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 ...
Help us out?
“”The president tore into the decision right after sharing cordial handshakes””
The writer should have left off the “RIGHT AFTER” - it was quite far along AFTER!!!!
She was against abortion so many assumed she was conservative. A lot of Catholics say they’re against abortion but that doesn’t mean they’re conservative. She is not.
She was willing to say anything to get her seat on the supreme court. She got it and now we must deal with it.
So, you think by him not (rightly) criticizing CINO judges that that will somehow make them support his positions?
One of the things I like about President Trump is his lack of pretense. He calls them like he sees them. Anti-American, anti-originalist justices should be constantly outed by those who love our nation and Constitution.
Where you suggested President Trump should have used the terms “appreciate” and “respect” would have made him an obvious liar and no better than the average politician.
He could have been subtler but it wouldn’t have been as illuminating for the justices or entertaining for us.
Um....Trump made another error .... SCJ are trying to “help him”???
That gave me a good laugh, this morning.
“”Trump violated a cardinal rule when he nominated her.””
That rule is???????
Both are under the command of evil ... it shows in their faces.
If the SCOTUS is determined to play politics, then they should be prepared to take the hits. For decades the court has taken a number of stances crossing over from interpreting Constitutional law to creating law through court rulings, not exclusively by legislative statutes. If you dance, you pay the piper.
wy69
“”Jus Refer to al green””
Was he ushered out of the House chamber before the president began speaking? I flipped from one channel to another and just saw him holding a sign and his cane and two guys behind him going out the door - no comments on the channel I was watching.
Thanks for listing out some of the cases where she has been on the majority.
Just in general , all three of Trump’s Supreme Court nominees are considered too liberal for many people here on Free Republic . I understand criticism of rulings on individual cases. But it’s good to know what the judge’s overall records are.
She is hardly another Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but to listen to some people, you’d swear that that’s what she is. You should look at the overall record. Consider how Ginsburg would have ruled on some of these cases, and how that contrasts with how Barrett ruled.
Just what I was expecting from you - can’t argue the point, and perhaps not the ability to read a USSC Opinion in a critical, discerning manner.
I don’t think we’re going to get an answer to our question...
What kind of answer is “I’m surprised you don’t know.” ?????
He personally picked her. I wanted the Latina from south Florida, but trump picked the pretty one. Make your bed….
Mulberry vs. Madison.. A horrible decision to grant someone a judgeship? After the appointee was out of office and the incoming president purposely delayed the appointment because he didnt want mulberry as a judge.. .. am I right? The sitting president was overridden by the supreme court...
Yes, what is the “cardinal rule?”
i thought he was even-handed - vs his strong response last week. he needed to explain how he is rearranging to achieve same ends in terms of pressure- and revenue. frankly Amy is looking more and more like Souter 2.0.as for Gorsuch, he didn’t have the guts to show up. she gets points for facing the music at least.
Forgive me, I'm not connecting the dots. Could you give some context/reference to your comment?
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.