20 Comments
User's avatar
Lynn Swisher's avatar

A hurt animal is a dangerous animal.

Susan Linehan's avatar

so which way will the wind blow? The economy is booming (looka that Dow, but don' say "fifty") or "we have been destroyed by those judicial traitors?

At least someone to blame other than Biden.

James's avatar

Take a look at paragraphs 17 - 21. They appear to have gotten jumbled. No judgment. Because of how I brainstorm, happens to me all the time.

Ken C's avatar

Your last sentence is quite significant. Kryptonite to a malignant narcissist is containment and criticism. Despite the presidential department of tailoring, feverously inventing threads to weave the emperor’s new clothes, the nakedness of Trump’s narcissistic and vacuous underbelly is now glaring.

Hell hath no fury like a narcissist scorned. Trump’s meltdown is now commencing. The house of cards, with it’s blue smoke and mirrors is about to collapse from the weight of the delusional insistence, gaslighting persuasions, and chaotic mayhem tearing at the infrastructure of governance.

Kelly's avatar

I’m more afraid than comfortable. If it was only him it would be another story. His advisers are criminals.

Vi Mooberry's avatar

Chaos reigns , the king stumbles, the SCOTUS alignment breaks, and as Chicken Little would say, " The sky is falling"! May it be so and may it be swift !

Linda Allewalt's avatar

If we really want to get under the Donald's skin about this, we should just march around the White House with signs that simply have the word "LOSER" on them.

Linda Allewalt's avatar

When I was in college in the early 70's it became fashionable for the group I hung out with to make an "L" shape with your right thumb and forefinger and hold it up to your forehead and say "Loser" when you didn't like something someone did or said. It was silly, but when I read that Trump's father used to call him a loser quite often, it made me think of that old college gesture.

Lynne Avery's avatar

I'm truly glad that SCOTUS made a ruling that defends and affirms what is clearly written in the Constitution. However, given the fact that Trump's tariffs are indisputably unconstitutional, I have to wonder why they didn't issue their opinion in December before the previous session ended. Doing so would have prevented the collection of billions of dollars that must be refunded with interest.

Of course, assuming Trump doesn't find a way to pocket it, the money won't go into the pockets of those whom the tariffs hurt, it'll go into corporate pockets.

Patricia Davis's avatar

Every rebuttal a deeper confession by the very words. He looks at the mirrored object… results sink to lower levels of self depreciation..like Heather said too “smaller”.

That ,we the readers of this marvelous SUBSTACK , get point by point truth ..with often sadly the funniest accuracy , is a privilege Fox News like the hungriest leech in the pack, never even tried for.

Thank you Mary, Heather, oh so many here.

Stay yourself with humbly the gift you give us…..

TRUTH 🫶

Jack's avatar

A suggestion: Don't hang your hat on the 150 day expiry date. I suspect he'll impose his tariffs and force the legal system to enforce the 150 day term, if it can. And he'll keep the tariffs in place while the law suits wind through the system until the Supremes take their time considering their options. The way Trump plays the delay game is the only reason he isn't in prison. It's one of his few actual skills.

Michelle Heitman's avatar

I would like to understand on what grounds the 3 judge’s gave for standing by tRumps tariffs.

Katy Bolger's avatar

The SCOTUS speaks and Iran gets bombed? More fishermen die in the open seas by indiscriminate American weapons? More memes are made and sold through some Twump family scam? More ICE agents terrorize brown and black and, if they get in the way, white people? All the comments here say that this will enrage Twump, and that outrage, WAAAAH, will make him throw his toys across the room. What are the toys? Where is the room?

WillRavenel THE STROBIS WEAKLY's avatar

This is why my father warned me never to humiliate a psychopath.

Laurie Trombley's avatar

I think I heard trump say, in all his ramblings yesterday, something about the Democrats having talked about increasing the number of Justices on the Supreme Court. Maybe I've got it wrong though. I just Googled and don't see that anyone else picked that up. At the time I thought that was his usual way of introducing something that HE is thinking of doing because he's feeling the need to pad the Supreme Court with more reliable syncophants. Did anyone else hear it? Sheesh, maybe they've really pushed me over the edge and now I'm having audio hallucinations ... LOL

Sharon Vollett's avatar

The petulant manchild strikes again. His need to get his way will hopefully keep getting harder and harder. Perhaps Congress may even join in with the law of the land and grow some...!!!

Nancy Ramsay's avatar

I’m reminded of Trump’s comment after the arrest of the former Prince Andrew that if Royalty could be arrested he no longer wanted to be a king. That it was “better to own your own Supreme Court.” Maybe he will rethink that now.