260

President Donald Trump admonished justices who struck down sweeping tariffs on Friday, accusing the six members of the Supreme Court of being “afraid of doing the right thing.”

The president said at a press conference hours after the court’s ruling that he’s “ashamed” for the justices who voted against his tariffs, singling out the liberal justices who joined three conservatives in blocking the tariffs as a “disgrace to our nation.”

“The Supreme Court’s ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing, and I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country,” he said.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] aarch0x40@piefed.social 71 points 20 hours ago

He best watch himself.  The Supreme Court may just suddenly find that presidents can be held accountable for crimes during their tenure.

[-] Doomsider@lemmy.world 4 points 11 hours ago

Don't get too excited, they decided on money. Trump is wrong about his stupid tariff scheme. Not only was it always illegal it is simply not generating the money they pretended it would. With the tax cuts and increases in spending we are heading to add another ten trillion to the debt in the next three years. Possibly much more if we go to war with Iran.

It is obvious Trump and the Republicans are trying to break the bank at this point. They are purposely mismanaging the publics money to create a crisis. I had to listen to years of hate radio growing up and I know this is their "starve the beast" moment aka destroy the government.

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 29 points 19 hours ago

Doubtful, as long as it is perfectly legal to ~~bribe~~ pay gratuities to justices who vote the right way

[-] foodandart@lemmy.zip 18 points 19 hours ago

One can hope. Though truthfully, in all of this, I've had to wonder what the agenda of the SCOTUS has been in empowering Trump like it has, in the first place.

What the fuck are they doing? It makes zero sense.

[-] Dragomus@lemmy.world 8 points 15 hours ago

You already answered it, the agenda is to empower trump to do what project 2025 wants done...
They try to uphold a smidgeon of being a required institution now and then but that is mostly out of self preservation so they are still legitimized when kicking downwards to the common man's problems.

[-] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 4 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

Thinking like stock market execs, its all about the next quarter results 😎😎😎 (and nothing beyond that)

[-] Treczoks@lemmy.world 42 points 18 hours ago

The amazing thing about this decision by the supreme court is not that it ran against him, but that there still were three judges who ignored the state of law in the US.

[-] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 11 points 14 hours ago

The dissenters were Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas.

Seems like that alone explains everything I'd ever need to know about the dissent.

[-] smeenz@lemmy.nz 2 points 13 hours ago

Yes, of course it was.

[-] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 21 points 18 hours ago

Yup.

I can't really feel good about this news because it just shows that the SC is still notably corrupt.

[-] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 21 points 16 hours ago

There's already a lot of MAGA people convinced that "activist judges" are acting against Trump just to act against Trump... You know, as opposed to ruling against him because he's breaking the law.

Nevermind all those other SCOTUS rulings handing the executive branch more power. Those don't matter. Clearly now it's stacked with activist judges.

I wonder if anyone from MAGA could actually define what "checks and balances" or "separation of powers" means.

[-] Doomsider@lemmy.world 2 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

The answer is no. Unless there is some mythical honest MAGA they are hiding from us. It is not that they can't properly define things it is they don't want to.

[-] pivot_root@lemmy.world 6 points 16 hours ago

I wonder if anyone from MAGA could actually define what "checks and balances" or "separation of powers" means.

I guarantee both would lack self-awareness and instead be defined with a generous sprinkling of "woke", "antifa", or "liberal" in the definition.

Maybe:

"Checks and balances make it so a woke liberal president can't take away our freedom by himself."

[-] BanMe@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago

I'm sorry, the correct answer is "checks and balances are some lib pussy bullshit they say when they want to put litterboxes in classrooms for furries"

But we would have also accepted "fuck you here's my freedom card to not care (slams a beer while flipping you off)"

[-] Soulphite@reddthat.com 44 points 20 hours ago

Shut the fuck up Donnie, you're out of your element.

[-] deHaga@feddit.uk 3 points 18 hours ago

You shit your pants again Donnie?

[-] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 34 points 20 hours ago

Seppuku is always an option.

[-] KraeuterRoy@feddit.org 11 points 19 hours ago

That would be honorable, so that's not an option for the orange peril

[-] frustrated_phagocytosis@fedia.io 6 points 19 hours ago

A live feed of Trump committing ritual suicide in front of an audience would bring the viewer numbers he always pretends to have, imagine how many people want to see that go down worldwide.

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 3 points 15 hours ago

That would be undoubtedly the biggest event in pay per view history

[-] Soulphite@reddthat.com 1 points 17 hours ago

That'd make him a martyr among his idiots, I'm not sure in what way that'd be bad for us in the long run but the good news is the pedo is dead!

[-] frustrated_phagocytosis@fedia.io 2 points 16 hours ago

Yes but those people went out in public wearing red hats, diapers, and ear bandages, they should follow up with their own suicides unless they want to buck the trend

[-] Cort@lemmy.world 1 points 14 hours ago

Heh, Donald Trump seifuku 1000004087

[-] Sarothazrom@lemmy.world 13 points 19 hours ago

The fighting between them is all smoke and mirrors, imo. This is all part of blitzkrieg policy.

[-] Red0ctober@lemmy.world 14 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

Awww, did widdle Drumpy not get his way?

[-] notwhoyouthink@lemmy.zip 10 points 20 hours ago

Someone change his diaper, he’s getting fussy!

[-] foodandart@lemmy.zip 3 points 19 hours ago

I volunteer Stephen Miller for that honor..

[-] Soulphite@reddthat.com 1 points 17 hours ago

That sentient anal polyp would actually be honored.

[-] gnate@lemmy.world 3 points 19 hours ago

If you do that, there will be nothing left!

[-] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 3 points 20 hours ago
[-] DragonAce@lemmy.world 8 points 18 hours ago

"Spoiled brat throws a temper tantrum because he didn't get his way"

There fixed the headline.

[-] itsgroundhogdayagain@lemmy.ml 11 points 20 hours ago

So "doing the right thing" and following the law aren't always the same? No way!

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 8 points 20 hours ago

When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal

Richard Nixon, 1977

[-] CaptDust@sh.itjust.works 9 points 19 hours ago

Trump promised to use “other alternatives” [...] floated potentially implementing trade embargoes on other nations.

You won't do it, bitchboi. I double dare you.

[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 10 points 19 hours ago

Of course he will. That new approach will be challenged in court, but will take another 12-18 months for there to be a ruling against it, meanwhile trump will keep using tariffs against our friends and allies further alienating and isolating the United State globally.

[-] CaptDust@sh.itjust.works 1 points 19 hours ago

Suree, he can put select tariffs back on through other means, but straight up embargoing countries without reason?? Likely it would be the closest he could get to political suicide. I sincerely hope he does it. Show em who's in charge, big guy.

[-] GuyFawkesV@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago

Just like all the other “political suicide” shit he’s done consequence free?

[-] lennee@lemmy.world 3 points 18 hours ago

if he openly does things u can call political suicide it means he is not planning on having an open and fair election, believe him when he tells u he does not need votes anymore

[-] stylusmobilus@aussie.zone 2 points 19 hours ago

Yeah they tend to backfire.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 2 points 14 hours ago

This is a big signal that they won't be rubber stamping everything in his agenda. They wanted Barret because she would give them Abortion, no matter what, and she did. But like most criminals, these MAGAs never look beyond their immediate agenda, to the next steps, or the consequences of their behavior.

So now they've got a moral person on the Supreme Court who doesn't seem likely to appease his ugliest demands.

Birthright Citizenship is coming soon, which is expressly allowed in the Constitution, and this ruling seems to indicate that they aren't willing to just ignore the Constitution to earn his favor.

Especially after he attacked them so viciously. They won't forget that.

[-] alekwithak@lemmy.world 7 points 19 hours ago

Every accusation is a confession.

[-] khannie@lemmy.world 2 points 14 hours ago

Does this mean the average Joe's who paid tariffs will get a refund?

Serious question.

[-] Red0ctober@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

It should, but it won't. This was a scam from the beginning, and the corporate elites are gonna profit.

[-] smeenz@lemmy.nz 1 points 13 hours ago
[-] ExtremeDullard@piefed.social 2 points 14 hours ago

You don't like it, fine.

Now pay up, sucker!

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 6 points 19 hours ago

Poor little baby.

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 3 points 16 hours ago

Even for this demented sociopathic rapist that’s a crazy picture

[-] Formfiller@lemmy.world 4 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

Breaking “disgusting pedofile child murdering Israeli backed traitor throws public fit because he didn’t get his way”

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2026
260 points (99.6% liked)

politics

28454 readers
2524 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS