The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that President Donald Trump violated federal law when he unilaterally imposed sweeping tariffs across the globe, a striking loss for the White House on an issue that has been central to the president’s foreign policy and economic agenda.

  • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Whoa.

    Well, I bet my pants that Justice Clarence Thomas is a dissenting opinion. Does it say in the article?

          • TheMadCodger@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            7 hours ago

            “Supreme Court justices should be [terrible thing, deadly, obviously bad outcome for them]”

            Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.

            • thesohoriots@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              6 hours ago

              Like, who knows, in a motor coach kissing a concrete pillar on the way back from Martha’s Vineyard when OnStar goes out during a Cloudflare outage?

      • orclev@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        7 hours ago

        It’s always the ones you most suspect. You could probably be closely aligned with the constitution without knowing a single thing about the law by just always taking the opposite position from whatever Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh take.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          7 hours ago

          I can’t remember what it was about, but I think Kavanaugh was actually on the correct side of a non-unanimous ruling maybe once.

          • ameancow@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            7 hours ago

            A few of them made an effort to keep up appearances during early rulings, but then they realized that democracy was falling so they went whole-hog with empowering fascism, and now we’re approaching what looks like a brutal mid-term sweep so the judges are backing off again from overt capitulation… we sure wouldn’t want the new house and senate to introduce bills to reform Supreme Court, right?

        • FaceDeer@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          I must admit I’ve been surprised by how independent of Trump Amy Coney Barrett has wound up being. She’s ruled against him a few times now.

          • floofloof@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            6 hours ago

            When she looks relatively sane and moderate it just demonstrates how crazy and extreme the fascists in charge are.

            • FaceDeer@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 hours ago

              Oh, certainly. I would never say she was a good pick for the Supreme Court. She’s a monster who has turned on her creator, as so many of them ultimately do.

      • BillyClark@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        7 hours ago

        I still think Barrett, a person who had almost no courtroom experience before being appointed, was a shitty appointment. But she’s turned out slightly less shitty than I anticipated.