╌>

Trump Stuns Governors With Foul-Mouthed Rant at SCOTUS

  
Via:  John Russell  •  9 months ago  •  52 comments

By:   The Daily Beast

Trump Stuns Governors With Foul-Mouthed Rant at SCOTUS
The bipartisan event quickly took on a different tone when the president learned of the conservative court's decision.

Sponsored by group The Reality Show

The Reality Show


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


President Donald Trump became so enraged after learning the U.S. Supreme Court had struck down his global tariffs that he reportedly launched a profanity-laced tirade.

The outburst came in front of governors he had invited to the White House shortly after the high court ruled that Trump exceeded his authority by imposing across-the-board tariffs.

"President Trump became enraged after learning of the Supreme Court's ruling during the Governor's breakfast," Senior White House Correspondent Kristen Holmes wrote on X. "He at one point ranted against the decision and the court, saying 'these f--king courts' a source familiar with the matter told me."

WASHINGTON, DC - FEBRUARY 21: U.S. President Donald Trump takes questions as he addresses a meeting of governors at the White House on February 21, 2025 in Washington. Win McNamee/Getty Images

The Supreme Court's 6-3 decision came down about 30 minutes into the annual governors' breakfast on Friday morning. The event quickly took on a different tone when Trump learned of the ruling—and the fact that it was made possible by three of the conservatives on the court: Chief Justice John Roberts, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett.

U.S. Supreme Court justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr., Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan pose for a group portrait in Washington, D.C. on October 7, 2022. EVELYN HOCKSTEIN/REUTERS

Insiders told the Daily Beast that Trump described the decision as "a disgrace" but insisted he had a Plan B.


President Trump became enraged after learning of the Supreme Court's ruling during the Governor's breakfast. He at one point ranted against the decision and the court, saying "these fucking courts" a source familiar with the matter told me.
— Kristen Holmes (@KristenhCNN) February 20, 2026

Friday's White House meeting was attended by dozens of governors from both sides of politics. Democratic governors Wes Moore of Maryland and Jared Polis of Colorado both decided to attend, despite previously sparring with the president.

"I will attend today's business meeting with my colleagues at the White House. But let me be abundantly clear: I will not participate in political stun​ts," Moore said ahead of the meeting. "Americans are exhausted by the division and toxicity out of Washington, and we all pray for better."

The ruling on tariffs marks a major humiliation for Trump and a major test of his presidential powers. But the court's decision now places roughly $200 billion in tariffs collected so far under a cloud, as some companies move to seek refunds from the administration on duties already paid.

"Issue an immediate refund to all Americans for your illegal tax. Now," California Governor Gavin Newsom wrote on X.

The ruling is a blow not just because of the policy outcome, but because of who delivered it. Many in the MAGA world had been optimistic that the conservative-dominated bench would have been more sympathetic to the administration.

Chief Justice Humiliates Trump With Stunning Tariffs Rebuke'SCREWED!'Farrah Tomazin, Sarah Ewall-Wice

Last year, when the court limited federal lower courts' ability to temporarily pause Trump's executive orders through nationwide injunctions, the president praised his justices as "brilliant."

"I'm grateful to the Supreme Court for stepping in and solving this very, very big and complex problem, and they've made it very simple. I want to thank Justice Barrett, who wrote the opinion brilliantly, as well as Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Thomas. Great people."

This time, however, Roberts, Barrett and Gorsuch sided with the liberal justices on the court to strike down the policy.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has already expressed concern about the Trump administration's arguments for the tariffs. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

The role of Roberts is particularly significant, as the chief justice has long been institutionally minded, wary of rulings that could damage the Court's legitimacy.

"The President asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope. In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it," he wrote for the court.


Red Box Rules

Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that are known plagiarists, repeat comments, or continue to disrupt/deflect the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed. Any use of the phrase "Trump Derangement Syndrome" or the TDS acronym in a comment will be deleted.  Any use of the term "Brandon", "Traitor Joe", or any variations thereof, when referring to President Biden, will be deleted.  Right wing trolls can expect to have their irrelevant questions and comments deleted. Posting debunked lies will be subject to deletion. Use of the terms "leftist" or "lefty" will also be subject to deletion. ©


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JohnRussell    9 months ago

He all but called some of the justices traitors. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1  Ozzwald  replied to  JohnRussell @1    9 months ago
He all but called some of the justices traitors.

Damn them for not allowing him to violate the Constitution at will.  <sarc>

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Participates
1.2  Split Personality  replied to  JohnRussell @1    9 months ago

Within hours they had a press conference to address Plan B, a 10 percent increase in the global tariffs for 150 days while trying to imply that the other tariffs are staying.

Trump launches new 10 percent global tariff after Supreme Court ruling - POLITICO

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Junior Quiet
1.3  Igknorantzruls  replied to  JohnRussell @1    9 months ago
some of the justices traitors.

Some are

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.3.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Igknorantzruls @1.3    9 months ago
Some are

But some are traitors to the Constitution, not a fat, orange, diapered, POTUS.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.4  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  JohnRussell @1    9 months ago

Maybe they deserve it for giving him immunity.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2  TᵢG    9 months ago

Sadly, one could not predict that the SCotUS would rule in support of the law.   I am encouraged that they have done so here.   And, as usual, Thomas and Alito seem totally aligned with the Trump cult.   It is a shame that Kavanaugh is not more objective.

As usual, Trump praises those who support him and insults / ridicules those who do not.

I hope the SCotUS recognizes that the current PotUS is wholly unfit and stop trying to cater to the demands of this lunatic.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @2    9 months ago

Trump was very angry today. He thinks he is king, 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Guide
2.1.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    9 months ago
He thinks he is king, 

Unfortunately, he has some very willing subjects who call themselves patriots.  They seem to have forgotten how their country came into being.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.1    9 months ago
Trump: Others think being politically correct which has happened before far too often with members of this court. They are just being fools and lapdogs for the RINOS and radical left Democrats. They are very unpatriotic and disloyal to our constitution.
 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Guide
2.1.3  sandy-2021492  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.2    9 months ago

He seems to think that HE is the Constitution.

I'd say that qualifies as delusion.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Participates
2.1.4  Split Personality  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.1    9 months ago
he has some very willing subjects who call themselves patriots. 

Did you mean patriots or parrots?

320

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Guide
2.1.5  sandy-2021492  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.4    9 months ago

That depends on the situation, I suppose.

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Junior Quiet
2.1.6  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.4    9 months ago

Polly want a Pardon.....???

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Participates
2.1.7  Split Personality  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    9 months ago

He is now saying no refunds, see you in court 5 years from now.

"I can destroy a country but I can't charge them 1$."

The ass still doesn't get it, American companies and citizens paid 90% of the tariffs through an illegal tax.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.8  TᵢG  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.7    9 months ago

He gets it.   He does not care.   He likes imposing tariffs.   He enjoys exercising power (legit or not).

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
2.2  evilone  replied to  TᵢG @2    9 months ago

You know the Trump Admin is going to look for and use different mechanisms to keep as much of these tariffs in place as they can. Just like Biden did for the tutions forgiveness. I expect all the usual characters to loudly proclaim how brilliant it is without once acknowledging how they claimed Biden was breaking the law.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
2.2.1  Jack_TX  replied to  evilone @2.2    9 months ago
I expect all the usual characters to loudly proclaim how brilliant it is without once acknowledging how they claimed Biden was breaking the law.

The other set of usual characters were equally predictable when Biden broke the law, so yeah, I guess we know what to expect.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
2.2.2  evilone  replied to  Jack_TX @2.2.1    9 months ago
The other set of usual characters were equally predictable when Biden broke the law, so yeah, I guess we know what to expect.

Except Biden didn't break the law. I explained it multiple times why, when it happened, and included supporting links from solid sources.

Today's ruling only says International Emergency Economic Powers Act "does not authorize the President to impose tariffs."

Trump has already announced plans for a  global 10% tax. According to IBD:

President Trump said he will use authority under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose a 10% global tariff on top of other tariffs in place. Section 122 allows the president to impose a tariff as high as 15% but only for 150 days.

We'll see how this plays out.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.3  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @2.2.1    9 months ago
The other set of usual characters were equally predictable when Biden broke the law, so yeah, I guess we know what to expect.

Biden abided by the SCotUS decision and used an alternative approach.   He was denied use of the HEROES act but was allowed to use the Higher Education Act.

While I disagree with his attempt to forgive loans, he followed the law.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.2.4  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.3    9 months ago
he followed the law

no wonder maga hated him so much ...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3  seeder  JohnRussell    9 months ago

800

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
4  Jack_TX    9 months ago

Sorry, but anyone "stunned" in that situation is oblivious as fuck and needs a handler immediately to keep them from running into traffic.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Jack_TX @4    9 months ago

If Trump shot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue your response would be to wonder why anyone was surprised

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Professor Participates
5  Eat The Press Do Not Read It    9 months ago

Trump should be STRIPPED of his CLOTHES, forced to walk NAKED out of the White House, and sent immediately to PRISON.

What a relief that would be.

Now, let's all Sing It Together:

"TRUMP MUST GO, he has no hose; Strip Him NAKED, my kindred friends!

Trump must go into the snow NAKED! Let him scream, howl like an owl, and be dragged all the way downtown to a dusty, dirty PRISON CELL"!

Note: It's better than going to HELL, DONNIE!


 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6  Sean Treacy    9 months ago

President Trump became enraged after learning of the Supreme Court's ruling during the Governor's breakfast. He at one point ranted against the decision and the court, saying "these fucking courts" a source familiar with the matter told me.

If anyone thinks a President saying that is unusual.....

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
6.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @6    9 months ago

If anyone thinks a President saying that is unusual.....

I know I've asked this before, but I'm going to try again anyway....  Please provide citations for any other President saying "these fucking courts" .

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @6.1    9 months ago

Lol. Read a biograph of pretty much any President. If you don't think Presidents are intensely competitive people who hate losing and get angry when they do...[✘]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.1    9 months ago

One has to admire your determination to rationalize anything Trump does no matter how ridiculous defending him looks

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  Ozzwald @6.1    9 months ago

You have to be specific with Trump supporters.   You should phrase it as:  "Please provide citations for any other President publicly saying "these fucking courts" ."

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Junior Quiet
6.1.4  Igknorantzruls  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.2    9 months ago
One has to admire your determination to rationalize anything Trump does no matter how ridiculous defending him looks

Actually, NO, one does not have to admire how gullible and with an ability to rationalize anything Trump says or does. It falls between sad and sickening for me at least, but get your point.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6.1.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.2    9 months ago

Do you think LBJ swore when his admin lost a court case? What about Kennedy? You want to pretend Obama or Clinton didnt' MF courts or judges when they lost?[✘]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.6  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.5    9 months ago
Presidents swear. 

The issue, obviously, is the public swearing and public trolling and public threatening.   We all know that presidents will say things in private that they will not (appropriately) say in public.

You know this.   Why do you defend Trump?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
6.1.7  bugsy  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.5    9 months ago

[✘]

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6.1.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.6    9 months ago

[✘]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.9  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.8    9 months ago

I'll simplify it for you   -  Fuck Trump

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6.1.10  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.9    9 months ago

[✘]

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Professor Participates
6.1.11  Right Down the Center  replied to  bugsy @6.1.7    9 months ago

[✘]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.12  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.10    9 months ago

So you think the only reason someone would say f*** Trump is because of pure partisanship.  That is clueless and absurd

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6.1.13  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.12    9 months ago

[✘]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.14  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.13    9 months ago

Unfortunately, I did not see your brilliant comeback.

Here is the point I made:   when have you seen a PotUS publicly swear, troll, ridicule (e.g. shut up piggy, loser, ...), etc.?

A PotUS is human so of course the individual will be on worse behavior in private.   But I am asking about the public presentation.   You know, that thing we used to refer to as acting presidential?

So what was your brilliant killer comeback that you think 'won' the 'argument'?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
6.1.15  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.1    9 months ago
Read a biograph of pretty much any President.

Translation:

ab6765630000ba8ad64cc7dd94c6dd17767caed4

Never expected any less from you.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @6    9 months ago

Trump said that the US Supreme Court is under the influence of foreigners what other president has said that about the Supreme Court

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Participates
6.2.1  Split Personality  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2    9 months ago

I think it may have been a shot at Neal Katyal, who won once again at the highest possible level.

Neal Katyal was born on March 12, 1970, [ citation needed ]  in  Chicago, Illinois , to immigrant parents originally from  India . [ 6 ] [ 7 ]  His mother, Pratibha, is a  pediatrician  and his father, Surendar, who died in 2005, was an  engineer . Katyal's sister,  Sonia , is also an attorney and teaches law at  University of California, Berkeley School of Law . Neal Katyal - Wikipedia

Tariff lawyer Neal Katyal knew he had SCOTUS case to beat Trump

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
6.2.2  Ozzwald  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2    9 months ago
Trump said that the US Supreme Court is under the influence of foreigners what other president has said that about the Supreme Court

He also said that POTUS was disloyal to him.  Note:  He said to him, not to the Constitution.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
6.2.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Ozzwald @6.2.2    9 months ago
He also said that POTUS was disloyal to him.

That's supposed to be SCOTUS,

 
 
 
freepress
Freshman Silent
7  freepress    9 months ago

Why were they surprised or stunned, he spewed foul stuff at all of his rallies and his Truth Social feed is full of garbage.

His entire life is consumed with trash talking and tearing down anyone who doesn't agree with him.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
7.1  bugsy  replied to  freepress @7    9 months ago

[✘]

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
8  Tacos!    9 months ago

I don’t care that he is mad or that he used a dirty word.

I will have a problem, though, if he ignores the ruling by keeping tariffs in place or holding on to the money collected.

What I really want is that parties who paid the tariffs and passed them on to consumers, send refunds to those consumers. But that will never happen.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Participates
8.1  Split Personality  replied to  Tacos! @8    9 months ago

That sounds like everything we are watching for the last few hours. Angry defiance.  Plans to drag it out in court all the way back to SCOTUS who he is now calling out by name.

I wonder how many will bother go to the SOTU next week.

I am torn between finally ignoring a SOTU or watching what will certainly be a catastrophe of vanity, exaggerations, misinformation and lies.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
8.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Split Personality @8.1    9 months ago
I wonder how many will bother go to the SOTU next week.

it might be fun to watch somebody on the left side of the aisle heckle him, now that the right side has breached decorum in that setting a few times before in the past. maybe something like the left side holding up signs or cards that could spell out rotating insults. people chanting traitor or child molester would be hilarious. it would be fun to watch him go apoplectic on national TV with some unhinged ranting ...

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
9  Bob Nelson    9 months ago

Does anyone imagine that Roberts, Bryant, and Gorsuch will be "persuaded" by insults? 

Is this "The Apprentice II"? Reality TV?

 
 

Who is online







162 visitors