Did I say "business?" I meant to say "short seller" and "inside trader."

Just like last time there's going to be a whole lot of people going to jail from this admin. Can't wait to watch all the perp walks (again, sigh).

I would be surprised if many from this administration go to jail.   Most of the alleged transgressions are Federal issues.  Both the FBI and DOJ are under Trump.  Even if someone was to be charged, Trump has the authority to issues pardons for Federal issues.  He can even issue proactive pardons for people who have not yet been charged.   Pardons (including proactive pardons) stay in force past Trump's term.

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.

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.