Perhaps in an attempt to sway "his" judges, he got this fool on camera yesterday...
Sadly for him, it didn't work.
The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that President Donald Trump violated federal law when he unilaterally imposed sweeping tariffs across the globe, a striking loss for the White House on an issue that has been central to the president’s foreign policy and economic agenda.
[...]
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion and the court agreed 6-3 that the tariffs exceeded the law.
[...]
“The president asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope,” Roberts wrote for the court. “In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it.”
[...]
“When Congress grants the power to impose tariffs, it does so clearly and with careful constraints,” Roberts wrote. “It did neither here.”
[...]
The emergency authority Trump attempted to rely on, the court said, “falls short.”
CNN
Will he blast John Roberts for this decision? He famously thanked Roberts for the decision that allows him to do most anything he wants, law be damned. Can't wait to hear what he has to say now.
Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch joined with Roberts and the three liberal justices in the majority. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.
And, what personal reason is there for Roberts, Barrett, and Gorsuch to rule this way? Because I am no longer able to believe they ever do anything that doesn't suit their personal desires.
Nothing has been mentioned about what will happen to the already imposed and paid for unconstitutional tariffs.
Also, the ruling on voting rights might put Roberts back in Trump's good graces.
Anyway, Trump's reaction will be added to this post when I get it.
Also...WTF?
It means whatever they want it to mean on any given case. It's bullshit.
UPDATE 10:35 am:
She mentions Trump's use of tariffs to "punish" other countries, but actually, that wasn't working so well. Canada and Europe have been discussing forming a trading group that leaves out the US. Eventually, Trump was going to bury the US on the world market.
UPDATE 08:56 pm:
His brain travels on one track. He's got foreign influence on his mind lately due to his plan to attack voting rights.
"Cut the check, Donald."
He has "a feeling". He knows damn well they won't.
Kavanaugh should have never been assigned to the court. He's unqualified in both intellect and temperament. He was an embarrassment during his confirmation hearings. Also, he had thousands of dollars in debt we have no idea how it got paid, and he had 11 (I believe) complaints against him that were never investigated because they were dropped automatically as soon as he got the job.
It is, unequivocally, a sweeping repudiation of President Trump’s ability to use IEEPA for tariffs (or anything else that the 1977 statute doesn’t directly contemplate).
[...]
But … that’s it. [...] This was not a case about the President’s constitutional power, but about the meaning of a 49-year-old statute that doesn’t mention tariffs and that’s never previously been used as a basis for them. And although IEEPA is triggered by the President’s declaration of an amorphously defined “emergency,” the question before the Court wasn’t whether this
was an emergency (the answer to which would bear on lots of other disputes involving the Trump administration), but rather whether,
even in emergencies, the statute authorizes tariffs. Holding that the answer is “no” doesn’t tell us anything especially important about executive power in general, or even about the President’s powers under statutes other than IEEPA.
[...]
This is all a long way of saying that two things can be true: (1) the tariffs ruling makes clear that the Court is not going to rule reflexively for the Trump administration in every case (a point for which we already had data); and (2) there are still plenty of reasons to be concerned about the justices’ overall behavior when Trump is one of the parties at bar.
Steve Vladeck
Vladeck is right, of course. All they said was Trump can't use IEEPA for tariffs. They did, however, make Trump throw a tantrum, so that was nice.
Did I say 10%? I meant 15%. And fuck those judges who betrayed me.
UPDATE 02/23/2026:
