ATL Bear said:

---

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.

---

If events took months to pan out as in 1784; would definitely agree with you.

Even in 1928 when tariffs might take a few weeks to impact business decisions…..yeah maybe..

But now economic policies are established in days…..and their impact is immediate.

No longer have the luxury of taking months, hoping to get legislation passed…through the gauntlet of dozens of lobbyists.

Each loaded with millions in cash for our ravenous politicians.

That said……the SC made their ruling …..and I support the rule of law.

Tariffs Overturned: What Happens To The $200 Billion Already Collected?
The Supreme Court delivered a long-awaited decision on Friday, striking down President Trump's sweeping International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) tariffs. But while the court ruled on the legality of the tariffs themselves, it did not address whether the United States must refund more than $200 billion in revenue already collected.

Ruling only on the narrow legal question before them, the court did not establish a framework for refunds. Such a framework will likely be established by lower courts, particularly the United States Court of International Trade, which ruled against Trump's tariff decision.

Don't hate the player hate the game?

BREAKING: Cantor Fitzgerald, now run by Howard Lutnick’s sons, has been buying the rights to potential tariff refunds at roughly 20–30% of the refund value. For example, a company that paid $10 million in tariffs might sell refund rights for $2–$3 million.

Supreme Court…

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) February 20, 2026

ATL Bear said:

---

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…

---

I give you our resident govt dole peeps. Assman, Old, Little Johnny, Historian .... you maggot anti govt , keep your govt cheddar flowing! Damn Alanis Morrisette had it right.

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.

---

Exactly this.

This thread aged well

Osodecentx said:

---

From WSJ op-ed

Trump Demeans Himself as He Attacks the Supreme Court
He calls the Justices who ruled against him 'very unpatriotic' and 'fools.'
By
The Editorial Board

President Trump owes the Supreme Court an apologyto the individual Justices he smeared on Friday and the institution itself. Mr. Trump doubtless won't offer one, but his rant in response to his tariff defeat at the Court was arguably the worst moment of his Presidency.

---

Worse than his democrat zoo post?

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.

---

Wait….. does this mean we all won't get the checks he promised from tariff revenue? Or that the income tax won't go away? Or that we won't make gazillion dollars on tariffs next year like he said?

Today, the Supreme Court decided that Congress, despite giving the president the ability to "regulate imports", didn't actually mean it. This is lawlessness from the Court, plain and simple. And its only effect will be to make it harder for the president to protect American…

— JD Vance (@JDVance) February 20, 2026

Osodecentx said:

---

From WSJ op-ed

Trump Demeans Himself as He Attacks the Supreme Court
He calls the Justices who ruled against him 'very unpatriotic' and 'fools.'
By
The Editorial Board

President Trump owes the Supreme Court an apologyto the individual Justices he smeared on Friday and the institution itself. Mr. Trump doubtless won't offer one, but his rant in response to his tariff defeat at the Court was arguably the worst moment of his Presidency.

---

There are too many to choose just one. I am really wonderng if I will get my DOGE check or my tariff refund check first.

Imagine telling George Washington that ppl would rather pay an income tax than pay tariffs. https://t.co/VEyskegEhE

— Random Guy (@NotNJ_Taxman) February 20, 2026

Farm bailout? Has to be dead, right?

boognish_bear said:

---

Today, the Supreme Court decided that Congress, despite giving the president the ability to "regulate imports", didn't actually mean it. This is lawlessness from the Court, plain and simple. And its only effect will be to make it harder for the president to protect American…

— JD Vance (@JDVance) February 20, 2026

---

Remember kids, tariffs are a tax, but Obamacare mandates aren't a tax despite the marketplace actually taking your tax refund to cover subsidies.

Mothra said:

---

Tariffs have been an abject failure. It just all got passed on to the American consumer.

---

"Inflation in the United States declined in 2025, continuing a downward trend from previous years. The annual inflation rate fell to 2.7% in 2025, down from 2.9% in 2024 and significantly lower than the 8% peak in 2022, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics."

The facts as reported by the Federal Reserve do not support your assertion.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

For anyone putting loyalty to a person above loyalty to the Constitution, Justice Gorsuch’s remarks should be required reading. His words are a reminder that our highest duty is to the rule of law and the founding principles that define America. pic.twitter.com/twEQ46PHoP

— Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) February 20, 2026

---

Trump's rebuke of the Conservative justices was sickening. Funniest part about that is that two of the three that voted against the tariffs were handpicked by him!!!!!

I would bet Melania's life is a Living Hell with that man. I have no doubt there is a spot reserved for her in Heaven.

---

Gorsuch has become my favorite Justice, his book "Republic, if you can keep it" is very good. We needed a more Libertarian view. I can see why Paul agrees with him.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Imagine telling George Washington that ppl would rather pay an income tax than pay tariffs. https://t.co/VEyskegEhE

— Random Guy (@NotNJ_Taxman) February 20, 2026

---

And where did they say that?

You guys do this all the time with Trump. Nobody said he was not able to do tariffs, just not the way he did them. Once again, jumping to the extreme. There are mechanisms for the President to do taxes, he just used one yesterday and he used them in his first term.

This is a question of "political will", Trump wants to be able to do whatever he wants, when he wants without being questioned. We don't live in that type of system. It is not the "Apprentice". He has to work with Congress and his Commerce Dept has to show why we are doing the tariffs. That takes work, something this crowd doesn't seem to like.

Realitybites said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Today, the Supreme Court decided that Congress, despite giving the president the ability to "regulate imports", didn't actually mean it. This is lawlessness from the Court, plain and simple. And its only effect will be to make it harder for the president to protect American…

— JD Vance (@JDVance) February 20, 2026

---

Remember kids, tariffs are a tax, but Obamacare mandates aren't a tax despite the marketplace actually taking your tax refund to cover subsidies.

---

Curious, what does Obama have to do with the current Tariff issue? Not seeing the connection...

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

For anyone putting loyalty to a person above loyalty to the Constitution, Justice Gorsuch’s remarks should be required reading. His words are a reminder that our highest duty is to the rule of law and the founding principles that define America. pic.twitter.com/twEQ46PHoP

— Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) February 20, 2026

---

Trump's rebuke of the Conservative justices was sickening. Funniest part about that is that two of the three that voted against the tariffs were handpicked by him!!!!!

I would bet Melania's life is a Living Hell with that man. I have no doubt there is a spot reserved for her in Heaven.

---

we call Melania a Ho where I come from.

Looking down the road, this is especially good for America because it abuses the idea that we can keep our insane spending and cover up for it by sneaking in new flat consumer taxes.

Not that Trump cares about America's economic future, but come midterms we might see even Denocrats want to spend less.

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Tariffs have been an abject failure. It just all got passed on to the American consumer.

---

"Inflation in the United States declined in 2025, continuing a downward trend from previous years. The annual inflation rate fell to 2.7% in 2025, down from 2.9% in 2024 and significantly lower than the 8% peak in 2022, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics."

The facts as reported by the Federal Reserve do not support your assertion.

---

A decreased inflation rate (from an already high inflation rate - if the Federal Reserve's numbers are to be believed, of course) doesn't really tell the story. The question is, did the tariffs increase the costs of goods, in some cases dramatically, and did those costs get passed on to consumers. The answer to that is yes.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c78x9256pn7o

https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/trump-tariffs-trade-war/

Studies show the tariffs also generally reduced overall U.S. employment and manufacturing jobs, causing a net negative effect on the job market.

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/12/trump-tariffs-jobs-layoffs-economy.html

https://econofact.org/are-tariffs-raising-u-s-retail-prices

And they barely made a dent on the trade deficit.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4ge4yxwnlno

In other words, the net effect of the blanket tariff policy was to increase the cost of goods, which essentially became a sort of consumption tax for American consumers, who bore the brunt of the costs, a reduced job market, due to layoffs by companies attempting to offset the tariff prices and declining sales due to cost of goods, and a negligible effect, if any, on the trade deficit.

Yes. I think it's very safe to say the policy was an abject failure. I am not opposed to targeted tariffs in principle, but the way this was rolled out, with blanket tariffs imposed on a whim, was amateur hour.

Hard for me to fathom how some of you college graduates ignore the impact of other countries tariffs on US companies and jobs.

Yet continue to fret about the evaporation of our working class.
The lack of manufacturing jobs, the weakening of our defense industries. The obvious reduction in our standard of living.

And all to merely save a few bucks in the short term.

But it is what it is.

Osodecentx said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Today, the Supreme Court decided that Congress, despite giving the president the ability to "regulate imports", didn't actually mean it. This is lawlessness from the Court, plain and simple. And its only effect will be to make it harder for the president to protect American…

— JD Vance (@JDVance) February 20, 2026

---

Remember kids, tariffs are a tax, but Obamacare mandates aren't a tax despite the marketplace actually taking your tax refund to cover subsidies.

---

Curious, what does Obama have to do with the current Tariff issue? Not seeing the connection...

---

Harkens back to the Roberts decision on Obamacare

---

Ok. Not really up on that will have to look up. Thanks.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Today, the Supreme Court decided that Congress, despite giving the president the ability to "regulate imports", didn't actually mean it. This is lawlessness from the Court, plain and simple. And its only effect will be to make it harder for the president to protect American…

— JD Vance (@JDVance) February 20, 2026

---

Remember kids, tariffs are a tax, but Obamacare mandates aren't a tax despite the marketplace actually taking your tax refund to cover subsidies.

---

Curious, what does Obama have to do with the current Tariff issue? Not seeing the connection...

---

Harkens back to the Roberts decision on Obamacare

---

Ok. Not really up on that will have to look up. Thanks.

---

Roberts (cheered on by the "principled moderates") saved an unconstitutional and new innovation to our system of government by calling it a tax.

"You must buy health insurance"…a mandate by the Feds to purchase a product even if you did not want it.

Roberts saved this favorite progressive program by just saying it was a tax and lumping it in with the older general Federal taxing power

PS

Someone remind me how Roberts voted on tarrifs?