General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsKnew This Was Coming: Trump Lashes Out at His Supreme Court
Figures the man-baby (or perhaps baby-man) would finally turn on them, first time he didn't have it his way, neverminding that they've given him damn near everything he's wanted, 84 percent of the time, mostly via their under the table-type 'shadow' docket that Justice Jackson rightly described as a 'warped process' - and kinged him with complete immunity to boot.
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/16/donald-trump-supreme-court-attacks-00829708
So it was, in a fit of Sunday night fury that set Washingtons armchair psychoanalysts ablaze, that [Trump] channeled his rage at the few functioning checks on his power: the media, independent regulators and most pointedly the federal judiciary.
Trumps Sunday night outburst took on all of them, but it was most notable for how he cast the Supreme Court one that has staved off the destruction of his agenda and even his own criminal prosecution as a weaponized, and unjust Political Organization.
It was a remarkable attack. Until the Feb. 20 tariff ruling, the Trump administration had been touting its winning streak at the Supreme Court. The justices have salvaged Trumps broadest efforts to end legal protections for hundreds of thousands of noncitizens in the United States, allowed him to assert unprecedented control of once-independent agencies and unilaterally slash congressionally authorized spending.
Surprised he hasn't used the T-word yet.
But then again, they'll (no doubt) soon be right back to serving him up wins anyway.
give it some time.
3catwoman3
(29,274 posts)...rat's ass about TSF, or be afraid of what he could do to them, it should be Supreme Court justices. They have appointments for life. They can't be primaried or lose an election. They can't be fired. There was one impeachment, in 1804, that ended in acquittal, so the likelihood of that happening is pretty much nil.
B.See
(8,337 posts)btch and moan and stir his rabid MAGA base of LUNATICS to phone in threats of violence etc., like they've done to other judges who've ruled against their miscreant pedo-felon in Chief.
And if they don't it'll probably be because they're too busy at the gas stations shelling out $4plus per gallon.
LetMyPeopleVote
(179,071 posts)Kavanaughs dissent argued that the presidents backup plan might succeed, but the majority didnt preapprove it.
MSNow : No, the US Supreme Court didnât say trump has âabsolute right to charge TARIFFSâ differently
— Joe Public (@joepublic.bsky.social) 2026-03-16T17:05:56.633Z
www.ms.now/deadline-whi...
https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/no-the-supreme-court-didnt-say-trump-has-absolute-right-to-charge-tariffs-differently
Its true that Justice Brett Kavanaughs dissent said that the Courts decision might not prevent Presidents from imposing most if not all of these same sorts of tariffs under other statutory authorities. But that musing only represented the view of the three dissenters on the nine-member court: Kavanaugh and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts stressed that the court wasnt weighing in on those other authorities.
Roberts wrote in a footnote that Kavanaughs dissent surmises that the President could impose most if not all of the tariffs at issue under statutes other than IEEPA. The chief justice wrote that those other authorities contain various combinations of procedural prerequisites, required agency determinations, and limits on the duration, amount, and scope of the tariffs they authorize. Roberts concluded that the court doesnt speculate on hypothetical cases not before us.
So, contrary to the presidents social media complaint, the court didnt preapprove his tariffing backup plan, which is the subject of new litigation.
The high court could eventually be called on to settle that new litigation, as it did the IEEPA case. But the majority didnt predetermine the outcome of future litigation in that case.