| Losing 6-3 at home with a bent ref! Hahaha! (n/t) 15:32 - Feb 20 with 3239 views | NthQldITFC | |  |
| |  |
| Losing 6-3 at home with a bent ref! Hahaha! (n/t) on 20:18 - Feb 20 with 418 views | ElderGrizzly |
| Losing 6-3 at home with a bent ref! Hahaha! (n/t) on 19:42 - Feb 20 by Guthrum | I just have little faith in the conservative SC judges genuinely opposing Trump, rather than tinkering on technicalities. Also, this is only one win in what is likely to be a long and vicious fight. |
As I said earlier, I can see this being a “look, we do go against Trump” on something he can find a workaround for. Yet when it matters, like the elections, they’ll fall in line behind him. |  | |  |
| Losing 6-3 at home with a bent ref! Hahaha! (n/t) on 20:22 - Feb 20 with 411 views | ElderGrizzly |
| Losing 6-3 at home with a bent ref! Hahaha! (n/t) on 19:01 - Feb 20 by redrickstuhaart | The way in which he has just undermined the Supreme Court and politicised it is utterly disgraceful. Mind you, we have seen similar here. |
He has just declared he is ignoring the Supreme Court ruling and said they are influenced by foreign interests. Well, they did give him full immunity, so he’s going to ignore the law He’s deranged [Post edited 20 Feb 20:28]
|  | |  |
| Losing 6-3 at home with a bent ref! Hahaha! (n/t) on 23:09 - Feb 20 with 298 views | NthQldITFC |
| Losing 6-3 at home with a bent ref! Hahaha! (n/t) on 20:22 - Feb 20 by ElderGrizzly | He has just declared he is ignoring the Supreme Court ruling and said they are influenced by foreign interests. Well, they did give him full immunity, so he’s going to ignore the law He’s deranged [Post edited 20 Feb 20:28]
|
I do actually think he'll trigger a massive and irresistible movement against himself soon - all of a sudden there will be avalanches of what have been staunch and shameless supporters in the administration and in the electorate whispering to each other "OK, this is bat-sh!t crazy and infantile and embarrassing and unsustainable and we have to end it now". I think they'll find a way. |  |
|  |
| Losing 6-3 at home with a bent ref! Hahaha! (n/t) on 08:50 - Feb 21 with 216 views | Oldsmoker |
| Losing 6-3 at home with a bent ref! Hahaha! (n/t) on 17:32 - Feb 20 by DJR | Building on my last paragraph. Stephan Becker – leading international trade attorney at Pillsbury in Washington DC – underscores that while today’s decision invalidates many of the tariffs under IEEPA, other levies have been imposed under other legal authorities that expressly grant Donald Trump the ability to do so. He notes that these include Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act and Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act. The former authorizes the imposition of tariffs for national security reasons, while the latter allows duties to compel other countries to change policies unfair to US exports. “Those existing tariffs will not be affected by the Court’s decision. To put it simply, tariffs will remain a central element of the administration’s foreign policy even after today’s judgment,” Becker said. Basil Woodd-Walker, disputes and investigations partner at global law firm Simmons & Simmon said he can just switch focus from the blanket “liberation day” reciprocal tariffs he opposed on dozens of countries to sectoral tariffs. “Most commentators had expected the supreme court to strike down Trump’s IEEPA tariffs. But President Trump has made it clear that he is not going to abandon his international trade policy, and will find other ways to implement it,” he said. “The US administration may pivot to other tariff regimes or trade barriers to replace the lost income.” |
You've explained the situation extremely well. He announced the 'Reciprocal' tariffs in April 2025. Some lawyers said it was unconstitutional on the same day. It's taken 10 months for the Supreme court to agree with those lawyers. He's announced new tariffs straight away. It doesn't matter if these new tariffs are unlawful 'cos SCOTUS will drag their heels for months before making a decision. |  |
|  |
| |