736 Comments
User's avatar
WC's avatar

I am watching this press conference and I cannot believe this country elected this man twice.

Maureen Spitz's avatar

Musk very likely rigged the election for Trump. Winning all seven swing states?? Not so likely.

Peter's avatar

Not in a pig's eye. The 2024 election was stolen but we are not going to spend 10 years obsessing about it. We are going to come back in 2026 and hand Muck, Trump and all the MAGAs their asses.

Acela's avatar

Trump has to go. His signature policy is a farce. His lies about why tariffs were imposed are unraveling following evidence over the past year:

— They are illegal (per SCOTUS ruling).

— They made high prices go higher, with American consumers and U.S. companies paying the vast majority of them.

— They did not reduce the trade deficit. Dec 2025 and full-year trade deficits were higher than in 2024.

— The national debt keeps growing. It is growing much faster than the trickle of tariff revenues.

— The job market is one of the weakest in many years. The promised jobs did not happen.

— 2025 Q4 GDP was the weakest in years. Tariffs were supposed to juice up the economy.

His reaction? To double down on the worst economic charade to ever hit the United States of America.

Richard Bullington's avatar

How exactly? There are more than enough Republicans in the Senate who will block an impeachment. The 25th Amendment decision is dominated by The Cabinet, and who among those spineless Quislings will vote to remove him? They'd be voting to remove themselves, because JDV will have his own slate of toadies.

Milie K's avatar

I sure hope so…

TS's avatar

Yes. Remember 2016, when Trump was playing to sold-out stadiums across the country, with people overflowing into the parking lots and watching him on screens? And he STILL didn't win the popular vote. In 2024, he was playing high school auditoriums and fair grounds, and NOT filling them, and we're supposed to believe he won the popular vote?

I don't.

The "Help America Vote Act" was passed to "help" Americans vote for the candidates the owners of the voting machines determined in advance. And if we don't watch out, we're going to find we voted for a red wave (AGAIN!) instead of a blue one, as we have so many times before.

robert's avatar

thats speculative at best........ what strikes me is that there were choices far better than the Duopoly candidates....and they got hardly any votes....and ~50% of citizens didnt vote in 2024.

we say the GOP is bad but I say so are the voters. and the nonvoters

BTAM Master's avatar

The Republicans knew (or thought they knew) what they were voting for.

The Democrats either liked Harris or knew the consequences if Harris lost.

The non-voters were too lazy to think so they stayed home.

I blame the non-voters.

William Ferguson's avatar

Make voting compulsory. It is a responsibility as well as a right.

BTAM Master's avatar

I agree, but you can't underestimate stupidity: an acquaintance proudly told me "You can't blame me because I wrote in 'Micky Mouse' "

antoinette uiterdijk's avatar

Please no! Forced voting will lead to lengthy litigations. Media pundits jabbering on about it day-after-day. Endless Substacks, YouTubes, podcasts, etc. Just give voters a nice KFC coupon and they will turn up in droves.

Ligia Jamieson's avatar

I agree, every citizen and resident has to vote, otherwise they lose their right to ever get a tax refund!

Philip Brown's avatar

Compulsory voting works in Australia but it is not perfect. Some people can not be made to think, even about their own interests.

Steven Stine's avatar

Not laziness. Not those who never voter. Specifically those who voted for Biden in 2020 but abstained in 2024.

Denise Donaldson's avatar

But how do we know they abstained? Voter rolls were purged of thousands of entries in some states (e.g., Georgia), overwhelmingly Dem, and in many cases, people didn't know it until they reached the polls. Then they were theoretically permitted to use provisional ballots, which may or may not have been counted.

Then there was voter caging and required ballot curing, among other GOP dirty tricks. We know these things happened. Therefore, we don't really know who voted, who tried to vote but couldn't, or how everyone voted.

Not to mention the possibility (probability, IMO), of tampering by Elon's hacker posse. If they were going to flip votes, I don't think they'd flip Rethug votes.

Sure, there inevitably were some 2020 Biden voters who didn't vote in 2024 for various personal reasons, but the wholesale blaming of so-called lazy, uninformed, apathetic Dems might very well be unjustified.

Ian Ollmann's avatar

Most people are voting against, rather than for. In a particularly contentious election even more will vote against rather than for.

We will see what happens this year. The Republican Party is quietly hollowing out in Congress. Even Rep Greene has had it. I suppose there is always one more party apparatchik to step into the mold. This ends when the Republican voter decides to stop the insanity because he can’t afford it anymore.

Adam Murphy's avatar

Proper democracies have preferential voting systems.

Judy Steiner's avatar

How do people vote for someone who rambles about sharks, boats, magnets, and believes people are eating pets?

Richard Bullington's avatar

Because they are envious, power-mad, piezas de mierda. The LIKE brown people being beaten.

Richard Bullington's avatar

You really don't know how local elections offices work, do you? Here are a few of the safeguards that they use to prevent hacking the machines:

1. A test run with a deck of known ballots is made on each machine in the days leading up to the election. Any mis-count is considered a red flag and embargoes that machine.

2. On the day of the election a couple of machines are chosen at random, at randomly chosen precincts to run the test batch THROUGHOUT THE DAY to prevent election day hacks

3. The ballots in any tray are counted independently by a "stupid" counting machine that is not connected to the internet. When the tray is then counted by the tallying machine, and the total number of ballots must equal what the dumb machine came up with.

Here is an excellent article about all the "around the ballot count" security steps taken throughout the country:

https://act.represent.us/sign/how-votes-are-counted

Christine's avatar

And the voting machines are now owned by an election denier! Different name, same machines.

States should require in person counting of votes. No more machines. They can be hacked!

Ian Ollmann's avatar

I’m perfectly willing to believe he won because a pile of democrats stayed home rather than vote for a candidate that didn’t win the primary and was another pant suited middle aged woman. I am not opposed to such things but plenty of young men have no use for that, and Trump does well against that sort of candidate. This one is on Biden and his aides who did not recognize soon enough he wasn’t going to run.

Steven Stine's avatar

Biden should have announced in his 1/20/2021 Inauguration Speech that he would not run again.

Richard Bullington's avatar

He'd been running for President for nearly forty years. It's unlikely he ever planned to be just "a bridge to the future."

Steven Stine's avatar

You are correct. Ego... hubris… call it what you want. So never mind January 2021. By January 2024 his “handlers” knew he was too old to serve a second term. At that time they should have told him to step down and initiate the primaries. Would it have mattered? We will never know.

NSAlito's avatar

If you count the disinformative nature of the media that most Americans follow, ALL of the elections are rigged.

We have to relent and acknowledge that, in terms of political awareness and informed decisionmaking, we are definitely in a tiny minority.

Alvin Miller's avatar

I'm guessing most of Krugman's readers are high information voters. Read newspapers, watch the nightly news etc. Informed voters voted for Harris. Low information voters. Those that rely upon social media like tiktok and twitter for their news. Don't read newspapers or watch tv news. Voted for Trump. Sadly elections are determined by low information voters not high information ones. Low information voters gave us Trump.

NSAlito's avatar

Well, low information voters and committed bigots.

john huber's avatar

Don't forget the misogynists

Both male and female

M Apodaca's avatar

Add in the worldwide anti-incumbent vote for those who had to deal with the Covid aftermath.

Alvin Miller's avatar

Biden didn't fix things fast enough. Now they wish they had him back. Americans always thinking the grass is greener on the other side of the fence.

M Apodaca's avatar

Our economy was the best in the world per the recovery, but eggs cost too much.

Joseph Fleischman's avatar

Now, low info voters dislike Trump just at the same rate as high information voters. And they regret having voted for him in 2024.

Joseph Fleischman's avatar

I got that from G Elliott Morris, who's on substack. He's Krugman's go-to guy for polls and poll analysis.

Searcher76's avatar

Never underestimate the stupidity and racism of the average American.

Ligia Jamieson's avatar

I find that very sad.

antoinette uiterdijk's avatar

Mr. Trump promised to remove the peskiest of the newcomers, a.k.a. immigrants. Starting with the illegal ones. After that, the other job-stealers. This country does not want - more - immigrants. (However it needs many of them.) That promise was all it took - twice over.

Jay Jay Eh's avatar

True, but his faithful one swallowed a whole lot of other lies also.

— and the ‘immigrant’ issue represented *racism as much or more than stealing jobs or being criminals.

— now all these pro-Trump, anti-immigrants, anti-black woman for prez will have time to *reflect on how much that racism & sexism is going to cost them.

antoinette uiterdijk's avatar

I have met many a Trump supporter who was not "Caucasian". Also many non-white legal immigrants who resent those who come here without following the rules. The situation is more complicated than "racism" - although it plays a part.

I was pleasanltly surprised how many USAmericans were and are willing to help neighbors escape ICE. Maybe some things can change.

robert's avatar

go ahead, generalize about what 300 million want.

antoinette uiterdijk's avatar

Are you an immigrant? I am, I know what I am posting about. I have 30 years of experience being one.

Linda Weide's avatar

He bought it for him which is not exactly rigging because Citizens United allowed that shit to happen. Now we need to claw back our SCOTUS and that law and get rid of the oligarchs. Let them all move to Russia and suck up to Putin instead and take Trump with them.

Jack McGowan's avatar

I second that emotion!

Donna McKee's avatar

It is true that "Citizens" United v. FEC must go, but actually there is also evidence that the 2024 election was rigged in Trump's and Republicans' favor. See election truth alliance.org, SmartElections.us, and This Will Hold and It's Up To Us substacks.

The evidence is overwhelming, requiring verification of the election results by conducting hand recounts of ballots and comparing them to the official machine tabulated results in a number of counties in swing states. The pattern observed is pervasive in every state 's election data that has been analyzed by computer and election security professionals and statisticians.

A forensic audit is required if we are to ensure that our future elections are free, fair and secure. AND, we must insist that routine, risk-limiting audits are performed after every election, going forward. Also, hand-marked paper ballots as auditable records must be required. This is basic election integrity.

And btw, the Dominion electronic voting machine company was just bought by a Republican donor. This level of corrupt conflict of interest should not,and must not, be allowed in our "democratic" elections! What could possibly go wrong?

Patrice La Belle, M.D.'s avatar

Helped by Georgia's poll purges, mass ballot challenges, state voter suppression laws, and many other maneuvers. We will face them all and more in 2026 and 2028.

Donna McKee's avatar

Absolutely correct. And they've been doing it for many years.

Partha's avatar

My disbelief at Trump being elected president twice is a ritual that happens several times every day.

Cindy La Ferle's avatar

I'm astounded at the people who still defend him. I truly doubt their character and try to avoid them at all costs.

Donna McKee's avatar

You're disbelief is very well placed.

Gerben Wierda's avatar

Doesn't seem likely. However hard it is to accept, one needs to accept that people actually voted for this man. Not the popular majority, but with all the gerrymandering, voter suppression, and money/propaganda/culture war/targeting in politics, actual physical fraud isn't necessary. US elections may still be free, they are no longer fair.

Donna McKee's avatar

Yes, physical fraud WAS actually required this last time, when all of the myriad extreme partisan gerrymandering, massive voter suppression, money/propaganda/culture war/targeting in politics was STILL not even enough to elect a 47 count felon, adjudicated rapist, racist, misogynist con man to the US Presidency!

Gerben Wierda's avatar

Sorry, but I don't think any ballot fraud enough to sway the election result has been unearthed in the probably most audited US election ever. Where is the proof? Where are even the observations?

Donna McKee's avatar

I should have added sundowning to that list, too.

Rainer Dynszis's avatar

You don't need the hypothesis that it was Musk, and it would add more questions than it solves; like, how exactly would Musk have achieved that?

The much easier and therefore much more likely path -- IF the election has been rigged -- would have been voter suppression by selectively enforcing rules and regulations, e.g.: Look really, really hard for viable pretexts to prevent colored people from voting, and don't look at all if the prospective voter looks like a hillbilly.

One possible indicator is that the voter turnout in 2024 was lower than in 2020, in spite of the fact that everyone knew this time would be even more urgent.

TS's avatar

I think they cheated in every way imaginable, and some we haven't imagined yet. But in fact it's simple. You can't hack an ATM. Diebold makes them. Diebold also makes voting machines that can be accessed three different ways. They are designed to be hacked. And that's what they do.

I always thought if I taught 4th grade again, I'd set up a program on my computer, and every day all my students would vote for either extra free time, or extra homework. And every day I would inform them that they had once again voted for extra homework. Until they screamed. And learned to question everything.

Donna McKee's avatar

That's hilarious! It's a clever way to get your point across. I think we are approaching that point with our voting systems. People are finally beginning to question these absurd results that conflict not only with their "gut" feelings, but also with mounting evidence of fraud.

Donna McKee's avatar

You ask "how, exactly, would Musk have achieved that?" For starters, the source code for electronic voting machines was stolen in 3 states during the so-called "Stop the Steal" "audits" after the 2020 elections. Once you have that "proprietary" source code, it pretty easy to get access in a number of different ways. There is speculation as to exactly how it was done, which can ONLY be verified by a forensic audit.

Will's avatar
Feb 20Edited

This is why reliable, impartial polls are extremely important -- as well as a massive voter turnout. If the election is close, people can shrug and just imagine that the polls were off by 4 percentage points, as they were with Kamala in 2024. But if the polls show a 65% to 35% advantage for the Democratic candidate, it will be very hard to rig that election, and very hard to explain why the results were different from the polls by 20 percentage points.

RobWhitH's avatar

When Musk's DOGE kids showed up in Federal offices a year or so ago, they easily replaced the official servers with their own by just setting them up in some office or conference room. They looked like official servers, but they weren't. It was easy. So what would have stopped Musk from setting up servers to spoof official election servers in all those counties where they didn't have paper ballots and make false counts or false reporting of the results. No one would know --especially the people who run elections in rural counties--except Musk's people, and they would never talk upon pain of death, but kept quiet with lots of money, probably in crypto. And Trump himself said he was losing in PA until Elon did his "computer magic."

Donna McKee's avatar

Sadly, it's childs play when you have that level of unprecedented access that Musk had with his so-called DOGE scam.

Sandra Mullins's avatar

And they will try to do it again.

Denise Donaldson's avatar

Exactly. Almost certainly didn't elect him twice, and possibly not even once.

ButWhatDoIKnow's avatar

Trump: I love my low information voters.

Maura's avatar

Even Hitler was not elected by the people.

That this horrible, cold, narcissist authoritarian was voted in twice should tell us what we are as a people. We need to wake up.

WC's avatar

Yep, it's a symptom of deeper problems. I blame Fox News for much of it.

USIBARIS's avatar

poor general education, too

HCinKC's avatar

Which is why it is one of the key legs of the stool the Rs have relentlessly worked at knocking out for decades!

Marliss Desens's avatar

Well, the corporate media did not exactly cover themselves in glory with their coverage of Biden's presidency, their continued focus on Trump, and their mediocre coverage of the presidential campaign. I'd like to blame just FOX news, but the rot is much more widespread.

Ethereal Fairy's avatar

The oligarch-owned media (including the NYT) has been quietly helping behind the scenes. Remember "Weapons of mass destruction?" And "But her Emails!", publishing the propaganda piece, and easily debunked, "Clinton Cash" that gave a hack legitimacy he did not deserve. Let's not forget they tanked Joe Biden, because they wouldn't give him an interview (I would not have done it either after the way they printed every gossipy lie about his son,) and never mentioned he had been sober for years~! And Kamala laughed funny, and didn't smile enough, or too much, depending on how they felt that day, and she had no plans despite her explaining them, which they never covered. They became their own propaganda organization.

Maura's avatar

Without a doubt, The propaganda machine is har at work.

Mary's avatar

Yes! And all the opportunists that have come on the internet in their wake.

WC's avatar

Yep, doesn't everyone wonder why these MAHA people are always selling their own products? It's all a huge grift.

Frau Katze's avatar

The Fox imitators.

Charles Rice's avatar

Rupert Murdoch, Noot Gingrich, Mitch McConnell.... there are plenty of villains in this Greek tragedy.

Steve Winkler's avatar

Fox News carries much of the brunt for its deceptive “reporting” and whitewashing the harm that this reckless regime continues to perpetrate

Jay Jay Eh's avatar

I’ve read that they give bonuses for hosts telling lies,

— and actual *deductions for truth-telling.

John Gregory's avatar

yes. Polls should not just distinguish among opinions held by Democrats, Republicans and independents. There should be a sub-category of Republicans (or of all voters, but it will come to the same thing) who get their news from Fox. I suspect that there would be a serious difference between 'all Republicans' and 'Fox-fed Republicans'.

Bill Whitten's avatar

As well as that 40% who didn’t bother to vote.

Langsam Georgia's avatar

Actually Hitler was elected in the beginning…

Maura's avatar

Hitler did not win an outright majority in the final free elections. He was appointed Chancellor by President Hindenburg on Jan 30, 1933.

Winston Smith London Oceania's avatar

Biggest mistake he ever made. How fitting that the zeppelin named after him went down in flames.

robert's avatar

neither did Trump. He won with a small lead over Harris

Mary's avatar

This is news to me. I was always under the impression that he absolutely was elected.

Rainer Dynszis's avatar

You can always look it up in the Wikipedia, e.g. : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1933_German_federal_election

The TL;DR is that the election outcome did not deliver an absolute majority for Hitler's NSDAP, but only 43.9% of the votes, and 45.7% of the seats in Parliament. Meaning that his decisions could have been blocked if everyone else had voted against it.

This wouldn't have happened anyway, because blowhard communist Ernst Thälmann absolutely refused to work in any shape of form with the Social Democrats of the time.

But that wasn't enough, really, so with the help of some other parties, ironically including Martin Niemöller's preferred party DNVP (yes, THAT Niemöller), Hitler managed to pass the infamous Enabling Act that granted him dictatorial powers. Next thing you know, all competing parties were declared illegal.

Mary's avatar
Feb 21Edited

Thank you

Charles Bryan's avatar

See Donald Leonard's reply immediately under this for specifics. (Mr. Leonard typed "Hiddenberg" but it is actually "Hindenberg.") Long and short, the Weimar Republic had a parliamentary system of elections to --and proportional representation in -- its Reichstag, not a first-past-the-post system like we have in American elections.

Donald Leonard's avatar

Hitler was defeated by Hiddenberg for the Weimar Presidency, and then for the last election in 1932 the Nazi Party dropped from 37% to 33% in Reichstag elections, i.e., the party seemed to have peaked and was out of money. But a cabal of conservatives, thinking they had to include Germany’s largest party in any coalition, offered Hitler the Chancellorship and 2 other cabinet positions, thinking they could control him from within the government. A mistake, and tragedy, for the ages!

Jim Prah's avatar

As all the corps that brought gold geegaws to trump expecting the ame result and thus far it works but....

We learn nothing from history except that we learn nothing from history.

Marcus Tullius Cicero

Charles Bryan's avatar

I personally blame that weasel von Papen (who became Hitler's Vice-Chancellor).

robert's avatar

Trump is alot like the Nazis, Hitler operated the same way, the whole machinery of fascism is in play. But there are also huge differences, its not the 30s.

Maura's avatar

I agree, Robert.

Schmiegelow Michele's avatar

Yes but he never got more than 31% of the popular vote.

Charles Bryan's avatar

Just like Hitler, Trump NEVER received a majority of the ballots cast.

robert's avatar

but what has made Trump powerful is the Sct majority and the GOP majority in both Congress and the Senate. If the GOP majority survives the mid terms, will liberals finally face the fact that America is not what they hoped it should be?

Charles Bryan's avatar

We probably should have a debate on the meaning of "powerful" (and the nature of "power"). Trump's Stalingrad came in the streets of Minneapolis. The SCOTUS decision was Trump's Kursk.

robert's avatar

ending the tariff game was not a serious defeat - embarrassing maybe, but its no big deal. ICE hasnt been dealt any serious defeats. An Impeachment and Senate conviction would be serious. I dont think the GOP would let that happen unless some huge scandal forced it.

Charles Bryan's avatar

Maybe Stalingrad was a bit much, come to think of it. More like Tet '68 in the sense that it shattered the illusion of Trump's, MAGA's and ICE's omnipotence. (Most historians of the war in Indochina consider Tet '68 a tactical defeat for the NVA and NLF but a major strategic victory for them, as it decisively demonstrated to the American people that Westmoreland's strategy of attrition had failed.)

The Conversation U.S.'s avatar

Hitler's party did win the most votes in the 1933 election, although he illegitimately seized absolute power. Here's an interesting article we published on why women voted for him: https://theconversation.com/why-did-women-vote-for-hitler-long-forgotten-essays-hold-some-answers-134481

Maura's avatar

Adolf Hitler was not directly elected as leader of Germany; he was appointed Chancellor on January 30, 1933, by President Paul von Hindenburg following backroom political negotiations

Charles Bryan's avatar

Yet another reason to hate and despise all conservatives from here to eternity.

Mary's avatar

Hitler was elected.

Maura's avatar

Adolf Hitler was not directly elected as leader of Germany; he was appointed Chancellor on January 30, 1933, by President Paul von Hindenburg following backroom political negotiations

.While the Nazi Party gained popularity and pluralities in 1932, they never won a majority in a free election.

Rainer Dynszis's avatar

"he was appointed Chancellor on January 30, 1933, by President Paul von Hindenburg"

It's a bit more complicated than that. I would suggest you read here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1933_German_federal_election

Maura's avatar

Of course, it was more complicated. History shows us that. Note the paragraph below.

“However, the election was far from fair. Carried out in an atmosphere of intimidation and violence against political opponents, it was skewed heavily in the Nazis' favour. Even so, they alone received only 43.9 percent of the vote, falling short of the numbers needed to govern without a partner.”

My point was that the Nazi party, even after shenanigans were played, only received 43.9% of the vote.

Rainer Dynszis's avatar

"My point was that the Nazi party [...] only received 43.9% of the vote."

Except that's not what you wrote.

And besides, it doesn't mean what you apparently think it means. Case in point, no German party in the last 65 years ever won a majority in Parliament. You don't want to assert that this fact made the recent German chancellors illegitimate. And you can bet that today's German politicians would absolutely kill for 43.9% of the vote.

Mary's avatar

Thank you, He was going to get in any way possible

Charles Bryan's avatar

The NSDAP's share of the vote actually declined in the last free and fair election to the Reichstag in November 1932.

Mary's avatar

Thank you, I mus read up on this for sure.

Kerry's avatar

He wasn’t elected chancellor but he was elected in the Reichstag with 30% of the vote which opened the door for him to seize power. Trump has infected every area of our lives but his true nature which we get to see on display will not win him power so he’s trying to seize it.

Maura's avatar

Despite falling support in late 1932, conservative politicians persuaded President Paul von Hindenburg to appoint Hitler as Chancellor, mistakenly believing they could control him.

Winston Smith London Oceania's avatar

I can't believe it elected him once.

Ethereal Fairy's avatar

I still feel nauseous thinking of that announcement.

Winston Smith London Oceania's avatar

Hell, I still haven't recovered from St. Reagan winning in 1980.

Charles Bryan's avatar

I trace the beginnings of our rot to the election of 1980, although its roots probably extend back to Goldwater's campaign in 1964.

Winston Smith London Oceania's avatar

Even earlier - 1953 and McCarthy's infamous "Un-American Activities Committee", where both Tricky Dicky and Roy Cohn played starring roles.

Truth Will Set You Free's avatar

I made a fool of myself by telling my friend from Somalia (who, by the way served in the US ARMY back in the early nineties) that there was NO WAY TRUMP COULD WIN THE 2016 ELECTION.

Winston Smith London Oceania's avatar

It really seemed that way back then. He took us all by surprise.

Lance Khrome's avatar

"His" Court didn't show "loyalty", except maybe for Brett "Kavanaugh Stops", but Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch — "TRAITORS AND IDIOTS!!"

WC's avatar

Then he called Brett a genius, haha.

Winston Smith London Oceania's avatar

Of course he did. Sexual predators think alike.

Ethereal Fairy's avatar

Oh come on, Kavanaugh running Starr's lurid investigation of the Clinton wandering-penis, which the religious, republican, males all seemed obsessed by, judging by how often it turns up in the Starr Report, (deemed pornographic by some.) didn't qualify him to be a Supreme Court judge? I mean how else could they reward him for "services rendered"? /s😉

Winston Smith London Oceania's avatar

That was their crowning achievement, wasn't it? 😆

Ethereal Fairy's avatar

It absolutely was. They exposed a man having consensual sex. A phenomenon that mystifies them to this day.

Cheryl from Maryland's avatar

One of my life rules (developed during the President Clinton impeachment) -- NEVER support anyone who worked for or with Ken Starr (e.g., Kavanaugh AND Roberts).

Ethereal Fairy's avatar

Yes, did you know every one of Clinton’s impeachers, (the ones heading it) has been discovered to have had their own sex scandal? The last to be found out was Starr, who not only had a mistress, but failed to do the one thing he was supposedly good at, investigate sexual misconduct charges when it concerned the Baylor football team, when he was dean there.

Marliss Desens's avatar

Brett is the least qualified of his nominees.

James Harold McClure's avatar

Brett likes beer. Trump bought him a lot of domestic beer - tariff free!

Jim Prah's avatar

who paid his debts and CC memberships? Is he in the epstein files Other SC memebers on that list?

Ethereal Fairy's avatar

Supposedly, his father, did. Who was a highly paid executive with Estee Lauder. He paid all his debts so Brett would look like he couldn't be compromised, which is ironic isn't it?

"But reading between the lines of his answers to Whitehouse, it’s clear that Kavanaugh has gotten a substantial amount of financial help from his parents, in-laws, or other family members. (Kavanaugh had a privileged, private-school upbringing as the son of a Washington lobbyist for the cosmetics industry and a state prosecutor.) “We have not received financial gifts other than from our family which are excluded from disclosure in judicial financial disclosure reports,” he wrote.

Kavanaugh wouldn’t be the first Supreme Court nominee or justice to receive a windfall from his parents. Both Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Elena Kagan inherited money from parents who had died, but unlike Kavanaugh, they disclosed the estate transfer on their federal forms. The White House has worked hard to frame Kavanaugh as a mainstream fellow who, just like ordinary American dads, loves sports and drives the carpool. Publicly disclosing the extent to which his parents or in-laws may be subsidizing his high-end lifestyle could probably undermine that portrayal."

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/09/the-many-mysteries-of-brett-kavanaughs-finances/

Ambrose Bierce, Jr.'s avatar

Guess Brett is not worried about tariffs on imported beer….

Bob Bowden's avatar

He’s a genius at pumping beer up his ass

AI8706's avatar

I can. After January 6, there’s no depths our electorate won’t plumb. I have no confidence in or respect for a full third of the electorate. They’re not just ignorant; they lack very basic decency.

Cheryl from Maryland's avatar

Fewer people voted in 2024 than in 2020. That number was close to Biden's margin of victory. I feel Musk's money went to discourage many from voting, plus the rage at Biden for being old, for supporting Israel, for COVID itself, and for Harris being a black woman. It was a perfect storm that way too many fools believed. This has been a Democratic problem for decades -- Americans have voted on "vibes" or something (I think often to cover their real reasons - racism, misogony, etc). As Adlai Stevenson said in the 1950's to a supporter who enthused, "Every thinking person in America will be voting for you.” Stevenson replied, “I’m afraid that won’t do—I need a majority.”

Alvin Miller's avatar

All those protesters upset about Gaza. Blaming "Genocide Harris" for it. Weren't going to vote for her to "teach the democrats a lesson". Notice all those protests disappeared after Harris lost. Not seen them protesting "Genocide Trump", have you? Even after he gave Bibi the green light to ethnically cleanse Gaza. There have been no protests against Trump. Am I the only one that finds that suspicious? I don't have any evidence for this just a hunch. Most of those protests in 2024 were being organized by a foreign power. Russia or China maybe. In order to help defeat Harris. When that was accomplished. All the protests disappeared. Just a theory I have. It was a foreign psyop to help elect Trump.

Frau Katze's avatar

Weren’t a lot of the protests on college campuses? Yes, why did they stop? The war in Gaza didn’t stop.

RobWhitH's avatar

It wasn't China, maybe Russia, but it was Israel. Mossad infiltrated legitimate protest groups and created some others to get the young people and Arab Americans to oppose Biden/Harris's policy in favor of Israel. Remember how many were screaming that Biden was responsible for the deaths in Gaza? Netanyahu wanted Trump because he knew, correctly, that the could get anything he wanted from Trump, so he had to hurt Biden, then Harris' chances of winning in Nov. 2024. It is telling that there were massive protests in 2024, but nothing in 2025 although Israel was still killing Palestinians in Gaza and on the West Bank.

Ethereal Fairy's avatar

🎯 You might like to read "the Opinionated Ogre" here on Substack, he's been outing that for years.

Christine's avatar

And Trump was worse than Biden when it came to Israel.

Alvin Miller's avatar

The price of eggs went up. What else could we do? LOL We can thank white racism for most of it. For the record I'm white. But everyone in my family except my mom voted for Trump. Mom and I voted for Harris. Whites were the only group that had a majority vote for Trump. All 3 times. While he may have gotten a larger share of the black and hispanic vote in the last election. The majority of those groups still voted for Harris. It was white people that voted him in. White racism and maintaining white supremacy. More important than anything else to them.

Christine's avatar

Unfortunately, Harris spent too much of her time campaigning on issues that reflected only a small part of the population.

A huge number of young men were not interested in abortion or trans issues.

Plus, she didn’t distance herself from Biden enough.

Linda Williams's avatar

“Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate. Such ingratitude.”

—Elon Musk

Essmeier's avatar

I'll remind you that in both elections, voters expressed a preference for someone other than Trump.

Jim Prah's avatar

abolish the electoral college

robert's avatar

great. 'voters expressed a preference'. hilarious!

Raul's avatar

My perennial question: Why? What level of addled thinking caused people to vote for him? I mean, the bells were ringing and red lights flashing , yet people marked his name on the ballot. Sigh!

Frau Katze's avatar

Heck, a third of the voters are still happy with Trump.

Marcus's avatar

He purchased the Presidency with money from the Tech Bros. and Musk. Our democracy is very messy, with billions of dollars sloshing around every major decision.

NSAlito's avatar

"I am watching this press conference and I cannot believe this country elected this man twice."

----

You're a demographic freak who watches press conferences. Of ·course· you don't understand why this country elected this man twice.

Nancy L Cotter's avatar

2024 was a grossly rigged election… facts have been coming out for a while now, but mainstream media won’t give it air time

robert's avatar

look at the bright side - with all the crooks in the federal government today isn't it wonderful that the government hasn't collapsed completely?

Linda Weide's avatar

WC neither can I. Trump throws verbal temper tantrums all the time. I am telling you you will be better off not watching him. I enjoy so much hearing about it afterwards on some podcast where people make fun of him. It helps. I am so glad Dems and some Republicans are going to boycott of the State of the Union, which people are calling the State of the Swamp talk, because he has nothing to say except to either list all the ways in which he has and is ruining the country, or he will drag out his grievance list and his lies about all he is doing. If someone in Podunk, Kansas finds his ballroom, board of war and wars on other countries make up for the fact that their farm has gone bankrupt, well they deserve it. Those of us who are willing to see reality do not.

JoAnn Baker Paul's avatar

This evil man was installed, not elected

Anne H's avatar

What happens when trump chooses to ignore the Supreme Court?

Kim Nesvig's avatar

Seems that his pronouncement of another 10% of tariffs is literally ignoring SCOTUS. And I suppose he can disregard the law and the Court’s ruling, since the same court endowed him with absolute immunity for actions within the core constitutional powers and are presumptive immunity for all official acts. I’m still having a problem understanding how the President can ensure that laws are faithfully executed, and at the same time be immune from consequences for failing to faithfully execute (or deliberately violate) those very same laws.

Charles Bryan's avatar

Trump is calling upon another statute (Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974) that gives him the authority to impose tariffs for 150 days to address trade deficits. But, as Krugman coyly points out, tariffs collected unconstitutionally under IEEPA are not suddenly legal because of Section 122 and thus are subject to reclamation by the various importers who were compelled to pay them UNCONSTITUTIONALLY.

Marliss Desens's avatar

Trump is probably thinking he can slap them on for 150 days, then slap them on again.

Charles Bryan's avatar

The problem in your response is the gerund "thinking" used in the same sentence as "Trump."

Ethereal Fairy's avatar

Sadly it will be stuck in court, because the seditious six will coyly refuse to decide, teasing a decision, until the orange skunk-ape is dead, or out of office. And good luck suing him, or his greedy offspring.

Nevoustrumpezpas's avatar

But won't each company have to file separately with courts to recover tariffs already paid? This would be a lengthy and tedious process for the companies and the courts.

Andan Casamajor's avatar

The Democrats need to think out of the box here. File a bill with a clever formulaic approach to refunds. Parcel the refunds out to the importers who paid them, the domestic companies whose production costs were impacted, the small businesses that were hit, and consumers.

Make the importers account for where they passed on the tariff costs, where they held the line and absorbed them, let the impacted companies show their hits, let the small businesses do the same, and reserve a substantial percentage for consumer rebates, skewed toward lower incomes

There should be bipartisan support for a rational scheme that addresses the various burdens imposed. Perhaps some kind of truth and reconciliation commission to prepare reports and implement the refunds, maybe with supervision of a court. Any facially reasonable apportionment should be approved and the matter concluded

Yes, Boffin' Brett, it will be a mess, an avoidable one that is entirely your master's making. That doesn't mean that reasonable public servants can't responsibly clean it up.

Marliss Desens's avatar

Could it be done as a class-action lawsuit?

Charles Bryan's avatar

IANAL, but I can envision a theoretical class-action lawsuit. With a $200 billion (plus interest) pot of gold, I would imagine litigators are lining up to get in on that action.

Winston Smith London Oceania's avatar

A cost that will, naturally, be passed on to the consumer.

Ben Irvin's avatar

Not accurate. 122 is for balance of payments deficits - not at all the same as trade deficits. Check into it.

Charles Bryan's avatar

You say tomato, I say tomahto . . .

Bernard HP Lockhart-Gilroy's avatar

Well, actually, the refunds will go to Trump toadies like Lutnick, who snapped up the right to collect the refunds at reduced rates.

Chris Siebrasse's avatar

He's, in effect, declaring a trade war upon the whole world.

Elizabeth Crawford's avatar

He seems to want to punish SCOTUS by going around behind them and making their judgement irrelevant. He’s like a vengeful 2 year old throwing his brother’s teddy bear out of the car because mom told him no. Such a nasty little boy. But really, totally irrational — how does this punish SCOTUS? He’s just being nasty for the sake of nastiness.

Ethereal Fairy's avatar

...all while yelling "you're not the boss of me!" The cry of the oppositionally defiant disordered everywhere.

Golden Rule's avatar

Next he'll declare a real war on a country (like Iran) to show everyone he's not to be told no under any circumstances. Can our military please refuse to follow his illegal orders!?!

Kathleen Weber's avatar

There is a different law that allows a president to impose a 10% tariff for 150 days. so, trump is not ignoring the Supreme Court.

ScottB's avatar

True, but those tariffs are across the board and wouldn't allow him to wheel and deal in the same fashion as under IEEPA. I am not suggesting he won't go this route, but it will limit what he can do and may be inconveniently counterproductive. It also undermines his basic rationale for tariffs and exposes them for the money grab they are to pay for other efforts.

Winston Smith London Oceania's avatar

He's scrambling for a way to game the system, because it's a lifelong habit.

Kathleen Weber's avatar

That is true. The Supreme Court has taken a lot of power away from Trump to wheel and deal.

Bad Dreaming's avatar

And sent a flare to the rest of the world. This Supreme Court has been and is HIS. Conservative leaning with his preferred nominees in, I think, 3 of the positions?

Up until today, most people felt the Supreme Court was where you wanted to AVOID fighting Trump and his agenda.

This is a huge moment that goes way beyond tariffs. NO ONE expected this ruling. To break ranks with Trump is a big thing on its own, but to do so on his ENTIRE "economic plan" is a warning shot from somewhere.

The game just changed. He does not have universal support anymore.

Ben Irvin's avatar

I agree it's a big deal but I also noticed last week that the prediction markets expected the court to throw out the tariffs. So I don't think you can accurately say that no one expected it.

Frau Katze's avatar

I’m sure he’s got lawyers on this now!

JENNIFER HOWARD's avatar

If tariffs are going through Customs and Border Protection is this really all about grift, is Trump somehow taking these dollars?

Kathleen Weber's avatar

No tariff money goes directly into Trump's bank account. However, he claimed the power to impose a tariff of any size on any country. One way that a country can induce him to reduce a tariff is to create a side deal that benefits the Trump family. Of course, the connection between tariff reductions and side deals is never explicitly announced.

Gerald Fnord's avatar

I didn't learn of it until I read the (generally accurate) 'Bernie Gunther' novels of Philip Kerr), but the power to punish at whim, impunately, enabled intense corruption at all levels of Third Reich society.

Elizabeth Crawford's avatar

Kim Nesvig, there is a myth that impeachment rights all wrongs. SCOTUS says that impeachment is the right correction for the president. So if 60 corrupt Republican Senators manage to hang together there is no recourse for the rest of us. This whole thing is so convoluted and tortured and sad that it impossible to follow SCOTUS’s reasoning any more. It used to be that the justices competed with each other to write the clearest judgements but they sure don’t anymore.

Jennie H.'s avatar

Because they don't follow the law anymore. If they did, they'd have to give democratic presidents the same rights they've given Trump and they don't want to do that.

Elizabeth Crawford's avatar

Interesting. So corrupt. You would think they would be embarrassed by the naked nature of it all.

ira lechner's avatar

It appears to me that he concluded by invoking a universal 10% IN ADDITION to the existing Tarriffs??

ira lechner's avatar

Isn’t that what he said at the end of his speech?

robert's avatar

the SCt made it very easy for Trump to claim immunity as long as he has a colorable argument that immunity obtains. But Trump doesnt even face the Sct eg ICE detentions are blatantly unconstitutional and ongoing but whats to stop it? And when a fed dist ct orders him to stop, theres bad faith, alot of delay and stone walling.

Ronald Petrin's avatar

His oath...is that why he couldn't put his hand on the Bible when he took his oath. Id read that. Faithfully execute, defend the laws...

Something aint right...one decade now.

Democrats are fucking lame.

Just lame enuf?

John Hardman's avatar

Trump is a coward and knows he doesn't have the power to ignore SCOTUS. If he is insane enough to make that choice (a possibility), that would give Congress a clear opportunity to declare both/and Article II, Section 4 impeachment for treason, or the 25th Amendment for being mentally incapacitated. SCOTUS just gave Congress permission to take back its authority and power. Payback will be a bitch...

Bob Lesko's avatar

If only Congress would act.

John Hardman's avatar

SCOTUS just gave Congress permission to regain its authority. With the midterms looming, they just might do so. The ball is now in their court. (pun intended)

Nevoustrumpezpas's avatar

Good idea, but I don't understand why Congress needs to be nudged by the Supreme Court before asserting its authority. Republican Congress members, bought and paid for, or cowed into submission, I guess is the reason.

USIBARIS's avatar

Republican are power hungry and Trump gives them power.

so, wait for Nov 26, IF it happens.

Pandora’s Box's avatar

The GOP won’t act. Those nether regions are very tasty

Richard Class's avatar

Except that the majority, i.e., republicans, is made up of mini-trumps.

John Hardman's avatar

Being a “mini Trump” may not be an asset going into the midterms and many know it.

Winston Smith London Oceania's avatar

Technically he doesn't. But as he likes to say, they've made their decision, now let's see them enforce it.

Michael Baker's avatar

The Court has no enforcement branch. Enforcement is done by the President and Congress. So nothing will happen except noise. As pointed out by the Silver Symposium, Roberts sees the three branches as a hierarchy with SCOTUS on top and Congress on the bottom, so Roberts can have both a unitary President and he can control him. But since Roberts and the Court can't actually enforce anything, the President does what he wants.

Elizabeth Crawford's avatar

So, the president takes an oath to see that the laws be faithfully executed. Once SCOTUS rules, doesn’t that make what they say a law? So if he skirts around them and fails to see that this law be faithfully executed, isn’t that a really clear instance of breaking his oath (for the thousandth time)? So how can they avoid impeaching?

Michael Baker's avatar

No argument but the corrupt, cowardly, complicit Republicans won't impeach or convict.

robert's avatar

a ruling can only negate a law, only Congress can make or amend law.

Charles Bryan's avatar

But -- and this is a big 'But' -- Congress retains the power of the purse and can restrict or eliminate funding for Customs and Border Patrol, that part of the government responsible for collecting tariffs at the point of entry. Whether the MAGAt Congress does so is, of course, an open question. But Trump will have no alternative but to kneel before a Democratic House Majority come January 2027.

Winston Smith London Oceania's avatar

"But Trump will have no alternative but to kneel before a Democratic House Majority come January 2027". Unless he succeeds at rigging the elections - which he and his minions and enablers are working on furiously.

Marliss Desens's avatar

And many of us are working furiously, or donating to groups working furiously, to prevent his rigging the elections.

Michael Baker's avatar

I don't know if you mean a big "but" because it's unlikely to happen or because it's something Congress can do, but I'm not holding my breath.

Kathleen Weber's avatar

Trump isn't ignoring the Supreme Court. He has turned to another law that allows him to impose a 10% worldwide tariff for a 150 days

ISOequanimity's avatar

More distractions from a desperate administration that sees the writing on the wall: 47 shares Bolsonaro’s future. It’s just a matter of time. Meanwhile, arrest warrants can be issued for misprision of felony or treason at the state level in RI, VT, VA, IL, DE, or CA (state laws that apply to federal acts).

“Arguments regarding potential treason-related charges often center on allegations that Trump was aware of planned violence on January 6, 2021, and failed to act. Other discussions involved his responses to 2016 election interference. Trump's Usage: Trump himself frequently accused political opponents of treason, though these allegations did not meet the strict legal definition.” (Google AI)

Accusing others of their own actions is more than DARVO. Its formal name is “Association in a mirror (AiM)” and it’s a tactic to incite hate. https://loyola-chicago-law-journal.scholasticahq.com/article/76889-accusation-in-a-mirror.pdf

john augustine's avatar

he ignored the very law in the first place

R Mercer's avatar

Short answer: Not much. Last time I checked, SCotUS needed the DoJ to enforce the law. Ooops.

Jim Prah's avatar

President Andrew Jackson effectively ignored the Supreme Court's 1832 ruling in Worcester v. Georgia, which declared Georgia's extension of state law over Cherokee land unconstitutional. Jackson refused to enforce the decision, facilitating the forced removal of Native Americans. While often quoted as saying, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it,"

Dannys's avatar

Yes, what happens when he ignores the Supreme Court?

mike harper's avatar

You ask a worrying question. Will the military come down on the side of the president or of the subprime court.

USIBARIS's avatar

IF they obey the oath to the constitution, they may just possibly go against trump.

remember, however, that the military may be full of maga types by now, who give the orders

robert's avatar

has the military ever said no in the chain of command, 'this isnt a facially lawful order?' or actually enforce their oath? never. in Vietnam only the grunts did the fragging and resisted asinine orders.

Frau Katze's avatar

Subprime court? Is that a typo or deliberate?

Jim Prah's avatar

interesting that the SC decision comes out on a Friday assuming that it will get less press, seriously SC the news cycle is 24/7 not Mon-Fri

Linda McCaughey's avatar

Hoping it means that we can, at long last, put him in the safe underground security space under the new ballroom, close the hatch, and build the east wing back the way it was on top of the whole thing. There.

robert's avatar

his goons would simply find some other grounds for tariffs

Frau Katze's avatar

Which group actually collects the tariffs?

Linda McCaughey's avatar

I think they are direct deposited into one of Trump's accounts....

Frau Katze's avatar

I hope that’s not the case but nothing would surprise me now.

Emily Lyons's avatar

I suspect when he tries to do this the courts may immediately block it since he’s clearly stated he would do it to defy the courts. So I am getting my popcorn ready to watch. If they strike him down again immediately he’ll loose his mind, on the other hand if they take their time again (like they did this time) it won’t help him in he midterms since the tariffs are unpopular.

Frank Gaines Purdy's avatar

That is the $T question.

robert's avatar

Whatever Trumpian action a Sct ruling negates such would then have no force or effect. If it ruled all ICE detentions illegal [which they obviously are] then all such detentions would have to cease. I doubt that would do much though, likely Trump would either deny the ruling applied to certain detentions or revise the words it uses to maintain the detentions. Its a criminal administration. Its not going to respond in good faith or respect a Sct order.

Jim Prah's avatar

Nothing as andrew jackson did

President Andrew Jackson effectively ignored the Supreme Court's 1832 ruling in Worcester v. Georgia, which declared Georgia's extension of state law over Cherokee land unconstitutional. Jackson refused to enforce the decision, facilitating the forced removal of Native Americans. While often quoted as saying, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it,"

Sarah Glacken's avatar

He is a selfish pig.

George Patterson's avatar

Probably the same thing that happened when President Jackson ignored it.

Gerben Wierda's avatar

It seems that impeachment by Congress is then a remedy (because of his oath to defend the constitution and such). Congress afaik *has* enforcement apart from the executive (very little, but if Trump would try to fight that out the military would probably not follow (illegal) orders.

POTUS has immunity according to SCOTUS, but not from impeachment and conviction by Congress.

Timbo's avatar

The tariffs are all knitted together by bureaucrats doing their jobs via paper/electronic transaction authorizations. Nothing happens until the correct sign-offs are submitted. In short, there is no single person or entity that turns the tariffs on or off, flowing in or out.

Peter Nicoll's avatar

I expect Trump to act out in a range of areas. More ICE surges, bombing Iran, precipitous actions wrt NATO or UKR. He's gone full Caligula.

Patrice La Belle, M.D.'s avatar

All to retain power and wealth, and reduce the government's ability to impose any accountability.

Gail Stewart-Iles's avatar

Think of former Prince Andrew, I'm sure trump does.

Keith Wheelock's avatar

Peter Or Ivan the Terrible in his final days as Russian emperor. In a fit of anger he killed his son (and later was remorseful). He was egotistical, brutal, and revengeful. Hmmm, sounds like Donnie.

Yvette's avatar

That’s my fear. He needs to distract from his loss and Epstein.

USIBARIS's avatar

how did caligula end again?

Keith Wheelock's avatar

US Hey, Caligula was better than Donnie. He thought about naming his horse consul, but did not. Trump’s cabinet horses’ asses are legendary, from Bobby Kennedy Jr. to Att Gen of Injustice Bondi and Noem, who killed her bothersome dog.

Keith Wheelock's avatar

Jim perhaps Noem thought that her goat was her dog—or vice versa?

Keith Wheelock's avatar

US Caligula died after four years—probably not a natural death. He started out well, then became mad and brutal. He killed senators who ‘displeased’ him. Hmmm-remind you of anyone?

Gail Stewart-Iles's avatar

Caligula wasn't that bad. He liked his horse.

Peter Nicoll's avatar

I just snorted my coffee! Thank you... i think ?

Donna McKee's avatar

Caligula is the best analogy to tRUmp, for sure.

Milie K's avatar

He’s also getting close to stupidly plunging us into war with Iran

CVG's avatar

Every day I get more creeped out.

I need to use that cat as a role model.

Elizabeth Stork's avatar

Best cat photo ever!

Lance Khrome's avatar

As legal commentators pointed out, Scotus let this case languish for months after an appellate court ruled against him last August, allowing billions more in tariffs dollars to be imposed upon importers, and ultimately, the consumer. Two cheers for ruling against trump, and one big BOO! for not shutting down his blatantly unconstitutional actions as soon as the case hit the docket.

June Butler's avatar

Thank you, Lance Khrome. I thought of the case languishing for months right away. SCOTUS was not quick to act. Why did they take the case after the appellate court ruling? In the end, I suppose it's best to have the SCOTUS opinion.

Alan Forrest Imhoff's avatar

They couldn't get s*** together any faster under any circumstances. At least they did it! I'm hopeful, as I didn't expect this result.

Paul Topping's avatar

The temper tantrums almost make the tariffs worth it. I want to hear what options we have for making him pay back tariffs already collected. Having to pay them back is really going to irk him.

Dr Dave's avatar

Yeah, except given the corporate domination of US political economy, any money that actually is refunded will go to the CORPORATIONS who charged their customers -- NOT the customers who actually paid the tariffs !!!

Tom Gensemer's avatar

Actually Cantor Fitzgerald run by the Nutlick boys has been buying those very obligations for pennies on the dollar for months now.

Dr Dave's avatar

So f------g disgusting ... We know the Emoluments Clause apparently doesn't apply to Trump & Sons ... But is there any way Cantor & the Lutnicks can be sued for this both civilly & criminally ???

Tom Gensemer's avatar

By Pamela Jo?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Dr Dave's avatar

I was thinking folks like CREW or other citizen group ... As your laugh correctly indicates, anyone who expects anything from this "Trump Family Legal Department" is kidding themselves ...

Cynthia's avatar

Hahaha...tee hee....ahhh.

Patrice La Belle, M.D.'s avatar

Then, to pay back corporations for the tariffs, the federal debt will climb and the same citizen taxpayers who paid higher prices (prices that may not come back down) will have to pay more taxes to cover the interest on the new debt. Ordinary taxpayers will get hit twice by the IEEPA-violation tariffs.

RevZafod's avatar

I'm not holding my breath on getting back the 15% I paid Customs directly for a 3D printer from the Czech Republic.

Dr Dave's avatar

Exactly ... "Oh, so sorry, sir, we seem to have misplaced those records" ...

Newcavendish's avatar

This ruling shouldn't be surprising. We have six real lawyers on the Supreme Court, and it is hard to see how a real lawyer, even a very partisan one, could have ruled otherwise, on the face of the relevant statutes and the Constitution, and general Anglo-American legal principles, as Mr. Justice Gorsuch argued rather eloquently. That Trump would attack those Justices in juvenile and subversive terms is not surprising, but it is distressing. It's the same mentality as the British tabloids who attacked the Lord Chief Justice and other senior judges in Britain as "enemies of the people" when they ruled that the Brexit referendum's language meant what it said, that only Parliament could enact a final Brexit. This general phenomenon is mostly the fault of the globalized extreme right, of course, but also of the media, which tend to obscure the legal reasoning (based on statutes, constitutions and common law) behind many decisions, and just report that the court "sided with" one person or the other. This judgment is a good sign, but we need more reversion to real law, and much better reporting of the law as it develops.

Jim Prah's avatar

Interestingly, one doesn't have to be a lawyer to sit on the SC.

Rainer Dynszis's avatar

Truly interesting. Every day one learns about a new abomination.

Madeleine H's avatar

I wish his “huge temper tantrum” would result in a heart attack or debilitating stroke!!!

George Patterson's avatar

His toadies will just prop up his corpse and animate it with AI.

john augustine's avatar

weekend at bernies redux

Frau Katze's avatar

Not a joke: have you heard about AI Scott Adams? Look it up.

NSAlito's avatar

They already write some of his Truth Social tweets.

George Patterson's avatar

Right. The ones that appear to make sense.

Donna McKee's avatar

Yes, as per the old Star Trek episode. I literally would not put it past them. Would MAGA even notice?

Alan Forrest Imhoff's avatar

Except for the AI, that's what the Dems were about to do with Biden.

Langsam Georgia's avatar

Figure out how to get rid of Cance and Johnson…but not until after the midterms and then Speaker Jeffries will become president!

Teri C's avatar

Happened to Nixon and Agnew in August of the second year of their second term. Waiting for history to start with the rhyming already.

Ricardo's avatar

I'd prefer a slow and painful death

Steve Wall's avatar

Your cat expresses perfectly the feelings of most Canadians. Thanks for sharing!

Gato Feliz's avatar

As much as I adore Paul (and Robin’s) excellent work, and learn things from them every day, might I make a humble proposal?

The *true* unheralded stars of the Krugman household are, of course, their cats.

For April Fool’s Day, might they, perhaps, guest-host the column? Catty (sorry) observations of the current regime, their unvarnished feelings towards – I dunno – dogs and water-spray bottles, and the like. What impact has Trump’s tariffs had on catnip prices? You know, the IMPORTANT things!

Perhaps Paul can contribute a few (cat-appropriate) charts and Robin can support their four-pawed missive with any required research and citations.

Meowingly yours,

Jefe’s Cat

Dr Dave's avatar

Frankly, I'm shocked they ruled this way, since they'd been delaying and delaying.

Given Trump's typically infantile / toddlerish response, I'm sure, as with NBA refs, they will try to assuage him with MANY "make-up" calls in his favor.

The fly in the ointment, of course, is the continued corporate domination of US political economy,

in this case the fact that, if any money ever is refunded, it will go to the CORPORATIONS who charged their customers -- NOT the customers who actually paid the tariffs !!!

But that's a long-term dilemma and it's good those "black robed judicial activists" actually handed down a decision that WASN'T a complete violation of every relevant precedent, the usual M.O. of the Roberts / Kavanaugh "Court".

john augustine's avatar

WTF took so long....everyone including Mr. Krugman's cats knew Trump broke law from the beginning

Dr Dave's avatar

The delay is exactly why I was suspicious they were trying desperately to figure out a way to please "Boss Trump" ... But apparently even this crooked gang couldn't find a way to do it ...

john augustine's avatar

Yeah it’s shameful but most are shameless

Dr Dave's avatar

Kein scheiss, as they would say in Germany ...

Rainer Dynszis's avatar

It seems to me that the meaning of "no shit" is by and large identical?

Kevin's avatar

Howard Nutlick will make bank on this decision. Follow the money, find the truth....

Tom Gensemer's avatar

Watch for the final destruction of the voting rights act to help the toddler swallow his bitter pill.

Or it’s possible our illustrious court thought they were doing Trump a solid by providing an exit ramp and allowing for a 130 billion dollar stimulus to all his business besties on the lead up to the midterms? They may have thought he was too fucking stupid to throw away that chance. Oops.

Dr Dave's avatar

The conflict between corruption and stupidity is eternal with this gang ...

Cynthia's avatar

Agreed. I was thinking that at least a couple of them think enough damage is done and hope to claw back some relevancy. The body is not held in esteem.

Dr Dave's avatar

Unfortunately, aside from the "Tres Dissenters", there's about zero integrity -- personal or intellectual -- with the "Sullen Majority" ...

Cynthia's avatar

Correct you are. Relevancy and integrity are two different animals, especially in trump world.

fleetwooz's avatar

There was no rationale for imposing tariffs; it was all about projecting power, nothing more.

Victor Flores's avatar

it matters because....WE DO NOT HAVE A KING!!!!

Paul Topping's avatar

We have a king but shouldn't according to the Constitution.

Derelict's avatar

"If you seized money without constitutional authority, finding other revenue sources going forward doesn’t make the original seizure legal."

Does this apply to money he seized from Venezuela . . . and shuffled into a Qatari bank account only he controls?

Does this apply to the $10 billion he seized from the U.S. Treasury to fund his Board of Peace?

Does this apply to the billions of tax dollars he has illegally diverted from established cabinet-level departments to fund (or defund) other things Congress has never authorized?

Does this apply to the hundreds of millions in bribes he has solicited for his ballroom?

Does this apply to the 747 jet the Qataris illegally gave him?

So much criming!

carol corsaro's avatar

When are we going to realize….everything he does is a grift!!

Matthew Brown's avatar

"Part of Trump’s rebuttal to the Supreme Court’s decision is that the justices were being swayed by foreign interests and unnamed “slimeballs” and “sleazeballs” from other countries. Asked to elaborate, he didn’t." - NYT

Trump and his administration are NEVER swayed by foreign interests, as we all know. /s

Rainer Dynszis's avatar

It's refreshing and (to me) very surprising to read such words in the NYT. Did they discover their balls, at long last?

Liam Comer-Weaver's avatar

The ruling completely undercuts the way the administration has been governing in all arenas. Powers not clearly delegated to the executive remain contgressional. Under that logic, nothing he has done about migration has been legal.