Transcript · English → Spanish
English → Spanish transcript
Si esto no sale como ustedes quieren,¿ tienen formas de arreglárselas para lidiar
con esto? para que no pierdan, ya sabes,
creo que el punto de apoyo que tienen con estos aranceles?
¿ Hay maneras
de hacer esto
si la Corte
Suprema falla
en su contra?
Claro. Una de las
cosas de las que
hablaron es la
Sección 232,
que fue nueve a cero en la Corte Suprema,
y que también trata de aranceles.
Así que hay muchas normas sobre aranceles que el Presidente tiene,
pase lo que pase.
Pero la respuesta es que estos jueces se van a poner del lado de Donald Trump.
Te voy a dar un ejemplo de algo que,
eh, Kavanaugh,
el juez Kavanaugh, dijo.
Imagina una reunión en el Despacho Oval donde ellos tienen el poder,
porque el otro lado aceptó que el Presidente tiene el poder bajo esta norma IEEPA.
Admitieron que él podía simplemente
cortar el comercio con un país. Entonces él dice:¿ te imaginas una reunión en el
Despacho Oval donde le dicen al señor Presidente: " Puede cortar el comercio con
este país"?
Sí. Y luego el Presidente dice:"
Bueno, eso es demasiado.
Hagamos algo menos".
Y ellos dicen:" No,
señor Presidente,
no puede hacer menos.
O tiene que, ya sabe,
hacerlos explotar con el comercio y tener un embargo total o nada".
Simplemente no tiene
ningún sentido.
El concepto es que siempre se puede usar un poder más débil para
conseguir medidas más débiles.
Eso es muy sensato,
y en eso es en lo que los jueces van a estar de acuerdo.
Que si él puede cortar el comercio,
sin duda puede fijar un arancel.
Usted puede fijar
un arancel.
End of transcript · 279 words · machine translated
Original transcript (English)
If if this doesn't go your way, do you guys have workarounds to deal with this so that you don't lose, you know, I think the foothold that you have with these tariffs? Are there ways to do this if the Supreme Court comes down on you the wrong way? Are there ways to do this if the Supreme Court comes down on you the wrong way? Sure. One of the things they talked about is Section 232,
Sure. One of the things they talked about is Section 232, Sure. One of the things they talked about is Section 232, which was 9-0 at the Supreme Court, and that also is about tariffs. which was 9-0 at the Supreme Court, and that also is about tariffs. So there are plenty of tariff rules that the President has, no matter what.
But the answer is, these judges are going to side with Donald Trump. But the answer is, these judges are going to side with Donald Trump. I'll give you an example that, uh, Kavanaugh, Justice Kavanaugh said. Imagine a meeting in the Oval Office where they have the power, Imagine a meeting in the Oval Office where they have the power,
'cause the other side agreed that the President has the power under this IEEPA rule. They admitted that he could just cut off trade to a country. And then the President says, "Well, that's too much. Let's do something less." And then the President says, "Well, that's too much. Let's do something less." And then the President says, "Well, that's too much. Let's do something less."
And they say, "No, Mr. President, you can't do less. And they say, "No, Mr. President, you can't do less. And they say, "No, Mr. President, you can't do less. You either have to, you know, blow 'em up with trade and have a full embargo or nothing." You either have to, you know, blow 'em up with trade and have a full embargo or nothing."
You either have to, you know, blow 'em up with trade and have a full embargo or nothing." It just isn't make any sense. The concept is, you can always use a weaker power to get weaker measures. The concept is, you can always use a weaker power to get weaker measures. That's very sensible, and that is what the judges are going to agree.
That's very sensible, and that is what the judges are going to agree. That's very sensible, and that is what the judges are going to agree. That if he can cut off trade, he surely can set a tariff. You can set a tariff.
