this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2026
44 points (97.8% liked)

Explain Like I'm Five

20233 readers
126 users here now

Simplifying Complexity, One Answer at a Time!

Rules

  1. Be respectful and inclusive.
  2. No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
  3. Engage in constructive discussions.
  4. Share relevant content.
  5. Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
  6. Use appropriate language and tone.
  7. Report violations.
  8. Foster a continuous learning environment.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Or is he really that dumb think ok they blocked tariffs on all the countries on my list. So I will one up them by doing a global tariff. Explain to me the thinking behind that? Sorry you have to debase yourself to understand Trump mind. no sarcasm.

top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Horsecook@sh.itjust.works 17 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

We’re flirting with a Constitutional Crisis.

The legal arguments for Trump’s actions are bullshit. There’s no reason to pay them any mind. Rule of law has long been abandoned. There’s no shortage of crimes Trump’s committed that could justify his removal from office. But the Legislative branch is filled with a mixture of traitors that desire a King, and cowards that daren’t stand against one for fear of loss of their own elevated position in society. The Judicial is, as well. At some point, perhaps now, there will come a time when the other branches of government see they’ve given up too much power and are fading into irrelevancy, and will try to assert themselves. Trump will then openly defy them. That’s the point at which the US completes the transition into a dictatorship.

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 13 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

We are full on in a constitutional crisis. Have been for a while.

[–] Horsecook@sh.itjust.works 6 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

It’s only a crisis if the Legislative or Judicial take a stand. So far, they’ve been surrendering. Even this tariff ruling is deliberately narrow to try to avoid Trump’s open defiance of the courts.

[–] bluGill@fedia.io 3 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Write your congressman - pressure is something they care about, mid term elections are coming up and fear of losing is going to start driving them.

[–] Horsecook@sh.itjust.works 5 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

write your congressman

midterms

lol. Lmao.

A dictatorship is unavoidable. The question is whether there will be sufficient violent opposition to qualify as a civil war. No resistance will come from the Democrats, they’ve spent decades disarming themselves and sanctifying victimhood as a virtue to aspire to. A new party would need to form, and there’s no indication of that yet.

[–] chickenf622@sh.itjust.works 34 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

He's using different mechanisms for enabling these new tariffs. The supreme court only said that the way the tariffs were created was unconstitutional.

[–] thesohoriots@lemmy.world 24 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

Which, when they rule with a decision worded so narrowly (as they like to do), is sort of a wink to Trump that his behavior isn’t discouraged, but technically he just did it incorrectly and got caught. 6 to 3, of course.

[–] cattywampas@lemmy.world 20 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

To play devil's advocate here, the Supreme Court's job is to interpret whether a specific thing is lawful or not according to the Constitution. It's not to encourage or discourage any general behavior or to enforce morality (any more than a system of laws already does, anyway).

[–] thesohoriots@lemmy.world 7 points 10 hours ago

True; however, from the text of the opinion:

Many statutes grant the Executive the power to “regulate.” Yet the Government cannot identify any statute in which the power to regulate includes the power to tax. The Court is therefore skeptical that in IEEPA—and IEEPA alone—Congress hid a delegation of its birth-right power to tax within the quotidian power to “regulate.”

While taxes may accomplish regulatory ends, it does not follow that the power to regulate includes the power to tax as a means of regulation. Indeed, when Congress addresses both the power to regulate and the power to tax, it does so separately and expressly. That it did not do so here is strong evidence that “regulate” in IEEPA does not include taxation.

It’s a little more subtle, but what I’m picking up is, Hey Trump’s legal team (ya clowns), in this instance, you should find a way to “regulate” that does not involve “taxation” because that falls under congress’ jurisdiction. This is your way to do it. But it will be lost on Trump, of course, because he’s madder than a rattlesnake at a Thai wedding.

[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 7 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

It was a split decision though, not the 6-3 on ideological lines that we normally get.

[–] faltryka@lemmy.world 15 points 11 hours ago

When it takes him minutes with an EO to make up a new reason for tariffs and it takes the SC months/weeks/days to undo them then the SC really doesn’t matter does it.

[–] dave881@lemmy.world 8 points 11 hours ago

As I understand it, there are several laws that allow for imposing tarrifs, each with differing requirements for justification and how large the tariff can be.

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) is one that the administration has cited as the law granting the authority for many of the tariffs imposed by this administration.

The tarrifs imposed under IEEPA are the ones that the Supreme Court were addressing with this ruling. Basically saying that the law does not give the president as much authority as he claimed, making those terrifs illegal.

Tarrifs that the administration claims are authorized under different laws will have to be the subject of separate legal claims.

[–] Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 6 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, he is really this fucking stupid. Thats all there is too it. He thinks he can puff his chest and they will back off.

[–] Soulphite@reddthat.com 7 points 11 hours ago

I mean they kinda have before on other issues. They gave the childfucker absolute immunity for any official acts he (and future presidents... just a formality) do that could be used against him in prosecution.

[–] frustrated_phagocytosis@fedia.io 4 points 11 hours ago

There's a mechanism in the law that allows for tariffs up to 15% for 150 days for trade deficits. So just wait 150 days for it to go away I guess.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 3 points 11 hours ago

So, all of the downside with disruption and loss of trade partners, with none of the upside?.sounds like trump.

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 3 points 11 hours ago

He will do whatever he thinks he can get away with.