Tariffs = illegal

[LurkerNoMore]

Supreme Court rules.  Duhnold throwing a hissyfit right now.  Stay tuned for post midnight social media meltdown spree.    

[loco]

[Coach is Back!]

Supreme Court rules.  Duhnold throwing a hissyfit right now.  Stay tuned for post midnight social media meltdown spree.    

I knew this complete retard would be spouting off and making an ass of himself once again. People cheering today’s ruling that seriously have no clue. The Court did not rule against President Trump's tariffs. Six justices simply ruled that IEEPA authorities cannot be used … This administration will invoke alternative legal authorities to replace the IEEPA tariffs.”

Absolutely clueless

[LurkerNoMore]

I knew this complete retard would be spouting off and making an ass of himself once again. People cheering today’s ruling that seriously have no clue. The Court did not rule against President Trump's tariffs. Six justices simply ruled that IEEPA authorities cannot be used … This administration will invoke alternative legal authorities to replace the IEEPA tariffs.”

Absolutely clueless

That is against the tariffs you twat puddle.  They were a direct result and target of this ruling. 

Do you have a fatal allergy to reality?

[illuminati]

I knew this complete retard would be spouting off and making an ass of himself once again. People cheering today’s ruling that seriously have no clue. The Court did not rule against President Trump's tariffs. Six justices simply ruled that IEEPA authorities cannot be used … This administration will invoke alternative legal authorities to replace the IEEPA tariffs.”

Absolutely clueless

Just let them be Coach - The TDS skews everything Donald related.

You know you're not dealing with mentally rational folk , Just laugh
at their stupidity. 

[Primemuscle]

I knew this complete retard would be spouting off and making an ass of himself once again. People cheering today’s ruling that seriously have no clue. The Court did not rule against President Trump's tariffs. Six justices simply ruled that IEEPA authorities cannot be used … This administration will invoke alternative legal authorities to replace the IEEPA tariffs.”

Absolutely clueless

No doubt Trump will try and maybe even succeed in replacing the Supreme Court's ruled out IEEPA tariffs and maybe not. Presently, he lost and he is acting pretty pissed off about it. Despite this he just signed off on a temporary 10% global tariff under the Trade Act of 1974 scheduled to commence next Tuesday. I guess those interested will have to wait several days to see how this goes. Will this too end up before the Supreme Court and fail?

“Those members of the Supreme Court who voted against our very acceptable and proper method of TARIFFS should be ashamed of themselves. Their decision was ridiculous but, now the adjustment process begins, and we will do everything possible to take in even more money than we were taking in before!” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

How would the Supreme Court rule against the IEEPA tariffs other than to rule that he cannot use IEEPA for tariffs? Tariffs are illegal. His circumventing congress to impose tariffs is also an issue.

[Grape Ape]

Some feel otherwise:

Hours after the Supreme Court's 6-3 sabotage in Learning Resources v. Trump neutered the IEEPA tariffs, President Trump went live from the White House briefing room and executed the counterstroke the administrative state dreads most:

immediate replacement authority.

He invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974...a balance-of-payments emergency provision that lets the President slap up to 15% tariffs for 150 days without Congress...and announced a 10% across-the-board global tariff, effective immediately.

That's not a pause.

That's acceleration.

USTR Jamieson Greer confirmed on record: the administration begins reimposing equivalent or higher levies the next business day using the full statutory arsenal...Section 232 national security tariffs...already shielding steel, aluminum, autos...expanded Section 301 unfair-practice findings, and whatever else the statute books yield.

The Court pretended IEEPA's "unusual and extraordinary threat" language doesn't cover fentanyl rivers and border invasions.

Fine.

Trump simply pivots to statutes the Court explicitly left untouched or never reached.

This is constitutional warfare conducted with surgical contempt for the black-robed obstructionists.

The majority's opinion was a partisan hit job dressed in originalist cosplay...ignoring fifty years of executive practice under IEEPA while inventing limits Congress never wrote.

Thomas's dissent remains the only intellectually honest document in the whole sorry affair.

But paper rulings don't stop a President who understands that Article II isn't a suggestion.

Trump called the decision "a disgrace" on live television, promised Americans the tariffs would return stronger, and reminded the world that trade leverage isn't negotiable.

Markets spiked on the ruling, then steadied when reality hit:

the tariffs aren't gone...they're mutating into something the Court can't touch as easily.

This is what executive resolve looks like when the judiciary overreaches:

you don't whine, you don't comply...you route around the roadblock and raise the stakes.

The deep state and its judicial accomplices wanted to kneecap American leverage at the exact moment China, Mexico, and Canada are testing us.

Trump just proved they failed.

Watch the next 48 hours.

The replacements will be broader, higher, and legally bulletproof.

MAGA isn't a slogan.

It's a doctrine of unrelenting national interest.

So to the liberals celebrating:

Sit the fuck down, shut the fuck up, and watch. Things just got leveled up big time.

[/i]

[chaos]

Suddenly liberals don't like illegal stuff?

[Coach is Back!]

That is against the tariffs you twat puddle.  They were a direct result and target of this ruling. 

Do you have a fatal allergy to reality?

They didn't rule against tariffs, dipshit. They ruled against using IEEPA as a tool for implementing tariffs (which was incorrect but it is what it is). He can still use tariffs as a bargaining tool through like 4 other methods. Good Lord you're dense

[Coach is Back!]

Some feel otherwise:

Justice Thomas sure felt different in his dissent

[IroNat]

Will Trump put tariffs on the individual Supreme Court members so when they shop everything will cost 10% more?

[LurkerNoMore]

They didn't rule against tariffs, dipshit. They ruled against using IEEPA as a tool for implementing tariffs (which was incorrect but it is what it is). He can still use tariffs as a bargaining tool through like 4 other methods. Good Lord you're dense

Dumbass the very tariffs that were implemented through IEEPA are illegal.  Every day it is like you wake up and immediately have a defenestration party with your brain cells.

Now he is trying new tariffs under new means.  10%?  hahahahaha.  Good bye 20%, 30%, 40% or 500% like he threatened. 

[LurkerNoMore]

Justice Thomas sure felt different in his dissent

Thomas is a almost as big a dumbass as you are.  So no one cares how he feels.

[Coach is Back!]

Dumbass the very tariffs that were implemented through IEEPA are illegal.  Every day it is like you wake up and immediately have a defenestration party with your brain cells.

Now he is trying new tariffs under new means.  10%?  hahahahaha.  Good bye 20%, 30%, 40% or 500% like he threatened.

“Illegal” bullshit. If that were the case they would have ALL been deemed “illegal” instead of just some. The fact that he can replace the in place tariffs from IEEPA with another tariff mechanism makes it hardly “Illegal”. You only get that from your communist propaganda retards who use rhetoric like that because they know people like you are stupid enough to repeat it.

[LurkerNoMore]

“Illegal” bullshit. If that were the case they would have ALL been deemed “illegal” instead of just some. The fact that he can replace the in place tariffs from IEEPA with another tariff mechanism makes it hardly “Illegal”. You only get that from your communist propaganda retards who use rhetoric like that because they know people like you are stupid enough to repeat it.

The SC even said they were illegal.   HAHAHAHHAA   Talk about being delusional and coping with retardation issues.

[Coach is Back!]

The SC even said they were illegal.   HAHAHAHHAA   Talk about being delusional and coping with retardation issues.

You should never comment on the poli board again. You’re too stupid

“No, the Supreme Court did not use the word “illegal” in its official opinion describing Trump’s tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
On February 20, 2026, in the consolidated cases Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., the Court ruled 6-3 that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, stating explicitly:

“We hold that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.”

The Court reasoned that the statute’s language allowing the President to “regulate … importation” of certain property does not encompass the power to impose tariffs (i.e., duties or taxes on imports), which is a distinct congressional authority under the Constitution’s taxing and commerce powers. The decision struck down the tariffs imposed via IEEPA (including broad “reciprocal” tariffs and those tied to issues like drug trafficking), but it focused on lack of statutory authorization rather than labeling them “illegal” in the opinion text.

[LurkerNoMore]

That's the very definition of illegal.  Imposing something you have no authority to do so.  He was not authorized.  He did it anyway.  It's illegal.

Why are you so retarded?

[illuminati]

That's the very definition of illegal.  Imposing something you have no authority to do so.  He was not authorized.  He did it anyway.  It's illegal.

Why are you so retarded?

And I thought You Leftists were for Illegals ?
so why are you lot out protesting the stopping of these "illegal" tariffs.
Your out that protesting For illegals in Minnesota so why not protests
for illegal tariffs. 

[LurkerNoMore]

So much for all those "deals" he got with those "tariffs".  BWAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

[chaos]

Still strikes me as odd that a certain group of people rejoice in the failure of our country because of their hatred of the guy in charge.

[Coach is Back!]

That's the very definition of illegal.  Imposing something you have no authority to do so.  He was not authorized.  He did it anyway.  It's illegal.

Why are you so retarded?

Stop talking. Every time you type you make an ass of yourself...EVERY.SINGLE. TIME.

[Coach is Back!]

Still strikes me as odd that a certain group of people rejoice in the failure of our country because of their hatred of the guy in charge.

it's not odd at all. They're communists. Prime admitted along time ago to being at the very least a socialist, but now it could be argued that he is a communist much like Lurker who I've said for years he was. Neither can deny it.

[illuminati]

it's not odd at all. They're communists. Prime admitted along time ago to being at the very least a socialist, but now it could be argued that he is a communist much like Lurker who I've said for years he was. Neither can deny it.

I think you are correct - neither will come out and say they are
They both come across as wanting communism.

[Primemuscle]

it's not odd at all. They're communists. Prime admitted along time ago to being at the very least a socialist, but now it could be argued that he is a communist much like Lurker who I've said for years he was. Neither can deny it.

Do you know the definition of Socialism? I suspect you don't or you would know when government takes control or ownership of private businesses, this one definition of socialism. Trump proposes to do exactly that.

Socialism often features public ownership of major industries.

https://www.cato.org/blog/trumps-corporate-equity-acquisition-spree

Currently, the U.S. has social welfare programs currently in place.

[Coach is Back!]

Do you know the definition of Socialism? I suspect you don't or you would know when government takes control or ownership of private businesses, this one definition of socialism. Trump proposes to do exactly that.

Socialism often features public ownership of major industries.

https://www.cato.org/blog/trumps-corporate-equity-acquisition-spree

Currently, the U.S. has social welfare programs currently in place.

Did you or did you not say you were a socialist. Let’s see if you can answer with babbling a bunch of bullshit