Posted on 02/25/2026 2:58:52 AM PST by dennisw
Donald Trump faced-off in-person with Supreme Court justices who ruled against his tariffs last week.
The four justices who attended his State of the Union address were forced to remain stoned-faced as the president berated them in front of a joint session of Congress, administration officials – and the world.
The president tore into the decision right after sharing cordial handshakes with the four justices seated in the front row of his State of the Union address on Capitol Hill on Tuesday.
'Just four days ago, an unfortunate ruling from the United States Supreme Court. Oh, very unfortunate ruling,' Trump lamented.
Meanwhile, Chief Justice John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett kept straight faces during the berating despite both Republican-appointed justices joining all liberal justices in ruling against Trump's sweeping tariff policies.
Barack Obama-appointed Justice Elena Kagan and Trump-appointed Justice Brett Kavanaugh were also in the audience on Tuesday.
Trump insisted that, despite the 6-3 ruling, most countries and businesses have decided to keep the deals they negotiated with the US.
He said that he could make the tariffs even worse if he wanted to and threatened to do so at a press conference last week.
'His expression as he walked past the judges looked especially somber,' body language expert Judi James told the Daily Mail, noting a 'fading, high-pitched vocal tone of a 'disappointed' headmaster' as he 'roasted' the justices.
James said that the faces of the justices 'were held in expressionless close-up by the camera, although they appeared keen to return the eye contact from the stage.'
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
In the 1803 Marbury vs Madison decision, the court grabbed power that was not allowed in the Constitution and they got away with it.
Search Assist —
“Marbury v. Madison is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case from 1803 that established the principle of judicial review, allowing courts to invalidate laws that conflict with the Constitution.”
That decision enraged Thomas Jefferson and most everybody else. It was allowed to stand. That is why we are where we are now — a Supreme Court decision is the law of the land. The Constitution makes no provision that allows an unelected body to establish the law of the land.
It was appropriate for Trump to mention the tariffs in front of Congress because they have the power to .reverse SCOTUS’ decision with legislation. SCOTUS just happened to be there.
Amy Conehead is what she is, a disappointment to conservatives, who wanted more that someone a little better than RBG on the court. She represents what is wrong with judges coming from academic positions at ABA law school, but who consistently miss the big picture, and so resort to cutesy opinions.
Where in the U.S.Constitution does it provide for the SCOTID to make rulings on international commerce and treaties?
At least she didn’t have that look on her face like she was smelling a combo of chicken sh!t, dead corpse, and skunk — like she did last year after he shook her hand.
I wonder if the kid(s) she adopted to concoct her diverse designer family are legal.
Incredible, especially how the Dems attacked her during the confirmation hearings.
“Leave it to Barrett to accept a $2 million book deal payoff
from a book publisher “
Isn’t that the tried-and-true method of pols for laundering money — a book deal? Like nobody has figured it out yet - ;)
Your verbiage is excellent! Maybe you should apply for a job as Speech Writer.
Playing nice as you suggest only furthers liberals who eagerly threaten the SC justices to great effect. Their threats have absolutely swayed the court at times.
Conservatives can no longer allow liberals to have that uncontested power. The court bent the knee now they are open to such criticism from both sides, that is the only way to balance it out.
Perhaps my memory is wrong, but I remember Ginsburg having been put on ice in order to force the rapid decision accepting Barrett. Barrett was “pre approved” by the Senate - how convenient.
Another skunk from the state of Indiana, like Pence, and I would expect connected.
This event made me think, “This is what Checks and Balances is SUPPOSED to look like!”
If it makes women feel uncomfortable, then that should tell us something.
what was the cardinal rule?
I am tired of the idea that Court Justices are somehow supposed to be immune for criticism of their rulings.
The polished ivy veneer that has been overlaid onto the courts needs to be rubbed off, the get it wrong quite often and calling it out should not be discouraged.
that is part of the act ...
I can’t believe you don’t know.
If the President cannot set tariffs who can? Can you imagine the Senate working through 100 countries and about 3,000,000 SKU’s with the filibuster in place. Every Senator having a donor who opposes or supports a tariff on some specific thing like chicken parts from Honduras, or maple syrup from Indonesia?
They are so off base.
She and Mike Pence belong in the same category. When Trump first got in office, he knew what Democrats were like from his years as a Democrat donor, but he didn't realize how many Republicans were the same ilk. Now he knows.
Although 2020 was sickening and enraging in the extreme, I have to say, that level of corruption and betrayal really opened his eyes. He's had four years to really understand what he's dealing with now.
>> “This is what Checks and Balances is SUPPOSED to look like!” If it makes women feel uncomfortable, then that should tell us something.
It tells me that we need less estrogen and more “T” on the court. Too many rulings are fueled by emotion rather than common sense and intellect. Sadly, I think Roberts has more estrogen than T.
my guess is “no females in decision making positions”
Yes, she's "little better than RBG...". Good grief.
AJ Barrett has been in the majority on multiple landmark decisions:
Free exercise of religion (Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 2021)
And religious schools eligible for state funding (Carson v. Makin, 2022)...
And gun rights (NY State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen, 2022)...
And affirmative action (Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard/UNC, 2023)...
And Chevron deference (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 2024)...
And presidential immunity (Trump v. United States, 2024)...
AJ Barrett is a stickler on cases being fully briefed, meaning in part that they work their way through the appellate system. That irritates some people for sure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.