It's a weird ruling for sure.  And it wouldn't even be a thing if the usual suspects hadn't turned it into a tribal politics issue.

The ruling makes total sense to me. According to the constitution, congress controls the money. The president does not.   And that is basically what they affirmed. The president can ask, and if he's ( or she ) convincing, will get it, but congress still has the authority to actually do it. The same for war, and a few other items.. and these 'workarounds' that are taking place here lately in many arenas are wrong.

Even if i agree with an outcome, i refuse to be a hypocrite and i fully believe we should be following the rules. Besides, if 'my guy' breaks the rules and i ignore the law, i cant say a damned thing when the next one does it.. Precedent to support breaking the rules can be a very dangerous thing. 

( and yes i just broke my rule about not getting into politics, but i think this is more about following the law as written )

Fri Feb 20 2026 22:39:41 UTC from IGnatius T Foobar

It's a weird ruling for sure.  And it wouldn't even be a thing if the usual suspects hadn't turned it into a tribal politics issue.

The ruling was really just about whether the IEEPA gives the president authority to impose tariffs. It did not challenge other laws like section 302 that clearly give hi the authority to impose tariffs. Do you think those laws are unconstitutional?

Sat Feb 21 2026 13:02:51 UTC from DarfWader

The ruling makes total sense to me. According to the constitution, congress controls the money. The president does not.   And that is basically what they affirmed. The president can ask, and if he's ( or she ) convincing, will get it, but congress still has the authority to actually do it. The same for war, and a few other items.. and these 'workarounds' that are taking place here lately in many arenas are wrong.

Even if i agree with an outcome, i refuse to be a hypocrite and i fully believe we should be following the rules. Besides, if 'my guy' breaks the rules and i ignore the law, i cant say a damned thing when the next one does it.. Precedent to support breaking the rules can be a very dangerous thing. 

 

( and yes i just broke my rule about not getting into politics, but i think this is more about following the law as written )

Fri Feb 20 2026 22:39:41 UTC from IGnatius T Foobar

It's a weird ruling for sure.  And it wouldn't even be a thing if the usual suspects hadn't turned it into a tribal politics issue.

 

yes.

Sat Feb 21 2026 16:07:12 UTC from SouthernComputerGeek

Do you think those laws are unconstitutional?

Well, regardless of how we here feel about it, looks like the UK is going to sue to 'retain the original agreements made regardless of the ruling' and the admin just flipped SCOTUS the bird: " Top US trade negotiator Jamieson Greer insisted on Sunday that US policy on tariffs “hasn’t changed”, two days after the supreme court declared many of Donald Trump’s tariffs illegal."

Oh, and Illinois is suing for a refund....

Going to be an interesting show to watch this summer..  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia

read it all. The Supreme Court has - by design - no ability to enforce their findings without the agreement of at least one other branch. It is why the founding fathers framed it this way. No one, not even the president - can REALLY at unilaterally. They've spent the last 250 years, all of them - trying to circumvent this brilliance. 
The Supreme Court, the President, Congress - they all can get it wrong. Our system depends on at least ONE other branch going..." No - we get you. Let's move forward." 


And this is an example where one branch felt one way - and no other branch would come forward to support them - so it was moot. 

It is a brilliant system. 

We should understand it more, and fuck with it less. 

Sun Feb 22 2026 19:20:56 UTC from DarfWader

Well, regardless of how we here feel about it, looks like the UK is going to sue to 'retain the original agreements made regardless of the ruling' and the admin just flipped SCOTUS the bird: " Top US trade negotiator Jamieson Greer insisted on Sunday that US policy on tariffs “hasn’t changed”, two days after the supreme court declared many of Donald Trump’s tariffs illegal."

 

Oh, and Illinois is suing for a refund....

 

 

Going to be an interesting show to watch this summer..