US Supreme Court strikes DOWN Trump tarifs 6-3

[putnam6]

If the Supreme court is weighted toward Republicans 6/3 how is their decision against Trump wrong ? , I could see the upset if the Dems had the majority but if Trump's tariffs are illegal isn't it a Conservative dominated court's duty to rule that way , is the rule of law no longer valid in Trump's America ?

Because the SCOTUS isn't weighted towards the Conservatives as much as the left pretends....sure it's conservative but just barely, Ginsburg could have easily been replaced in Obama's last term...

Regardless, the conservative justices vote more liberally than the liberal justices vote conservative over a 2/1 ratio over the last 2 calendar years if not longer

see below .... 

The Gateway Pundit reposted


TMK
@themagaking

Justice Roberts: 

Obama can force every American to buy health insurance, and hit them with a “tax” if they refuse? 

YES. 

Justice Roberts: 

Biden can force federal workers to take a vaccine, even against personal beliefs, doctor advice, or religious objections? 

YES. 

Justice Roberts: 

Trump can impose reciprocal tariffs to level the playing field and help American workers? 

NO. 

Justice isn’t blind. 
For Roberts, it’s political.

[putnam6]

Get this

LHGrey

@grey4626
·
20h
Holy fucking hell...wake the fuck up and stare into the abyss of our captured judiciary.

Chief Justice John Roberts, that sanctimonious, black-robed traitor to impartiality, spent a full goddamn week shacked up at the opulent U.S. ambassador's palace in Prague hosted by Norm Eisen, an Obama-era official involved in Trump impeachments, framing it as a conflict of interest under 28 U.S.C. § 455 that demands recusal and impeachment.

• The post by
  @grey4626
  vehemently criticizes Chief Justice John Roberts for a 2015 stay at the U.S. ambassador's residence in Prague hosted by Norm Eisen, an Obama-era official involved in Trump impeachments, framing it as a conflict of interest under 28 U.S.C. § 455 that demands recusal and impeachment.
  
• Eisen, who served as U.S. Ambassador to the Czech Republic from 2011-2014, publicly acknowledged hosting Roberts for a week to discuss "rule of law initiatives," an event detailed in Eisen's 2018 memoir The Last Palace and resurfaced in 2025 amid scrutiny of judicial ethics.
  
• This old interaction has reignited conservative outrage, tying into broader narratives of "captured judiciary" and recent Supreme Court tensions over Trump-related cases, though no formal ethics violation has been established despite calls for accountability.
  

[quintessentone]

Get this

LHGrey

@grey4626
·
20h
Holy fucking hell...wake the fuck up and stare into the abyss of our captured judiciary.

Chief Justice John Roberts, that sanctimonious, black-robed traitor to impartiality, spent a full goddamn week shacked up at the opulent U.S. ambassador's palace in Prague hosted by Norm Eisen, an Obama-era official involved in Trump impeachments, framing it as a conflict of interest under 28 U.S.C. § 455 that demands recusal and impeachment.

• The post by
  @grey4626
  vehemently criticizes Chief Justice John Roberts for a 2015 stay at the U.S. ambassador's residence in Prague hosted by Norm Eisen, an Obama-era official involved in Trump impeachments, framing it as a conflict of interest under 28 U.S.C. § 455 that demands recusal and impeachment.
  
• Eisen, who served as U.S. Ambassador to the Czech Republic from 2011-2014, publicly acknowledged hosting Roberts for a week to discuss "rule of law initiatives," an event detailed in Eisen's 2018 memoir The Last Palace and resurfaced in 2025 amid scrutiny of judicial ethics.
  
• This old interaction has reignited conservative outrage, tying into broader narratives of "captured judiciary" and recent Supreme Court tensions over Trump-related cases, though no formal ethics violation has been established despite calls for accountability.
  

What are saying? You see that you see the truth?

[727Sky]

Existing laws will allow Trump to precede with tariffs just under a different set of regulations.   

[putnam6]

Existing laws will allow Trump to precede with tariffs just under a different set of regulations.   

[url=https://x.com/Jules31415][/url]

Jesse Watters:Fox News

"This is why we hate lawyers. You put nine of them in a room; they can't agree on anything. There are five laws that say the President can use tariffs. So the President picks one, uses tariffs, gets sued, and the Supreme Court can't agree if he picked the right law. Three said he did, six said he didn't. They all agree the President has the power to use a tariff, but six of 'em say he's gotta pick a different law. So the President's just gonna pick a different law and put the tariffs back on."

[putnam6]

Get this

• The post by
  @grey4626
  vehemently criticizes Chief Justice John Roberts for a 2015 stay at the U.S. ambassador's residence in Prague hosted by Norm Eisen, an Obama-era official involved in Trump impeachments, framing it as a conflict of interest under 28 U.S.C. § 455 that demands recusal and impeachment.
  
• Eisen, who served as U.S. Ambassador to the Czech Republic from 2011-2014, publicly acknowledged hosting Roberts for a week to discuss "rule of law initiatives," an event detailed in Eisen's 2018 memoir The Last Palace and resurfaced in 2025 amid scrutiny of judicial ethics.
  
• This old interaction has reignited conservative outrage, tying into broader narratives of "captured judiciary" and recent Supreme Court tensions over Trump-related cases, though no formal ethics violation has been established despite calls for accountability.
  

The Gateway Pundit reposted


TMK
@themagaking

Justice Roberts: 

Obama can force every American to buy health insurance, and hit them with a “tax” if they refuse? 

YES. 

Justice Roberts: 

Biden can force federal workers to take a vaccine, even against personal beliefs, doctor advice, or religious objections? 

YES. 

Justice Roberts: 

Trump can impose reciprocal tariffs to level the playing field and help American workers? 

NO. 

Justice isn’t blind. 
For Roberts, it’s political.

What are saying? You see that you see the truth?

Is it really that ambiguous? 

SCOTUS votes FOR those 2 highly controversional widely intrusive Democratic initiatives, but scuttles Trump's highly controversional widely intrusive tariffs


visits to Prague with liberal bigwig, supports Democratic key landmark legislation, while rejecting Trump's long overdue tariff reforms. Tariff reforms that Trump can easily reintroduce under other previously Congressional/SCOTUS-approved statutes, that are well within his rights as President.

Wasn't gonna mention

ObamaCare cost alone for our business were decidedly more per year than these tariffs seemingly ever will. $6000 plus to participate for a year or eat $3000 a year in individual penalties, IIRC

The COVID mandates decimated our industry and pushed our business to the brink, 5 years later, we are just now able to breathe.

Trump's tariffs did not have the same immediate negative financial effect on our industry sector and our bottom line, and we have a significant positive influx of savings from petrol for 2025 compared to 2024 and 2023.

I know Elon suggests there will be no need to squirrel our money away soon,but old habits are hard to break.