567
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2026
567 points (99.5% liked)
politics
28518 readers
2744 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
For anyone wondering, the three "justices" who sided with trump were Kavanaugh, Thomas, and Alito.
No surprises there. If anything, Roberts, Gorsuch, and Barrett ruling against him is the surprise. It's a win for constitutional rule of law.
They're concerned about the precedent set if they allow taxation to be included as part of regulatory powers. If they allowed this, then precedent is set for the next Dem president to come in and just start taxing companies that don't align with their policy goals. So something like taxing carbon emissions no longer needs Congressional approval.
Are they though? They are do everything in their power to avoid ruling on what an "emergency is". The only reason they ruled this day is because the law he used pretty obviously is not meant to include tariffs in "regulation". The Supreme Court says in both the ruling and dissent that there is nothing from stopping him from just using a different law.
True. Also, giving tax powers to a "unitary executive" is literally taxation without representation.
There's a reason it's in the purview of congress.
I think Barrett is a fucking slug, but as far as I've observed she genuinely wants to side on the side of the country. She's just a woman surrounded by men appointed by a fucking narcissistic fascist, so sometimes voting is needed for her survival? Maybe?
I agree for the most part with what you're saying. I disagree with her politics, but she usually doesn't let her personal ideology, religion, or political affiliations get in the way of doing her job as a supreme court justice where she's supposed to be impartial in interpreting the law as it's written. She's not a sycophant like some of her colleagues
This isn't the first time she's sided with the constitution over the maga agenda. Her record isn't spotless, but it's not as irredeemably tainted as some of the others.
I think what you said is a much better way of saying what I wanted to. Thanks.