Knew This Was Coming: Trump Lashes Out at His Supreme Court

[B.See]

Figures the man-baby (or perhaps baby-man) would finally turn on them, first time he didn't have it his way, neverminding that they've given him damn near everything he's wanted, 84 percent of the time, mostly via their under the table-type 'shadow' docket that Justice Jackson rightly described as a 'warped process' - and kinged him with complete immunity to boot.

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/16/donald-trump-supreme-court-attacks-00829708

Gas prices surging. Unemployment climbing. War with Iran threatening to engulf [him]. The fracturing of his political coalition. The collapse of his signature trade-negotiations-by-tariff strategy. Relentless scrutiny of the Epstein files. A public backlash to his agenda that could swamp Republicans in the midterms. Failure after failure to criminalize the conduct of his political adversaries.

So it was, in a fit of Sunday night fury that set Washington’s armchair psychoanalysts ablaze, that [Trump] channeled his rage at the few functioning checks on his power: the media, independent regulators and — most pointedly — the federal judiciary.

Trump’s Sunday night outburst took on all of them, but it was most notable for how he cast the Supreme Court — one that has staved off the destruction of his agenda and even his own criminal prosecution — as “a weaponized, and unjust Political Organization.”

It was a remarkable attack. Until the Feb. 20 tariff ruling, the Trump administration had been touting its winning streak at the Supreme Court. The justices have salvaged Trump’s broadest efforts to end legal protections for hundreds of thousands of noncitizens in the United States, allowed him to assert unprecedented control of once-independent agencies and unilaterally slash congressionally authorized spending.

Surprised he hasn't used the T-word yet.

But then again, they'll (no doubt) soon be right back to serving him up wins anyway.

give it some time.

[3catwoman3]

1. If there are any people in government who shouldn't need to give a...

...rat's ass about TSF, or be afraid of what he could do to them, it should be Supreme Court justices. They have appointments for life. They can't be primaried or lose an election. They can't be fired. There was one impeachment, in 1804, that ended in acquittal, so the likelihood of that happening is pretty much nil.

[B.See]

3. He takes to his Lies Social to

btch and moan and stir his rabid MAGA base of LUNATICS to phone in threats of violence etc., like they've done to other judges who've ruled against their miscreant pedo-felon in Chief.

And if they don't it'll probably be because they're too busy at the gas stations shelling out $4plus per gallon.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

2. Deadline Legal Blog-No, the Supreme Court didn't say Trump has 'absolute right to charge TARIFFS' differently

Kavanaugh’s dissent argued that the president’s backup plan might succeed, but the majority didn’t preapprove it.

MSNow : No, the US Supreme Court didn’t say trump has ‘absolute right to charge TARIFFS’ differently

www.ms.now/deadline-whi...

— Joe Public (@joepublic.bsky.social) 2026-03-16T17:05:56.633Z

https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/no-the-supreme-court-didnt-say-trump-has-absolute-right-to-charge-tariffs-differently

President Donald Trump complained on Sunday night about some of his legal losses, including last month’s Supreme Court tariffs ruling, which said he didn’t have the power he claimed to have under a law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. One of the untrue things he wrote in lengthy Truth Social posts was that the court “pointed out” that he has “the absolute right to charge TARIFFS in another form.”

It’s true that Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s dissent said that “the Court’s decision might not prevent Presidents from imposing most if not all of these same sorts of tariffs under other statutory authorities.” But that musing only represented the view of the three dissenters on the nine-member court: Kavanaugh and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts stressed that the court wasn’t weighing in on those other authorities.

Roberts wrote in a footnote that Kavanaugh’s dissent “surmises that the President could impose ‘most if not all’ of the tariffs at issue under statutes other than IEEPA.” The chief justice wrote that those other authorities “contain various combinations of procedural prerequisites, required agency determinations, and limits on the duration, amount, and scope of the tariffs they authorize.” Roberts concluded that the court doesn’t “speculate on hypothetical cases not before us.”

So, contrary to the president’s social media complaint, the court didn’t preapprove his tariffing backup plan, which is the subject of new litigation.

The high court could eventually be called on to settle that new litigation, as it did the IEEPA case. But the majority didn’t predetermine the outcome of future litigation in that case.