KaiBear said:

---

Game set and match.

Wouldn't be surprised if the Secretary of the Treasury resigns and resumes enjoying his wealth.

Meanwhile us old guys wont be affected much…. other than getting cheaper t shirts.

However our grandchildren will have a much lower standard of living than we have enjoyed. Unless of course we have the funds to leave them and the inheritance laws are not ruinous.

Oh well , back to the Durango casino floor for breakfast.

---

retreat to your local arbys, teeming masses.

the end is nigh...........

- UF

D!

{ mayday mayday }

FLBear5630 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Imagine that it fall short of "National Emergency", I can swear that was brought up before by some Attorneys and others that were told they were embarrassing themselves...

Let the party begin, start telling us how the Supreme Court is wrong. NeoCon Liberals on the Court like Robers, Comey-Barrett and Gorsuch. Maybe he should pack to Court? Good idea now, right.

There are other ways to do it, just going to take some work, actual findings and collaboration with Congress, not just a President's whim. What a novel idea.

---

Trump needs to let this go, find other creative ways to raise revenue, and let the good times roll. A 6-3 vote is pretty decisive. Two of his three handpicked justices voted to shoot down the tariffs.

---

At least have a more cohesive plan. Or, let Congress know what the plan is so they can get behind it. The large percentages and applying them on a whim was ridiculous. Bad conversation or didn't like a comment, 50% tariff?

We need tariff's just done in a open, reasonable manner.

---

Tariff policy needs to be carried out with a rifle, not a shotgun. By product, not by country. This administration has been levying tariffs on products not even produced in the U.S. How wrong was that? This move should remove much bureaucracy from supply chains and hopefully jump start the world economy.

boognish_bear said:

---

The Supreme Court got it right. But they also did Trump a huge favor, as his tariffs are harming the U.S. economy and are paid by Americans. But since the tariff revenue will now stop and past revenue must be returned, the already rising U.S. budget deficit will soar. Got gold?

— Peter Schiff (@PeterSchiff) February 20, 2026

---

Reckless...

KaiBear said:

---

william said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Game set and match.

Wouldn't be surprised if the Secretary of the Treasury resigns and resumes enjoying his wealth.

Meanwhile us old guys wont be affected much…. other than getting cheaper t shirts.

However our grandchildren will have a much lower standard of living than we have enjoyed. Unless of course we have the funds to leave them and the inheritance laws are not ruinous.

Oh well , back to the Durango casino floor for breakfast.

---

retreat to your local arbys, teeming masses.

the end is nigh...........

- UF

D!

{ mayday mayday }

---

The end is not nigh for many of us.

It's the children and grandchildren of what's left of the middle class and working poor who are going to find an ever decreasing amount of meaningful employment.

---

need some more clarity- or so it would seem to me -

- UF

seems a little like a Schrodinger's Economy for a while.

D!

ron.reagan said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Broad tariffs used to strong arm foreign policy is peak stupidity. The last thing we need is a liberal going in and deciding to tariff every country that doesn't add men can breast feed to their constitution.

We absolutely need targeted and higher tariffs against certain countries and products, especially ship building and steel right now

---

Congress has zero ability to pass meaningful tariff legislation in a timely manner.

And our foreign competitors have known this for decades.

As a result US companies will continue to close or move overseas.

Although I comprehend the rationale behind the SC decision.

It is an unmitigated disaster for our working class.

---

It's almost like he shouldn't have applied a tariff to the entire planet forcing the supreme court to hear the case

---

That is not true that there is no ability to pass tariffs with Congress.

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 - Last 4 years, but there has to be a Commerce Investigation and Public Hearing. (Trump used it 1st term)

Section 122, also of the Trade Act of 1974 - Can immediately put 15%, but it has a short lifespan of 150 days. But that is enough time to apply 301 or 232.

Section 232 of Trade Expansion Act of 1962 - Trump used this one against China in the first term. But it requires an investigation and determination of National Interest, but he did it 1st term.

He can also go the nuclear option - Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, Section 338. This can go as high as 50% on imports from countries that have discriminated against U.S. businesses. No investigation is required, and there's no limit. At the very least it would force Congress to the table. (Bessent referenced this)


There are options, but it requires work and coordination. This is what I am so pissed at the Trump Administration for doing. They take the easy way out. Good idea, sound policy and then lazy execution. All these require coordination of the Executive Branch to work together and identify the best targets. NOT Bannon and Miller sitting around saying slap 50% here or there.

Or, did we let go of everyone in Commerce under DOGE?

So wait, is the Supreme Court owned by Trump or not? I was told by our resident mouth breathers that the Supreme Court was corrupt and their rulings were mere partisan politics. It is so hard to keep up with the left's latest narrative..

KaiBear said:

---

william said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Game set and match.

Wouldn't be surprised if the Secretary of the Treasury resigns and resumes enjoying his wealth.

Meanwhile us old guys wont be affected much…. other than getting cheaper t shirts.

However our grandchildren will have a much lower standard of living than we have enjoyed. Unless of course we have the funds to leave them and the inheritance laws are not ruinous.

Oh well , back to the Durango casino floor for breakfast.

---

retreat to your local arbys, teeming masses.

the end is nigh...........

- UF

D!

{ mayday mayday }

---

The end is not nigh for many of us.

It's the children and grandchildren of what's left of the middle class and working poor who are going to find an ever decreasing amount of meaningful employment.

---

So it won't really matter what the price of the plungers are then because people won't have jobs to pay for things. This could then cause the government to implement Universal Basic Income to compensate. Which goes back to an important question is it better to have a large percentage of your citizenry working or to have them not work and receive government handouts to live? Or one hybrid to the government handout plan could be the government puts them to work in some new version of Roosevelt's alphabet agencies.

gtownbear said:

---

While I can see the grounds for this decision Constitutionally. the negative effect on our economy will be immeasurable unless President Trump can use other laws to accomplish the same results.

I hope these six Justices realize that Congress cannot use tariffs in the manner that the Executive Branch and President can to force other countries to enter into fair trade agreements with us. Without this emergency power I fear that we will back in the situation where other countries use tariffs against us to their advantage which will again force products and goods to be manufactured in other countries rather than the U.S. and disadvantaging our workers with less jobs and opportunities.

I hope the Administration has a back up plan that can work around this decision.

---

If what I'm reading is correct, he can ban imports from countries completely but can levy tariffs under the national emergency route. So there is still negotiating power there, even though impractical.

I would think Team Trump saw this coming and has other mechanisms to levy tariffs if they want to.

The money collected has to be refunded?

What about the trade deals that have been signed? Do those still hold?

Giving this (back) to congress just means that the globalists and individual congressman win.

BearFan33 said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

While I can see the grounds for this decision Constitutionally. the negative effect on our economy will be immeasurable unless President Trump can use other laws to accomplish the same results.

I hope these six Justices realize that Congress cannot use tariffs in the manner that the Executive Branch and President can to force other countries to enter into fair trade agreements with us. Without this emergency power I fear that we will back in the situation where other countries use tariffs against us to their advantage which will again force products and goods to be manufactured in other countries rather than the U.S. and disadvantaging our workers with less jobs and opportunities.

I hope the Administration has a back up plan that can work around this decision.

---

If what I'm reading is correct, he can ban imports from countries completely but can levy tariffs under the national emergency route. So there is still negotiating power there, even though impractical.

I would think Team Trump saw this coming and has other mechanisms to levy tariffs if they want to.

The money collected has to be refunded?

What about the trade deals that have been signed? Do those still hold?

Giving this (back) to congress just means that the globalists and individual congressman win.

---

Money has to be refunded.

Not sure on the trade deals, although I am sure they will be lined up to renegotiate as they will say the US negotiated in bad faith.

Trump has tools, they just require work and they are not blanket. Bessent mentioned Smoot-Hawley Tariff, that may get Congress to the table to work something out. I don't think anyone has used that yet, I may be mistaken but I think it is either Roosevelt or Nixon or both.

FLBear5630 said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

While I can see the grounds for this decision Constitutionally. the negative effect on our economy will be immeasurable unless President Trump can use other laws to accomplish the same results.

I hope these six Justices realize that Congress cannot use tariffs in the manner that the Executive Branch and President can to force other countries to enter into fair trade agreements with us. Without this emergency power I fear that we will back in the situation where other countries use tariffs against us to their advantage which will again force products and goods to be manufactured in other countries rather than the U.S. and disadvantaging our workers with less jobs and opportunities.

I hope the Administration has a back up plan that can work around this decision.

---

If what I'm reading is correct, he can ban imports from countries completely but can levy tariffs under the national emergency route. So there is still negotiating power there, even though impractical.

I would think Team Trump saw this coming and has other mechanisms to levy tariffs if they want to.

The money collected has to be refunded?

What about the trade deals that have been signed? Do those still hold?

Giving this (back) to congress just means that the globalists and individual congressman win.

---

Money has to be refunded.

Not sure on the trade deals, although I am sure they will be lined up to renegotiate as they will say the US negotiated in bad faith.

Trump has tools, they just require work and they are not blanket. Bessent mentioned Smoot-Hawley Tariff, that may get Congress to the table to work something out. I don't think anyone has used that yet, I may be mistaken but I think it is either Roosevelt or Nixon or both.

---

The last time Smoot-Hawley went into effect, it ushered in a period referred to The Great Depression. My Dad lived through it. He told me decades ago we never want to go back there.

ron.reagan said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Broad tariffs used to strong arm foreign policy is peak stupidity. The last thing we need is a liberal going in and deciding to tariff every country that doesn't add men can breast feed to their constitution.

We absolutely need targeted and higher tariffs against certain countries and products, especially ship building and steel right now

---

Congress has zero ability to pass meaningful tariff legislation in a timely manner.

And our foreign competitors have known this for decades.

As a result US companies will continue to close or move overseas.

Although I comprehend the rationale behind the SC decision.

It is an unmitigated disaster for our working class.

---

It's almost like he shouldn't have applied a tariff to the entire planet forcing the supreme court to hear the case

---

Valid point.

Agreed

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

While I can see the grounds for this decision Constitutionally. the negative effect on our economy will be immeasurable unless President Trump can use other laws to accomplish the same results.

I hope these six Justices realize that Congress cannot use tariffs in the manner that the Executive Branch and President can to force other countries to enter into fair trade agreements with us. Without this emergency power I fear that we will back in the situation where other countries use tariffs against us to their advantage which will again force products and goods to be manufactured in other countries rather than the U.S. and disadvantaging our workers with less jobs and opportunities.

I hope the Administration has a back up plan that can work around this decision.

---

If what I'm reading is correct, he can ban imports from countries completely but can levy tariffs under the national emergency route. So there is still negotiating power there, even though impractical.

I would think Team Trump saw this coming and has other mechanisms to levy tariffs if they want to.

The money collected has to be refunded?

What about the trade deals that have been signed? Do those still hold?

Giving this (back) to congress just means that the globalists and individual congressman win.

---

Money has to be refunded.

Not sure on the trade deals, although I am sure they will be lined up to renegotiate as they will say the US negotiated in bad faith.

Trump has tools, they just require work and they are not blanket. Bessent mentioned Smoot-Hawley Tariff, that may get Congress to the table to work something out. I don't think anyone has used that yet, I may be mistaken but I think it is either Roosevelt or Nixon or both.

---

The last time Smoot-Hawley went into effect, it ushered in a period referred to The Great Depression. My Dad lived through it. He told me decades ago we never want to go back there.

---

Not accurate.

There were multiple reasons for the Great Depression

KaiBear said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

While I can see the grounds for this decision Constitutionally. the negative effect on our economy will be immeasurable unless President Trump can use other laws to accomplish the same results.

I hope these six Justices realize that Congress cannot use tariffs in the manner that the Executive Branch and President can to force other countries to enter into fair trade agreements with us. Without this emergency power I fear that we will back in the situation where other countries use tariffs against us to their advantage which will again force products and goods to be manufactured in other countries rather than the U.S. and disadvantaging our workers with less jobs and opportunities.

I hope the Administration has a back up plan that can work around this decision.

---

If what I'm reading is correct, he can ban imports from countries completely but can levy tariffs under the national emergency route. So there is still negotiating power there, even though impractical.

I would think Team Trump saw this coming and has other mechanisms to levy tariffs if they want to.

The money collected has to be refunded?

What about the trade deals that have been signed? Do those still hold?

Giving this (back) to congress just means that the globalists and individual congressman win.

---

Money has to be refunded.

Not sure on the trade deals, although I am sure they will be lined up to renegotiate as they will say the US negotiated in bad faith.

Trump has tools, they just require work and they are not blanket. Bessent mentioned Smoot-Hawley Tariff, that may get Congress to the table to work something out. I don't think anyone has used that yet, I may be mistaken but I think it is either Roosevelt or Nixon or both.

---

The last time Smoot-Hawley went into effect, it ushered in a period referred to The Great Depression. My Dad lived through it. He told me decades ago we never want to go back there.

---

Not accurate.

There were multiple reasons for the Great Depression

---

Actually, it was just one of many factors. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was passed June 17, 1930.

KaiBear said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

While I can see the grounds for this decision Constitutionally. the negative effect on our economy will be immeasurable unless President Trump can use other laws to accomplish the same results.

I hope these six Justices realize that Congress cannot use tariffs in the manner that the Executive Branch and President can to force other countries to enter into fair trade agreements with us. Without this emergency power I fear that we will back in the situation where other countries use tariffs against us to their advantage which will again force products and goods to be manufactured in other countries rather than the U.S. and disadvantaging our workers with less jobs and opportunities.

I hope the Administration has a back up plan that can work around this decision.

---

If what I'm reading is correct, he can ban imports from countries completely but can levy tariffs under the national emergency route. So there is still negotiating power there, even though impractical.

I would think Team Trump saw this coming and has other mechanisms to levy tariffs if they want to.

The money collected has to be refunded?

What about the trade deals that have been signed? Do those still hold?

Giving this (back) to congress just means that the globalists and individual congressman win.

---

Money has to be refunded.

Not sure on the trade deals, although I am sure they will be lined up to renegotiate as they will say the US negotiated in bad faith.

Trump has tools, they just require work and they are not blanket. Bessent mentioned Smoot-Hawley Tariff, that may get Congress to the table to work something out. I don't think anyone has used that yet, I may be mistaken but I think it is either Roosevelt or Nixon or both.

---

The last time Smoot-Hawley went into effect, it ushered in a period referred to The Great Depression. My Dad lived through it. He told me decades ago we never want to go back there.

---

Not accurate.

There were multiple reasons for the Great Depression

---

Your last statement is correct.

gtownbear said:

---

While I can see the grounds for this decision Constitutionally. the negative effect on our economy will be immeasurable unless President Trump can use other laws to accomplish the same results.

I hope these six Justices realize that Congress cannot use tariffs in the manner that the Executive Branch and President can to force other countries to enter into fair trade agreements with us. Without this emergency power I fear that we will back in the situation where other countries use tariffs against us to their advantage which will again force products and goods to be manufactured in other countries rather than the U.S. and disadvantaging our workers with less jobs and opportunities.

I hope the Administration has a back up plan that can work around this decision.

---

My position exactly.

The SC ruling was legally correct.

But not realistic in regards to the speed economic policies are enacted throughout the world. Not realistic involving a congress bought and paid for by dozens of lobbyists.

Been casually thinking about whatever Trump can now do….

only thing left is to withdraw US military protection from countries that continue to tariff us.

Beginning with all of Europe.

Roberts said Obamacare was a tax but Tariffs aren't.

Section 122 allows temporary tariffs to address balance-of-payments issues. It is narrower and time-limited compared to broader emergency powers.

If used ‘across the board,’ it would likely trigger immediate legal scrutiny again.

— Dr. Lakshay Mittal (@drlsmittal) February 20, 2026

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-kills-trumps-liberation-day-tariffs-4-other-laws-could-resurrect-them

BaylorFTW said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

william said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Game set and match.

Wouldn't be surprised if the Secretary of the Treasury resigns and resumes enjoying his wealth.

Meanwhile us old guys wont be affected much…. other than getting cheaper t shirts.

However our grandchildren will have a much lower standard of living than we have enjoyed. Unless of course we have the funds to leave them and the inheritance laws are not ruinous.

Oh well , back to the Durango casino floor for breakfast.

---

retreat to your local arbys, teeming masses.

the end is nigh...........

- UF

D!

{ mayday mayday }

---

The end is not nigh for many of us.

It's the children and grandchildren of what's left of the middle class and working poor who are going to find an ever decreasing amount of meaningful employment.

---

So it won't really matter what the price of the plungers are then because people won't have jobs to pay for things. This could then cause the government to implement Universal Basic Income to compensate. Which goes back to an important question is it better to have a large percentage of your citizenry working or to have them not work and receive government handouts to live? Or one hybrid to the government handout plan could be the government puts them to work in some new version of Roosevelt's alphabet agencies.

---

We're not being bankrupted by the unemployed or unskilled, but the 3rd of our non working population supporting themselves with welfare transfer payments and medical insurance. Sort of an age based universal basic income. Ironically it's also a group that votes heavily MAGA and complains about concepts like a universal basic income…

boognish_bear said:

---

Section 122 allows temporary tariffs to address balance-of-payments issues. It is narrower and time-limited compared to broader emergency powers.

If used ‘across the board,’ it would likely trigger immediate legal scrutiny again.

— Dr. Lakshay Mittal (@drlsmittal) February 20, 2026

---

No chance this flies.

SC has made their ruling and the justices won't play along now.

KaiBear said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

While I can see the grounds for this decision Constitutionally. the negative effect on our economy will be immeasurable unless President Trump can use other laws to accomplish the same results.

I hope these six Justices realize that Congress cannot use tariffs in the manner that the Executive Branch and President can to force other countries to enter into fair trade agreements with us. Without this emergency power I fear that we will back in the situation where other countries use tariffs against us to their advantage which will again force products and goods to be manufactured in other countries rather than the U.S. and disadvantaging our workers with less jobs and opportunities.

I hope the Administration has a back up plan that can work around this decision.

---

My position exactly.

The SC ruling was legally correct.

But not realistic in regards to the speed economic policies are enacted throughout the world. Not realistic involving a congress bought and paid for by dozens of lobbyists.

Been casually thinking about whatever Trump can now do….

only thing left is to withdraw US military protection from countries that continue to tariff us.

Beginning with all of Europe.

---

We used to enact economic policies quite regularly and expediently. Time to get back to governance via legislation and less fiat. That latter statement applies to both parties not just Trump, He didn't start this fire.