This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@FreddieUK Oh - thankyou. I should have looked it up!
Bringing faiths together is probably as remote as it ever was, with a long history of fighting for power even between denominations within single faiths. Although at least in Britain nowadays the various faiths and denominations largely co-exist peacefully.
Bringing faiths together is probably as remote as it ever was, with a long history of fighting for power even between denominations within single faiths. Although at least in Britain nowadays the various faiths and denominations largely co-exist peacefully.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@FreddieUK Not only ignorance. Mr. Trump seems unable to consider and plan for the consequences, though to be fair his is not the first America to wade into other countries' problems with no so-called "exit strategy".
What's also very worrying, for his own country as well as internationally, is Trump appears to be governing by personal decree. The phrase "Executive Order" looks like corporate Press release rhubarb, but it is still a euphemism for a rigid decree by one man.
Presdient Trump still has a lot of support within America, but generally isn't the USA's President accountable to his own nation via Congress? Don't his orders and policies need approval by Congress if they are to be enacted?
What's also very worrying, for his own country as well as internationally, is Trump appears to be governing by personal decree. The phrase "Executive Order" looks like corporate Press release rhubarb, but it is still a euphemism for a rigid decree by one man.
Presdient Trump still has a lot of support within America, but generally isn't the USA's President accountable to his own nation via Congress? Don't his orders and policies need approval by Congress if they are to be enacted?
Khenpal1 · M
@FreddieUK If the Supreme Court agrees with the lower courts, financial markets could be hit with the one thing traders and banks abhor most - uncertainty.
There will be questions over whether the US will have to pay back billions of dollars that have been gathered by import taxes on products.
It could also throw into question whether major economies - including the UK, Japan and South Korea - are locked into the individual trade deals they secured with the US ahead of the August deadline. Other trade deals currently being negotiated could also be thrown into chaos.
The Supreme Court ruling, whatever it is, will affect Trump's political authority and reputation as a dealmaker. A ruling against him would be a tremendous blow, while one agreeing with him could act as license for even greater changes to how the US trades with other countries.
There are also significant ramifications that could be felt within the political sphere.
For instance, if the Supreme Court reverses the federal appeals court decision and sides with the Trump administration, it could set a precedent that emboldens the president to use the IEEPA more aggressively than he has done so far.While it's unclear when the top court will issue its decision, both sides have asked for a quick ruling.
The conservative majority on the Supreme Court has frequently sided with him this year.
Six of the nine justices were appointed by Republican presidents, including three who Trump selected during his first term in the White House.
But the court has also been more critical of presidents when it seems they're overreaching on policies not directly authorised by Congress.
During Joe Biden's presidency, for example, the court expanded on what it called the "major questions doctrine" to invalidate Democratic efforts to use existing laws to limit greenhouse gas emissions by power plants and to forgive student loan debt for millions of Americans.
Are there still tariffs in place?
This ruling only affects Trump's "reciprocal tariffs", which includes a patchwork of different rates on most countries around the world, including taxes slapped on products from China, Mexico and Canada.
Those levies on nearly all goods from nearly every country with which the US conducts trade remain in place for now.
Separately, the tariffs Trump has placed under a different presidential authority - known as Section 232 tariffs aimed at protecting US national security - remain intact and unaffected by the court's ruling.
These include sectoral tariffs on steel, aluminium and copper, and recently imposed tariffs on lumber, kitchen cabinets and vanities.
The Trump administration appears more willing to use this authority to impose tariffs and has launched a number of Section 232 investigations, which look at the effect of imports on the national security, including into products like commercial aircraft and jet engines and wind turbines.
There will be questions over whether the US will have to pay back billions of dollars that have been gathered by import taxes on products.
It could also throw into question whether major economies - including the UK, Japan and South Korea - are locked into the individual trade deals they secured with the US ahead of the August deadline. Other trade deals currently being negotiated could also be thrown into chaos.
The Supreme Court ruling, whatever it is, will affect Trump's political authority and reputation as a dealmaker. A ruling against him would be a tremendous blow, while one agreeing with him could act as license for even greater changes to how the US trades with other countries.
There are also significant ramifications that could be felt within the political sphere.
For instance, if the Supreme Court reverses the federal appeals court decision and sides with the Trump administration, it could set a precedent that emboldens the president to use the IEEPA more aggressively than he has done so far.While it's unclear when the top court will issue its decision, both sides have asked for a quick ruling.
The conservative majority on the Supreme Court has frequently sided with him this year.
Six of the nine justices were appointed by Republican presidents, including three who Trump selected during his first term in the White House.
But the court has also been more critical of presidents when it seems they're overreaching on policies not directly authorised by Congress.
During Joe Biden's presidency, for example, the court expanded on what it called the "major questions doctrine" to invalidate Democratic efforts to use existing laws to limit greenhouse gas emissions by power plants and to forgive student loan debt for millions of Americans.
Are there still tariffs in place?
This ruling only affects Trump's "reciprocal tariffs", which includes a patchwork of different rates on most countries around the world, including taxes slapped on products from China, Mexico and Canada.
Those levies on nearly all goods from nearly every country with which the US conducts trade remain in place for now.
Separately, the tariffs Trump has placed under a different presidential authority - known as Section 232 tariffs aimed at protecting US national security - remain intact and unaffected by the court's ruling.
These include sectoral tariffs on steel, aluminium and copper, and recently imposed tariffs on lumber, kitchen cabinets and vanities.
The Trump administration appears more willing to use this authority to impose tariffs and has launched a number of Section 232 investigations, which look at the effect of imports on the national security, including into products like commercial aircraft and jet engines and wind turbines.