10 hours ago, Old Croc said:

The UK has blocked the US from using RAF bases in his upcoming Iran war. All the erstwhle friends no longer automatically follow America into conflict.

How to attract enemies, diminish influence, ruin prestige, and alienate allies.

That should be the new Trump motto.

11 hours ago, CallumWK said:

Isn't that the smile of a desperate fool?

Those Penguins are going to be really chuffed!

11 hours ago, tomazbodner said:

Wouldn't be surprised if administration simply ignored the ruling...

I agree,along with the midterm elections as well.lets hope the business community just ignores trumps illegal tariffs I’m certainly relieved as a consumer to know that at trumps whim he cannot impose a tariff tax on me.perhaps now the price of coffee and meats will come down.anyway a good day for the world’s economy’s and workers worldwide + a good day for us American consumers.gonna be a major tweet storm and lots of whining to be sure.Im going to enjoy the next few days watching trump moan 😂

12 hours ago, TedG said:

This sort of blows up the left's narrative of fascism, kings, etc.

What. not winning!!!!!!!!

AS to notion about refund chaos from AI Gemini:

In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the Court ruled 6-3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President the authority to impose tariffs. Because the administration did not escrow the funds and instead treated them as general federal revenue, the government now faces a logistical and fiscal "mess" in returning an estimated $200 billion in collected duties.

The Argument for Escrow

Proponents of the escrow approach—which included many legal scholars and some dissenting voices within the administration—argued that because the legal authority for the IEEPA tariffs was "unprecedented," the funds should have been set aside.

Legal (un)Certainty: Since IEEPA had never been used for broad tariffs in its 50-year history, many predicted the "major questions doctrine" would be used to strike them down. Escrowing would have acknowledged the legal risk.

Administrative Simplicity: An escrow fund would have allowed for automatic refunds. Instead, the administration is now insisting on a "litigation-heavy" process where companies must file individual protests or lawsuits to get their money back.

NB The Trump argument against Escrow: We're gonna win.

12 hours ago, TedG said:

This sort of blows up the left's narrative of fascism, kings, etc.

You're funny. It does nothing of the sort. It would seem you never mastered reading comprehension, let alone basic law and even a rudimentary knowledge of the constitution. You're seeing something that's not there. You're looking at apples and seeing oranges. This doesn't do anything at all but in fact apply the rule of law against a would be king and tyrant BECAUSE he tried to be a king and tyrant. It validates the position of the non MAGA, which is that much, if not most, of what Trump has done is illegal. But carry on. We could use a few more laughs and you're a natural comedian. People like you who see only in terms of "us vs them" in an ideological civil war will invariably impose their simple minded interpretations onto a complex political landscape because you haven't the capacity to actually understand law or what's really going on. YOU'RE the problem. Divisiveness is the problem. Now I bet the readers here will thoroughly enjoy your wounded ego response. I don't care myself, because neither you or anything happening in the US can touch my life in any way, and that is one of many reasons why I'm here. People like you who bring their malice and hate here don't belong. Please leave.

12 hours ago, TedG said:

This sort of blows up the left's narrative of fascism, kings, etc.

Actually, Trump's reciprocal issuance of a "Global 10% Tariff" as in In Your Face gesture to the SCOTUS ruling on tariffs being the purvey of Congress pretty much supports "the left's narrative of fascism, kings, etc.", and of course, emperors. Of course, I'll now be referred to as "a Leftie," which I'm not. Neither am I MAGA, but I am a US Conservative. That should worry both the Administration and the RNC.

1 hour ago, Slowhand225 said:

The point that went right over your head is that it worked. You'd have to know some American history though and thats gonna require reading so no, I don't expect much

And what went right over your head is the fact that you are living in the past. The world has changed. Conservatives, by definition, are anti-change. Som nom na.

1 hour ago, dinsdale said:

Not sure but Trump says there are ways as do the dissenting SCOTUS judges. Bit of same same but different.

Trump has a reputation for flouting the rules whether in his business transactions or as President. I wouldn't expect anything different this time.

Interesting side note no one has mentioned. Howard Nut... I mean Lutnick's family firm bought up the rights to tariff refunds for 20-30 cents on the dollar last year shortly after "liberation day". Meaning he was betting that SCOTUS would eventually rule this way. Grifters one and all.

1 hour ago, Slowhand225 said:

The point that went right over your head is that it worked. You'd have to know some American history though and thats gonna require reading so no, I don't expect much

1 hour ago, Slowhand225 said:

The point that went right over your head is that it worked. You'd have to know some American history though and thats gonna require reading so no, I don't expect much

Income taxes in one form or another have been around since colonial times.

27 minutes ago, Hawaiian said:

Trump has a reputation for flouting the rules whether in his business transactions or as President. I wouldn't expect anything different this time.

Different avenues are in place so still plenty of ways Trump can enforce tariffs.

1 hour ago, CallumWK said:

Bessent said litigation over refunds could turn into a months- or years-long process, and “could be a mess.” Earlier Friday, when asked about potential refunds at an Economic Club of Dallas event, the Treasury chief said he had “a feeling the American people won’t see it.”

I wonder if all those contractors Trump stiffed for payments felt the same.

3 hours ago, gargamon said:

It will be even more interesting the response when the SCOTUS shuts down birthright citizenship. Probably not before the Stae of the Union however.

He can't do that.

8 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Different avenues are in place so still plenty of ways Trump can enforce tariffs.

Yes, he's hell bent on imposing more tariffs even when statistics show they are having the opposite effect of what he claims.

People who know what they're talking about, which is to say NOT Trump nor his Carnival People Administration, know the tariffs are a mistake.

Kent Smetters, faculty director of the Penn Wharton Budget Model, notes that "40% of imports are not final goods destined for store shelves, but intermediate inputs used by U.S. companies to manufacture their own products. Consequently, tariffs act as a tax on American producers, raising their costs and making them less competitive globally."

Also, many of these inputs are low value added, almost commodity items like screws and bolts and metal strips. It makes no sense to manufacture items with such thin margins domestically.

The firm Deere has named tariffs as a major cost item, and project it to hit $1.2 billion against its profits in 2026.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-tariffs-dirty-tax-38-145000117.html

An informed explanation:

9 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Different avenues are in place so still plenty of ways Trump can enforce tariffs.

The question being - why weren't these different avenues used to begin with? Ignorance of the laws? Incompetence? Hubris? 🤔🤷

Kavanaugh's dissent is the most ridiculous I've ever read:

"The statute didn't actually say Trump can’t, so therefore he can". Ludicrous.

A 10% tariff to be imposed on everything apart from almost everything……………

certain critical minerals, metals used in currency and bullion, energy, and energy products;

natural resources and fertilizers that cannot be grown, mined, or otherwise produced in the United States or grown, mined, or otherwise produced in sufficient quantities to meet domestic demand;

certain agricultural products, including beef, tomatoes, and oranges;

pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients;

certain electronics;

passenger vehicles, certain light trucks, certain medium and heavy-duty vehicles, buses, and certain parts of passenger vehicles, light trucks, heavy-duty vehicles, and buses;

certain aerospace products; and

informational materials (e.g., books), donations, and accompanied baggage.

3 minutes ago, mikebike said:

The question being - why weren't these different avenues used to begin with? Ignorance of the laws? Incompetence? Hubris? 🤔🤷

Krugman pointed out that the reason for this: this way, Trump gets to arbitrarily impose whatever tariffs he pleases on whatever country he pleases. So he could punish Brazil for prosecuting Bolsonaro or Switzerland because he didn't like the way the Swiss president spoke to him.

1 hour ago, spidermike007 said:

How to attract enemies, diminish influence, ruin prestige, and alienate allies.

That should be the new Trump motto.

At last all sides can agree on something that Trump IS good at!

So US companies can now sue Trump's administration for the return of tariff money paid....... oh wait.....they didn't pay the tariff did they?

7 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Krugman pointed out that the reason for this: this way, Trump gets to arbitrarily impose whatever tariffs he pleases on whatever country he pleases. So he could punish Brazil for prosecuting Bolsonaro or Switzerland because he didn't like the way the Swiss president spoke to him.

So, the answer is: hubris 😉

23 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

An informed explanation:

Interesting to hear "real" facts from a "real" economist and not the garbage spewed by Trump and his underlings.

39 minutes ago, Hawaiian said:

Income taxes in one form or another have been around since colonial times.

Nobody said there wouldn't be but in this case it'd be a sales tax and or a use tax. Paying as you go is a wonderful thing, use less, pay less.

6 minutes ago, MIke B Bad said:

So US companies can now sue Trump's administration for the return of tariff money paid....... oh wait.....they didn't pay the tariff did they?

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/it-will-not-be-automatic-or-immediate-companies-brace-for-a-messy-tariff-refund-process-213206003.html

Costco (COST) is just one company that had preemptively sued the Trump administration last year to ensure its future eligibility for refunds. The lawsuit, delivered to the Court of International Trade, said the company "seeks relief from the impending liquidations to ensure that its right to a complete refund is not jeopardized."

The retailer is far from alone. Companies have been preparing for refunds since November, and more than 1,500 have filed their own tariff-related lawsuits at the CIT to get in line for tariff refunds, according to a Bloomberg analysis.

17 minutes ago, MIke B Bad said:

Kavanaugh's dissent is the most ridiculous I've ever read:

"The statute didn't actually say Trump can’t, so therefore he can". Ludicrous.

Why ? You're either pregnent or not. Can't be both
If it doesn't say you can't, then you can.
Have you never raced ? Thats the first rule of racing anything. 😂

Unlike the low IQ bumbling fools and losers calling themselves democrats, President Trump rarely bumbles around without contingencies, backups, insightful knowledge and precision step by coordinated step of strategic and timely execution of his policies and initiatives. The tariff program is no exception.

To avail yourselves of the current sent of operational constraints, the rules, laws and the "fine print" that Trump so magnificently navigates within see the references cited and attached below.

In summary:

• On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that President Trump exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) by imposing sweeping global tariffs, invalidating those duties. In response, Trump announced and signed an executive order that same day imposing a new 10% universal tariff on imports from all countries, effective February 24, using Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act as the legal basis. This provision allows the president to enact temporary tariffs of up to 15% for a maximum of 150 days to address "large and serious" U.S. balance-of-payments deficits, without needing congressional approval during that period.

• While no prior president has invoked Section 122 in this exact manner, the statute's language appears to grant Trump the authority to do so, effectively replacing the struck-down IEEPA tariffs with minimal disruption to his policy goals. He also indicated plans to pursue additional tariffs via Section 301 investigations into unfair trade practices, which could extend or expand duties beyond the 150-day limit. Legal challenges to these new measures are possible, but as of now, they are in effect.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/02/a-breakdown-of-the-courts-tariff-decision/

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/607/24-1287/

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5748682-trump-imposes-global-tariff/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/20/what-will-happen-to-trump-tariffs-after-supreme-court-verdict

https://www.bhfs.com/insight/supreme-court-restricts-presidential-tariff-authority-under-ieepa/

https://abcnews.com/Politics/trump-outlines-new-plan-tariffs-after-deeply-disappointing/story?id=130338220

9 minutes ago, Slowhand225 said:

Nobody said there wouldn't be but in this case it'd be a sales tax and or a use tax. Paying as you go is a wonderful thing, use less, pay less.

Sounds like an ideal solution except that it hurts low income people. Hawaii, where I live, taxes virtually everything including food, housing and medical services.