Trunp loses again in Court
POSTED BY: THG
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 04:15
VIEWED: 52231
PAGE 93 of 100
Oh no Jack. I'm right you're wrong again.
T 
Judge Hands California MAJOR WIN on Trump's ICE?!?!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh wow. Another dumb propaganda piece from Legal AF to get ad revenue from 30 IQ morons like Ted, who can't even put into his own words a brief synopsis of exactly what I was wrong about.
Whatever it was, thank your activist judge for pushing just one more thing another rung up the ladder to SCOTUS before they give a decision on all of this in June.
Your country thanks you in advance for your unwitting service.
Enjoy the show, Loser.
--------------------------------------------------
Be Nice. Don't be a dick. 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
OOPS...
Checkmate again.
Trump, if the Save Act fails to pass the Senate because of Democrat activists within trying to subvert the will of the American People, will be forcing an Executive Order that will require Voter ID laws for all states before the Mid-Term elections.
Then we'll get to watch some LOSER Democrats be forced into the position of having to fight this Executive Order in court, even though most Americans want it, including 76% of black people and even 71% of Democrats.
YOU LOSE.
LOSERS.
Let's add this one to the list of things that make their way up to SCOTUS too and make it the law of the land going forward.
No more cheating in elections for Democrats going forward. I guess you're going to have to show American people why the fuck they should vote for you.
SPOILER ALERT: Trump is Bad is a proven, useless strategy.
This means you're going to have to prove to anyone you're worth voting for. And if you look all around you, Democrats have a terrible, terrible, terrible record to run on.
You're cooked.
--------------------------------------------------
Be Nice. Don't be a dick.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yup...
T
“Worst possible news!” Trump gets what he deserves in court
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What's the news, Ted?
Ain't nobody outside of your George Soros funded Midas Touch clickbait bullshit, so use your big boy words.
--------------------------------------------------
Be Nice. Don't be a dick.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The nation’s highest court could decide as soon as Friday whether the emergency-based levies are lawful.
More than $175 billion in U.S. tariff revenue could reportedly be on the line if the Supreme Court invalidates President Donald Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose sweeping import duties.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/supreme-court-ruling-could-put
-175-billion-in-trump-tariffs-at-risk-report/ar-AA1WK2yP?
Hold onto your hat's folks.
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Supreme Court says no to Trumps tariffs!!! Oh no, I was right again and again, Jacks is wrong.
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Supreme Court says no to Trumps tariffs!!! Oh no, I was right again and again, Jacks is wrong.
T
No. You weren't, dummy.
The Atlantic (A FAR left news outfit): The Tariffs Will Be Back
Even after losing at the Supreme Court, the president has plenty of ways to reconstruct his trade regime.
https://www.theatlantic.com/economy/2026/02/supreme-court-trump-tariff
s/686083/
https://archive.ph/cci5O
Quote:
The Trump tariffs are dead. Long live the Trump tariffs?
This morning, in a 6–3 opinion, the Supreme Court struck down the bulk of the president’s sweeping global tariffs. The majority ruled that the law Donald Trump had used to carry out most of his trade policies does not, in fact, allow the president to impose tariffs at all. This is a major setback for Trump’s trade agenda, but it is far from a fatal one. The president has several alternatives that he can use to reconstruct his tariff regime, and his administration has spent months putting a plan in place to do so. Those efforts, too, may eventually be challenged in court, but fully litigating them would take years. Unless the president suddenly has a change of heart, Trump’s tariff adventure is far from over.
The case before the court centered on a 1977 law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act or IEEPA, which authorizes the president to “regulate” the importation of goods in a national emergency that arises from an “unusual and extraordinary threat.” The Trump administration had interpreted this vague statute, which had never been used to justify tariffs, to mean that the president can issue tariffs of whatever kind he wants, whenever he wants, on any country he wants, so long as he says an emergency exists, all without getting congressional approval. IEEPA was the basis of Trump’s tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China last February, the “reciprocal” tariffs he levied on almost every country in the world on Liberation Day, and most of the one-off tariffs he has issued or threatened to impose on trade partners such as Brazil, India, and, more recently, Europe and Canada. (Industry-specific tariffs on goods like steel and aluminum have been imposed under separate, more legally sound authorities, and are not affected by the ruling.)
Last year, the lower courts ruled that although IEEPA might allow some tariffs, it certainly didn’t allow these tariffs—many of which were set at arbitrary levels, on an arbitrary set of countries, using justifications that could hardly be thought of as a true national emergency (such as the existence of a trade deficit or an imaginary surge of fentanyl shipments from Canada). The Supreme Court went even further. “We hold that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs,” Chief Justice John Roberts declared.
But even as it insisted that the law was on its side, the administration spent much of the past year preparing a backup plan to rebuild Trump’s tariff wall in case the courts ruled against them. Because, as the president observed on Truth Social a few hours after the ruling, “the Supreme Court did not overrule TARIFFS, they merely overruled a particular use of IEEPA TARIFFS.”
According to top Trump-administration officials such as National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, the administration’s plan draws on two main authorities. The first is Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. That law allows the president to levy tariffs of up to 15 percent on any country for up to 150 days to address “large and serious balance-of-payment deficits,” a term that refers to more money leaving the country than coming into it. After the initial window, the tariff must be reauthorized by Congress. According to estimates by Clark Packard and Stan Vueger, trade experts at the Cato Institute and the American Enterprise Institute, respectivelNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:A 2024 Cato Institute report noted that 95% of noncitizen population growth between 2019 and 2023 occurred in states with Republican-leaning (red) delegations, suggesting that removing them could actually cost red states seats.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
. . . the census rules are changed to not include illegals (which will result in net losses upward of another -30 Democrat +30 Republican seats in June)
Be Evil. Be a dick.
https://www.cato.org/blog/apportionment-immigration-95-noncitizen-grow
th-went-gop-states-2019
Estimates regarding the number of House seats that would shift from blue to red states if undocumented immigrants were excluded from the census apportionment count vary, with recent studies suggesting a relatively small impact compared to some political claims.
Based on analyses of the 2020 census, removing undocumented immigrants would have resulted in a minimal shift, with only about 1 to 3 seats changing hands.
https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+seats+will+red+states+gain+wh
en+all+illegal+aliens+are+purged+from+blue+states
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
Poor Jack. The supreme court smacked down Trumps tariffs and Jack can't deal with it. He actually said Trump can still use them. Tariffs on China gone, Canada gone, Mexico gone, and so on. His ability to use them now is severally hindered.
Isn't that right Signym? And isn't it for the best comrade? And because of Gilligan I've decided to point out for a bit, I was right, you guys were wrong.
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Supreme Court says no to Trumps tariffs!!! Oh no, I was right again and again, Jacks is wrong.
T
No. You weren't, dummy.
The Atlantic (A FAR left news outfit): The Tariffs Will Be Back
Even after losing at the Supreme Court, the president has plenty of ways to reconstruct his trade regime.
https://www.theatlantic.com/economy/2026/02/supreme-court-trump-tariff
s/686083/
https://archive.ph/cci5O
Quote:
The Trump tariffs are dead. Long live the Trump tariffs?
This morning, in a 6–3 opinion, the Supreme Court struck down the bulk of the president’s sweeping global tariffs. The majority ruled that the law Donald Trump had used to carry out most of his trade policies does not, in fact, allow the president to impose tariffs at all. This is a major setback for Trump’s trade agenda, but it is far from a fatal one. The president has several alternatives that he can use to reconstruct his tariff regime, and his administration has spent months putting a plan in place to do so. Those efforts, too, may eventually be challenged in court, but fully litigating them would take years. Unless the president suddenly has a change of heart, Trump’s tariff adventure is far from over.
The case before the court centered on a 1977 law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act or IEEPA, which authorizes the president to “regulate” the importation of goods in a national emergency that arises from an “unusual and extraordinary threat.” The Trump administration had interpreted this vague statute, which had never been used to justify tariffs, to mean that the president can issue tariffs of whatever kind he wants, whenever he wants, on any country he wants, so long as he says an emergency exists, all without getting congressional approval. IEEPA was the basis of Trump’s tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China last February, the “reciprocal” tariffs he levied on almost every country in the world on Liberation Day, and most of the one-off tariffs he has issued or threatened to impose on trade partners such as Brazil, India, and, more recently, Europe and Canada. (Industry-specific tariffs on goods like steel and aluminum have been imposed under separate, more legally sound authorities, and are not affected by the ruling.)
Last year, the lower courts ruled that although IEEPA might allow some tariffs, it certainly didn’t allow these tariffs—many of which were set at arbitrary levels, on an arbitrary set of countries, using justifications that could hardly be thought of as a true national emergency (such as the existence of a trade deficit or an imaginary surge of fentanyl shipments from Canada). The Supreme Court went even further. “We hold that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs,” Chief Justice John Roberts declared.
But even as it insisted that the law was on its side, the administration spent much of the past year preparing a backup plan to rebuild Trump’s tariff wall in case the courts ruled against them. Because, as the president observed on Truth Social a few hours after the ruling, “the Supreme Court did not overrule TARIFFS, they merely overruled a particular use of IEEPA TARIFFS.”
According to top Trump-administration officials such as National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, the administration’s plan draws on two main authorities. The first is Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. That law allows the president to levy tariffs of up to 15 percent on any country for up to 150 days to address “large and serious balance-of-payment deficits,” a term that refers to more money leaving the country than coming into it. After the initial window, the tariff must be reauthorized by Congress. According to estimates by Clark Packard and Stan Vueger, trade experts at the Cato Institute and the American Enterprise Institute, respectivelNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME