this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2026
53 points (100.0% liked)

news

24689 readers
584 users here now

Welcome to c/news! We aim to foster a book-club type environment for discussion and critical analysis of the news. Our policy objectives are:

We ask community members to appreciate the uncertainty inherent in critical analysis of current events, the need to constantly learn, and take part in the community with humility. None of us are the One True Leftist, not even you, the reader.

Newcomm and Newsmega Rules:

The Hexbear Code of Conduct and Terms of Service apply here.

  1. Link titles: Please use informative link titles. Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed.

  2. Content warnings: Posts on the newscomm and top-level replies on the newsmega should use content warnings appropriately. Please be thoughtful about wording and triggers when describing awful things in post titles.

  3. Fake news: No fake news posts ever, including April 1st. Deliberate fake news posting is a bannable offense. If you mistakenly post fake news the mod team may ask you to delete/modify the post or we may delete it ourselves.

  4. Link sources: All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. If you are citing a Twitter post as news, please include the Xcancel.com (or another Nitter instance) or at least strip out identifier information from the twitter link. There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance, such as Libredirect or archive them as you would any other reactionary source.

  5. Archive sites: We highly encourage use of non-paywalled archive sites (i.e. archive.is, web.archive.org, ghostarchive.org) so that links are widely accessible to the community and so that reactionary sources don’t derive data/ad revenue from Hexbear users. If you see a link without an archive link, please archive it yourself and add it to the thread, ask the OP to fix it, or report to mods. Including text of articles in threads is welcome.

  6. Low effort material: Avoid memes/jokes/shitposts in newscomm posts and top-level replies to the newsmega. This kind of content is OK in post replies and in newsmega sub-threads. We encourage the community to balance their contribution of low effort material with effort posts, links to real news/analysis, and meaningful engagement with material posted in the community.

  7. American politics: Discussion and effort posts on the (potential) material impacts of American electoral politics is welcome, but the never-ending circus of American Politics© Brought to You by Mountain Dew™ is not welcome. This refers to polling, pundit reactions, electoral horse races, rumors of who might run, etc.

  8. Electoralism: Please try to avoid struggle sessions about the value of voting/taking part in the electoral system in the West. c/electoralism is right over there.

  9. AI Slop: Don't post AI generated content. Posts about AI race/chip wars/data centers are fine.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Link: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5748269-vance-supreme-court-tariff-ruling/

Linky archive: https://archive.is/72517

by Sarah Davis

Vice President Vance condemned the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down a majority of President Trump’s sweeping tariffs on Friday.

“Today, the Supreme Court decided that Congress, despite giving the president the ability to ‘regulate imports’, didn’t actually mean it,” Vance posted on the social platform X. “This is lawlessness from the Court, plain and simple. And its only effect will be to make it harder for the president to protect American industries and supply chain resiliency.

The vice president pointed to a “wide range of other tariff powers” still available to the president.

Vance’s statement echoed Trump’s remarks at the White House on Friday afternoon, when he said he was “ashamed of certain members of the court.”

A majority ruled against the Trump administration’s decision to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose steep tariffs on countries across the globe. The emergency measure grants the U.S. president the ability to place regulations on imports in response to “unusual and extraordinary” threats.

Two of the six justices in the majority opinion — Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch — were appointed by Trump.

The president criticized them in his Friday remarks to the press.

“I don’t want to say whether I regret nominating them. I think their decision was terrible,” Trump said. “I think it’s an embarrassment to their families.”

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have expressed discontent with the Trump administration’s use of IEEPA to impose tariffs, pointing to Congress’ constitutional authority over federal taxation. A resolution calling for the cessation of Trump’s tariffs passed in the Senate last fall with bipartisan support.

Recent polling indicated that most Americans felt similarly, with 67 percent of respondents expressing their support for the Supreme Court to overturn these policies in a February survey.

A recent report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York indicated that U.S. businesses and consumers took on about 90 percent of the costs of these tariffs, despite claims from the White House that foreign countries would shoulder the majority of the financial burden.

Several Republican lawmakers have come out in support of the court’s decision Friday. Kentucky’s GOP Sens. Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell — who both voted in favor of passing the Senate resolution last October — commended the ruling.

Paul, who sponsored the resolution, called the ruling a “defense of our Republic” in a post on X.

McConnell said in a statement that the court’s decision leaves “no room for doubt” on the issue of Congress’s constitutional authority over tariffs.

“Congress’ role in trade policy, as I have warned repeatedly, is not an inconvenience to avoid,” McConnell said. “If the executive would like to enact trade policies that impact American producers and consumers, its path forward is crystal clear: convince their representatives under Article 1.”

Lol, lmao

top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] microfiche@hexbear.net 21 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] SkingradGuard@hexbear.net 12 points 1 month ago

It's all really silly, isn't it?

[–] Le_Wokisme@hexbear.net 19 points 1 month ago (1 children)

so tell your boss to drone strike them

[–] ClimateStalin@hexbear.net 14 points 1 month ago

The Supreme Court has specifically ruled that the president having them all killed is in fact totally legal

[–] ExotiqueMatter@lemmygrad.ml 18 points 1 month ago (2 children)

isn't "lawlessness from the court" an oxymoron?

[–] AnarchoBolshevik@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 1 month ago

Rightists are nothing if not masters at generating oxymora.

[–] hotspur@hexbear.net 7 points 1 month ago

Yeah this is literally the highest form of court in the US, and its job is to determine what is lawful and lawless based on their “superior” knowledge of the constitution and judgment. So by definition, they cannot act lawlessly since they’re the last word on it. They could be morally bankrupt, or logically incorrect, but not lawless—at least in terms of their official options/decisions.

If they decide that the constitution really says that they should personally be free to kill pedestrians with cars, technically, that is now the law. It would be wrong and hopefully the institution would be destroyed or reformed by force, and or countermanded immediately by a new law, but it would be lawful for Thomas to drive his RV down a sidewalk in the interim.

That’s my understanding, but I acknowledge I might be missing something. Also they don’t make laws, they rule on one side or another of a law or action that is in dispute, so for my example above to be true I suppose someone would have to appeal a case up to the Supreme Court that justices should be free to murder with cars, and then they could rule on that side…

[–] nocturnedragonite@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 1 month ago

Lmao the party of law and order suddenly doesn't like the law

[–] someone@hexbear.net 1 points 1 month ago

I wonder when Trump will learn the term "stacking the court".