Gorsuch basically said that the emperor has no clothes

...and the primacy of the legislature in making big decisions involving our money.

...one thing to note is that this is their THIRD strike against Trump's autocratic assertion of executive authority.

First with the Alien and Enemies Act; second with the Illinois Natl. Guard decision.

And now, this one....

MAGAS azz these midterms because their "chosen one's" tariffs have been, for most Americans, a "DISGRACE."

... and so has HE.

...but his concurrence is lengthy and goes into historical detail that should be considered.

precedent when they want to.

...Gorsuch cited the major questions doctrine, as it's known, which has been the bane of liberals on the Court, because, it's been used by conservatives to deny agencies like EPA from imposing regulations.

Gorsuch takes it further here, though, than other conservatives, in that he applies this to the President, not just regulators at agencies.

A likewise turn on a hook conservatives on the court have used to justify overturning Democratic initiatives:

The three liberal justices insisted here on a strict reading of the trade law Trump has used to impose his tariffs, recognizing that the law doesn't have language which gives him the power to unilaterally impose taxes (which everyone but Trump recognizes is the ultimate impact of his tariffs).

They already got everything they wanted from Trump. They are through with him.

And as Thom Hartmann said on his show today, we will see many Republicans in open revolt AFTER they get past their primary this year. Trump's lame duck period started the second this SCOTUS ruling was announced.

You can be certain that this isn't lost on the likes of Musk, Theil, Palantir, Leo et Al. The only question is if Trump can be sidelined enough that they will leave him in office through 2028 (or death whichever happens sooner.) If Trump puts their power at risk, they will throw him overboard.

...money talks.

But his concurrence is an important milestone, a marker in the way of a sprint by the Executive toward dictatorship. Any port in a storm...

He talks about historical resistance in the country to 'Kings,' and other expressions of defense against autocracy which should be considered - and, perhaps, repeated.

His red line is his wallet, not resisting autocracy. I would love to believe otherwise, until a pattern emerges, not buying his line.

..but many of us have been wondering when republicans or even the conservatives on the Court would start to defend even their own preogatives and interests.

Here we see a strident defense of legislative preogatives under the Constitution to halt or limit what they basically understand as one man controlling their money. But there was a broader assertion of Executive authority here which some of the justices (a majority) picked up on and are addressing in their concurrences.

Trump has used the same assertion of Executive power on immigration, firing of federal agency officials, domestic military deployments and military operations overseas.

I mean, it's not as if he's completely blocked from imposing other tariffs with other regulatory schemes, so, this ruling and the language the Justices used to deny Trump wasn't micromanaging trade policy, but rather establishing limits on Executive authority.

Roberts made it clear that they were't addressing trade policy so much as they were ruling on legislative prerogatives and congressional authority, so I'd expect more of that as decisions come out from behind the 'emergency' shadow-docket orders that have explicitly dodged the question of congressional power.

...but I'm pleased to see that SOMETHING got their attention enough for them to try and reassert the Constitutional primacy of Congress in allocating or directing money.

Like everything in this world, many don't care until their own ox gets gored.

When even SCROTUMS can't re-visit issues they caused without an active en-point case, and the legislature's inability to acknowledge short-sightedness many bad laws arre still on the books, and still being exploited by unscrupulous people (including many attorneys).

I remember being told in my first College-level Physics lecture "Accuracy is paramount, you are engineers now", as our professor failed the entire class on a pop quiz for making an assumption that wasn't stated in the question. Several people had objected, since they showed their working and their answer using the incorrect assumption (the gravity force being exerted) was correct.

Many years later the first mars lander crashed and was rendered an entire waste due to a similar assumption.

Lawmakers should similarly be subjected to such rigorous training.

Last edited Fri Feb 20, 2026, 05:59 PM - Edit history (2)

...writing:

Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barret have disappointed TACO Don.

He can eat shit !

Give this asshole immunity for anything related to Presidential duties? A decision that Trump has abused at every turn. And why did it take 10 months to rein this jerk in while the American economy, once the envy of the world, slipped into the ditch?

Where does the Constitution in Gorsuch's opinion and praise of constitutional language and restrictive notes on Executive power figure into that decision?

The liberal Justices are inconsistent? Pule-e-ese!

This was, however, the right decision. This time.

Last edited Sat Feb 21, 2026, 02:54 PM - Edit history (4)

...as is so predictable, power doesn't concede willingly,

In this case, it's their own self-interest that appears to have kicked in; very likely originating in a frantic call from their broker.

It was always going to be so. The question was, in my view, when they would realize their own interests were being constrained or impacted to the degree they would be compelled to act against Trump.

Even in that reasoning, I'm probably being glib. You can see the line here is drawn at the authority to tax, with the court notably reaffirming that a tariff is in fact a tax, and that foundational element of our democracy at stake.

But this is the actual fulcrum of his assumed power and authority, and it should be noted that this is the third strike by the Court on Trump in this term against his abuse of executive authority; the first in the Alien and Enemies Act decision; the second in Chicago with the Illinois National Guard ruling.

And the value here can be viewed in several ways. Up until this decision, which was really quick, we've been subjected to SC rulings on 'emergency' requests which not only fail to address the elemental issues involving Trump's abuse of executive power, but are void of any instructional language for the lower courts to follow who are loath to make decisions that will be reversed by the higher courts.

This should both give them the backbone to defend against executive overreach, but may provide a path to rule in a way that follows what Barrett and Gorsuch, for instance, have outlined in their concurrences.

For example, Gorsuch is firmly relying on his interpretation of the 'major questions' doctrine which conservatives have used to deny EPA officials for instance, from regulating industries.

At the heart of that is a concern about delegated powers over inherent ones, especially on issues that the Court has arbitrarily decided are 'big' issues for the country that shouldn't be left to one man in the presidency, but has shared responsibility with Congress.

Here he stretches that doctrine to put the hat firmly on the president, instead of just slamming regulators because they report to the WH, while essentially contradicting the three maga loyalists on the Court in turn and in detail.

It's also a 'statutory' decision which points to the text of the trade law and notes that it doesn't say anything about 'tariffs' or 'taxes,' which is a tact also adopted in concurrences by the three liberals on the Court who took issue with the 'strict interpretation' of the law, something that conservatives have been using to take down Democratic initiatives and Democratic presidencies' executive actions.

We can still acknowledge how far afield this conservative court has gone, just as they have in their 'major questions' invention, but still recognize how those decisions may advantage future court challenges.