lol

Cause you're mine and you're fine and you,
signed on the line,
Come and get your Trump ... Board of Peace 🎶
(volume on) pic.twitter.com/9LuYoQqfbC

— Caleb Howe (@CalebHowe) February 20, 2026

Rothschild? Did I spell it right, #Fatbuoy?

🚨 Les Wexner just CONFIRMED that Epstein worked for the ROTHSCHILD FAMILY—the architects of the Federal Reserve—as well as Jeff Bezos & Google.

His lawyer then leaned in and said: "I will f*cking kiII you if you answer another question with more than 5 words."

Umm WHAT?!? 😳😬 pic.twitter.com/UelCWjybhW

— The Conservative Alternative (@OldeWorldOrder) February 19, 2026

And the tar and feathering continues.....

BREAKING: 🚨 🇺🇸 🇮🇱 Epstein Files Reveal the Israeli Government Installed and Maintained Security System at Jeffrey Epstein’s Apartment.

Every chiId that was r*ped, t*rtured or eaten was for lsraeI.

Never forget that. pic.twitter.com/a5ImHTv6Ps

— ADAM (@AdameMedia) February 19, 2026

"no, but"...

Hilarious.

“THEY RAIDED THE FULTON COUNTY PLACE, STORAGE HOUSE.” 🔥🔥

The media didn’t report it. THEY ARE SO DONE. 2020 will not stand!! 💥💥💥💥 pic.twitter.com/KROf7b01oo

— 🇺🇸🍩 JULIE DONUTS 🇺🇸🍩 (@Juliedonuts) February 19, 2026

#Sieve, it won't be signing over Biden's name, it will be complete removal of Biden's name. Stay tuned, #sheep.

LOL. A man in Georgia who received a Presidential Lifetime Achievement Award from Biden crossed out Biden's name and asked Trump to sign it instead

“I don’t want his [Biden’s] name on there. So can you help me out?”pic.twitter.com/5KWyw1s49E

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) February 19, 2026

More homework. We need to consistently be over 4% to maintain entitlements that no one want to reform.

Private consumption only grew by 2.4% in the 4th quarter, a pretty average rate of growth. Not bad, but certainly not great (especially given the early predictions of >5% GDP growth) https://t.co/RQxft9LiTc pic.twitter.com/Zl7Pc7hQgM

— Jeremy Horpedahl 🥚📉 (@jmhorp) February 20, 2026

Civilized said:

---

Finally, sanity.

Overdue but incredibly welcomed.

A 6-3 Court tells Trump he lacks the power to impose tariffs under IEEPA pic.twitter.com/sFygXiggOx

— Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) February 20, 2026

---

Good. Well past time to reign in executive power.

Now get us out of the emergency declaration from COVID please

Gulfstream4 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Finally, sanity.

Overdue but incredibly welcomed.

---

Does this mean the democrat cries of the SC doing the bidding for the President were false?

---

"Doing the bidding" sounds unnecessarily dramatic.

But let's not pretend this court isn't as or more conservative than any court dating back a century.

Trump got lucky and appointed 3 justices in 4 years, so the court leans further right than it has in generations.

That is definitely true.

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Gulfstream4 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Finally, sanity.

Overdue but incredibly welcomed.

A 6-3 Court tells Trump he lacks the power to impose tariffs under IEEPA pic.twitter.com/sFygXiggOx

— Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) February 20, 2026

---

Does this mean the democrat cries of the SC doing the bidding for the President were false?

---

Lol, no. It means that this was so over the top obvious that there was no way they could rule in favor of Trump and keep any pretense of credibility. And it was still a 6-3 ruling.

---

Exactly.

There was simply no way for the SC to deny the unconstitutionality of these legally groundless tariffs and maintain their reputation, and yet still there were 3 dissenters to that opinion.

Look forward to reading the minority opinion on this one for sure.

Civilized said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Gulfstream4 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Finally, sanity.

Overdue but incredibly welcomed.

A 6-3 Court tells Trump he lacks the power to impose tariffs under IEEPA pic.twitter.com/sFygXiggOx

— Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) February 20, 2026

---

Does this mean the democrat cries of the SC doing the bidding for the President were false?

---

Lol, no. It means that this was so over the top obvious that there was no way they could rule in favor of Trump and keep any pretense of credibility. And it was still a 6-3 ruling.

---

Exactly.

There was simply no way for the SC to deny the unconstitutionality of these legally groundless tariffs and maintain their reputation, and yet still there were 3 dissenters to that opinion.

Look forward to reading the minority opinion on this one for sure.

---

The opinions are all extremely long 20+ pages. I wouldn't rush to judgement on the dissents until there's real analysis done. A dissent doesn't mean they agree with how tariffs are applied.

hokiewolf said:

---

Civilized said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Gulfstream4 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Finally, sanity.

Overdue but incredibly welcomed.

A 6-3 Court tells Trump he lacks the power to impose tariffs under IEEPA pic.twitter.com/sFygXiggOx

— Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) February 20, 2026

---

Does this mean the democrat cries of the SC doing the bidding for the President were false?

---

Lol, no. It means that this was so over the top obvious that there was no way they could rule in favor of Trump and keep any pretense of credibility. And it was still a 6-3 ruling.

---

Exactly.

There was simply no way for the SC to deny the unconstitutionality of these legally groundless tariffs and maintain their reputation, and yet still there were 3 dissenters to that opinion.

Look forward to reading the minority opinion on this one for sure.

---

The opinions are all extremely long 20+ pages. I wouldn't rush to judgement on the dissents until there's real analysis done. A dissent doesn't mean they agree with how tariffs are applied.

---

The reasoning can definitely get legally pedantic sometimes.

And when I said "Look forward to reading the minority opinion on this one for sure," I really meant "look forward to listening to the Advisory Opinions pod on the subject.

I ain't reading all that.

Civilized said:

---

Gulfstream4 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Finally, sanity.

Overdue but incredibly welcomed.

---

Does this mean the democrat cries of the SC doing the bidding for the President were false?

---

"Doing the bidding" sounds unnecessarily dramatic.

But let's not pretend this court isn't as or more conservative than any court dating back a century.

Trump got lucky and appointed 3 justices in 4 years, so the court leans further right than it has in generations.

That is definitely true.

---

Congrats on your victory.

Call me crazy but me thinks the democrats will be back to outraging when the next ruling doesn't go their way?

Gulfstream4 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Gulfstream4 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Finally, sanity.

Overdue but incredibly welcomed.

---

Does this mean the democrat cries of the SC doing the bidding for the President were false?

---

"Doing the bidding" sounds unnecessarily dramatic.

But let's not pretend this court isn't as or more conservative than any court dating back a century.

Trump got lucky and appointed 3 justices in 4 years, so the court leans further right than it has in generations.

That is definitely true.

---

Congrats on your victory.

Call me crazy but me thinks the democrats will be back to outraging when the next ruling doesn't go their way?

---

Thank you Gulf, thank you. I'm riding high today.

Seriously, the tariffs were always predictably economically harmful, punitive, not well-reasoned, unconstitutional, and just all around stupid.

Hopefully this will give American and international companies more certainty and confidence to invest in our country, along with reducing inflation, and hopefully allowing rates to fall.

I'm very pleased with this ruling.

The country has 340 million people and roughly half of those people (that care about issues anyway) will be unhappy with every ruling.

That said, tariffs were always colossally dumb and unconstitutional, made worse by Trump's openly using them as a cudgel against friends and foes alike.

Good riddance, tariffs!

Gorsuch from the top rope. Impossible to say it better.

Perfect words by Supreme Justice Gorsuch. pic.twitter.com/2YhlMd7Xhy

— Rep. Don Bacon 🇺🇸✈️🏍️⭐️🎖️ (@RepDonBacon) February 20, 2026

Listening to Trump... he feels emboldened by the ruling. He says the clarity provides him more power to impose restrictions (tariffs) ongoing. So, the SC has spoken on a specific statute; however, according to Trump, it sounds like he is going to use other statutes to get what he wants...

So, don't sit there thinking this ends as some may want...

caryking said:

---

Listening to Trump... he feels emboldened by the ruling. He says the clarity provides him more power to impose restrictions (tariffs) ongoing. So, the SC has spoken on a specific statute; however, according to Trump, it sounds like he is going to use other statutes to get what he wants...

So, don't sit there thinking this ends as some may want...

---

Kavanaugh said as much in his dissenting opinion based on an excerpt I saw.

Unfortunately, I agree that I dont think this will be the end of it.

This sums up my thoughts much more eloquently than I could:

SCOTUS got it right, in my view. Three points:

1) Justice Gorsuch’s exchange in oral arguments was so key to me. He asked if a future POTUS could use this precedent to unilaterally declare a “climate emergency” and impose policies he or she wanted as a result. The admin’s lawyer…

— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) February 20, 2026

I'll predict a FAVORABLE outcome.

FYI: Before 1913 we had a fully functional government without Taxes by using Tariffs.
pic.twitter.com/jA9ViIZwCv

— I’m that guy🌎 (@Americanthatguy) February 14, 2026

caryking said:

---

Listening to Trump... he feels emboldened by the ruling. He says the clarity provides him more power to impose restrictions (tariffs) ongoing. So, the SC has spoken on a specific statute; however, according to Trump, it sounds like he is going to use other statutes to get what he wants...

So, don't sit there thinking this ends as some may want...

---

Agree.

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

caryking said:

---

Listening to Trump... he feels emboldened by the ruling. He says the clarity provides him more power to impose restrictions (tariffs) ongoing. So, the SC has spoken on a specific statute; however, according to Trump, it sounds like he is going to use other statutes to get what he wants...

So, don't sit there thinking this ends as some may want...

---

Kavanaugh said as much in his dissenting opinion based on an excerpt I saw.

Unfortunately, I agree that I dont think this will be the end of it.

This sums up my thoughts much more eloquently than I could:

SCOTUS got it right, in my view. Three points:

1) Justice Gorsuch’s exchange in oral arguments was so key to me. He asked if a future POTUS could use this precedent to unilaterally declare a “climate emergency” and impose policies he or she wanted as a result. The admin’s lawyer…

— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) February 20, 2026

---

Honestly, I don't have a problem with it.

Gulfstream4 said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

caryking said:

---

Listening to Trump... he feels emboldened by the ruling. He says the clarity provides him more power to impose restrictions (tariffs) ongoing. So, the SC has spoken on a specific statute; however, according to Trump, it sounds like he is going to use other statutes to get what he wants...

So, don't sit there thinking this ends as some may want...

---

Kavanaugh said as much in his dissenting opinion based on an excerpt I saw.

Unfortunately, I agree that I dont think this will be the end of it.

This sums up my thoughts much more eloquently than I could:

SCOTUS got it right, in my view. Three points:

1) Justice Gorsuch’s exchange in oral arguments was so key to me. He asked if a future POTUS could use this precedent to unilaterally declare a “climate emergency” and impose policies he or she wanted as a result. The admin’s lawyer…

— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) February 20, 2026

---

Honestly, I don't have a problem with it.

---

I do. We have checks and balances for a reason. Didnt like it when Biden tried to work around the court with his student loan relief, and I dont like it here. Both are wrong and set terrible precedence.

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

Gulfstream4 said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

caryking said:

---

Listening to Trump... he feels emboldened by the ruling. He says the clarity provides him more power to impose restrictions (tariffs) ongoing. So, the SC has spoken on a specific statute; however, according to Trump, it sounds like he is going to use other statutes to get what he wants...

So, don't sit there thinking this ends as some may want...

---

Kavanaugh said as much in his dissenting opinion based on an excerpt I saw.

Unfortunately, I agree that I dont think this will be the end of it.

This sums up my thoughts much more eloquently than I could:

SCOTUS got it right, in my view. Three points:

1) Justice Gorsuch’s exchange in oral arguments was so key to me. He asked if a future POTUS could use this precedent to unilaterally declare a “climate emergency” and impose policies he or she wanted as a result. The admin’s lawyer…

— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) February 20, 2026

---

Honestly, I don't have a problem with it.

---

I do. We have checks and balances for a reason. Didnt like it when Biden tried to work around the court with his student loan relief, and I dont like it here. Both are wrong and set terrible precedence.

---

sorry you can't say that here because then you'll be told you're uninformed, fat, lazy, living off your parents money, a bad parent, etc. good Luck bro.

hokiewolf said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

Gulfstream4 said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

caryking said:

---

Listening to Trump... he feels emboldened by the ruling. He says the clarity provides him more power to impose restrictions (tariffs) ongoing. So, the SC has spoken on a specific statute; however, according to Trump, it sounds like he is going to use other statutes to get what he wants...

So, don't sit there thinking this ends as some may want...

---

Kavanaugh said as much in his dissenting opinion based on an excerpt I saw.

Unfortunately, I agree that I dont think this will be the end of it.

This sums up my thoughts much more eloquently than I could:

SCOTUS got it right, in my view. Three points:

1) Justice Gorsuch’s exchange in oral arguments was so key to me. He asked if a future POTUS could use this precedent to unilaterally declare a “climate emergency” and impose policies he or she wanted as a result. The admin’s lawyer…

— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) February 20, 2026

---

Honestly, I don't have a problem with it.

---

I do. We have checks and balances for a reason. Didnt like it when Biden tried to work around the court with his student loan relief, and I dont like it here. Both are wrong and set terrible precedence.

---

sorry you can't say that here because then you'll be told you're uninformed, fat, lazy, living off your parents money, a bad parent, etc. good Luck bro.

---

Heres the fun part. I dont care

Have it sustained over 3 years and one of them stalk you outside this forum and get back to me

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

Gulfstream4 said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

caryking said:

---

Listening to Trump... he feels emboldened by the ruling. He says the clarity provides him more power to impose restrictions (tariffs) ongoing. So, the SC has spoken on a specific statute; however, according to Trump, it sounds like he is going to use other statutes to get what he wants...

So, don't sit there thinking this ends as some may want...

---

Kavanaugh said as much in his dissenting opinion based on an excerpt I saw.

Unfortunately, I agree that I dont think this will be the end of it.

This sums up my thoughts much more eloquently than I could:

SCOTUS got it right, in my view. Three points:

1) Justice Gorsuch’s exchange in oral arguments was so key to me. He asked if a future POTUS could use this precedent to unilaterally declare a “climate emergency” and impose policies he or she wanted as a result. The admin’s lawyer…

— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) February 20, 2026

---

Honestly, I don't have a problem with it.

---

I do. We have checks and balances for a reason. Didnt like it when Biden tried to work around the court with his student loan relief, and I dont like it here. Both are wrong and set terrible precedence.

---

Maybe I was unclear but I meant I don't have a problem with the ruling from the SC.

It's the way it works. I'm not going to outrage and scream at the sky claiming the ruling is a "threat to our democracy".

Gulfstream4 said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

Gulfstream4 said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

caryking said:

---

Listening to Trump... he feels emboldened by the ruling. He says the clarity provides him more power to impose restrictions (tariffs) ongoing. So, the SC has spoken on a specific statute; however, according to Trump, it sounds like he is going to use other statutes to get what he wants...

So, don't sit there thinking this ends as some may want...

---

Kavanaugh said as much in his dissenting opinion based on an excerpt I saw.

Unfortunately, I agree that I dont think this will be the end of it.

This sums up my thoughts much more eloquently than I could:

SCOTUS got it right, in my view. Three points:

1) Justice Gorsuch’s exchange in oral arguments was so key to me. He asked if a future POTUS could use this precedent to unilaterally declare a “climate emergency” and impose policies he or she wanted as a result. The admin’s lawyer…

— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) February 20, 2026

---

Honestly, I don't have a problem with it.

---

I do. We have checks and balances for a reason. Didnt like it when Biden tried to work around the court with his student loan relief, and I dont like it here. Both are wrong and set terrible precedence.

---

Maybe I was unclear but I meant I don't have a problem with the ruling from the SC.

It's the way it works. I'm not going to outrage and scream at the sky claiming the ruling is a "threat to our democracy".

---

Oh I am not either. I think its the government working as intended, which is becoming more and more rare these days

Legislation being crafted and debated through committee rather than dictated from the Speakers Office would be a great first step.