Jlcpcb and tariffs

[benny_profane]

lol

"[W]e hold that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdf

 

[jwin615]

This just in

 

[vigilante398]

lol

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdf

And that would be important if we had people in power who actually cared what they were legally allowed to do.

 

[Aleph Null]

Joy!

 

[Locrian99]

I don’t think this effects the de minimis changes (anyone know?) Which for us hobbyists has the biggest impact.

 

[jessenator]

I'd be more enthused if it turned out to be not yet another distraction from The Big One™.

Speaking of distractions:

 

[Einzeln]

I don’t think this effects the de minimis changes (anyone know?) Which for us hobbyists has the biggest impact.

I do think so

 

[wintercept]

I don’t think this effects the de minimis changes (anyone know?) Which for us hobbyists has the biggest impact.

According to a CNBC article that cites this source: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48549#_Ref196320321 states that Trump ended de minimis using the IEEPA, though the Supreme Court ruling makes no mention of de minimis.

In any case, effective July 1, 2027 the “Big Beautiful Bill” will repeal the basis for de minimis exemptions that exists under the US Tariff Act of 1930. The Trump admin has specifically targeted de minimis as a vector for fentanyl being shipped to the US: https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-she...-exemption-for-commercial-shipments-globally/

 

[Locrian99]

According to a CNBC article that cites this source: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48549#_Ref196320321 states that Trump ended de minimis using the IEEPA, though the Supreme Court ruling makes no mention of de minimis.

In any case, effective July 1, 2027 the “Big Beautiful Bill” will repeal the basis for de minimis exemptions that exists under the US Tariff Act of 1930. The Trump admin has specifically targeted de minimis as a vector for fentanyl being shipped to the US: https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-she...-exemption-for-commercial-shipments-globally/

Well a temporary break. 80$ in shipping/tariffs for my 220$ tayda order earlier this week was annoying.

 

[jessenator]

 

[Einzeln]

A lack of knee pads.

 

[Aleph Null]

View attachment 111835
View attachment 111836

 

[CheapSuitG]

Well a temporary break. 80$ in shipping/tariffs for my 220$ tayda order earlier this week was annoying.

I just checked a Tayda order I have in my cart and the shipping/tariffs/fees to collect tariffs are still there.

 

[Vicious C]

I just checked a Tayda order I have in my cart and the shipping/tariffs/fees to collect tariffs are still there.

And will likely remain. Even if they end tariffs, these companies know how much we’re willing to pay now, so guess what?

 

[LukeFRC]

I just checked a Tayda order I have in my cart and the shipping/tariffs/fees to collect tariffs are still there.

Wouldn’t it have been night in China about the time your Supreme Court was saying they were illegal tarrifs? It’s not like an instant thing that the court makes a ruling and alarm clocks go off in businesses across the world so shops can change their us tarrif rates…