General Discussion

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.