> Otherwise it’s the same as just leaving the illegal tax in effect.

The SCOTUS didn't say that in their decision. No matter how you call it, the tariffs were found in breach with simple law passed by Congress - that is, the undoing of tariffs can be legislated by Congress and it can take any shape they like - it will be legal. Anyway, fine-tuning this is a waste of time, the big problems are elsewhere.

> it would be impossible to return the funds to them due to diffusion.

It's very much possible if money isn't (or only partially) returned to the companies and used for targeted investment benefiting the public. Of course this won't help much if government spending priories and legislative objectives aren't revised, but that's unlikely because there's nobody in government or academia with anything close to a good idea about it.

Eugenics is the name of a scientific theory, part of "scientific racism", first formulated by Francis Galton, a half-cousin of Darwin. See 1865 article "Hereditary Talent and Character", and 1869 book "Hereditary Genius".

Make sure you research on the science and history of eugenics instead of seeking support for your prejudice about it. Of course, it's a shameful example of accepted but disastrous "science", which social scientists, media and politicians don't like to talk about. They always have many theories, to provide room for plausible deniability, but eugenics was accepted no less than any other social theory at the time.

That theory was significantly expanded later and used by politicians in the US to justify forced sterilization of Irish and black women (not sure about others - DO research"),

It was also used and adapted by Hitler to justify his racial believes and policies.

It's in my prior comment: EUGENICS. Research it, it's all out there.

Eugenics was flourishing during Hitler's time, he loved it, it was the foundation and the excuse for his believes.

> Anyhow, either we do science or we just admit that we don't like the social implications of the evidence.

Right, right... Rehabilitation of eugenics in 3, 2, 1... Nothing new here, Hitler did follow the "social implications of the evidence"... after all, a whole bunch of esteemed scientists and Nobel laureates hailed eugenics as the best thing after sliced white bread, Hitler did quite a bit of slicing of that material himself. No, he didn't invent his theory, he simply followed accepted science.

> Trying to hide data and gaslight the public isn't science.

There isn't much that resembles science in social academia, data isn't science and the prediction of the so-called "social" sciences have been disastrously wrong all along.

Data isn't evidence ether - you have to have a theory within a science with a sound methodological foundation before you can treat data as evidence. We don't have that now and we've never had it, the few meager attempts were politicized and bastardized in their infancy.

> It's funny because this guy is center-left, he just happens to actually be intellectually honest.

Center-left? Like all Democrats in Congress who joined the fifty-odd Republicans to vote for letting the government remotely mess with your car while you drive?

At the time of a real shooting war in the streets in Minneapolis they seized the opportunity to put some more shackles around public's ankles.

There isn't left, right or center in US party politics - only Orwellian-left theater vs Orwellian-right theater in service of forces who view the public as sheep to be sheared.