Why Trump is wrong to call dissenting Republican justices an 'embarrassment' for voting against his tariffs

They are "fools"!

They are "lapdogs!"

They are "disloyal"!

They should be "ashamed," an "embarrassment to their families"!

SUPREME COURT BLOCKS TRUMP TARIFFS IN MAJOR TEST OF EXECUTIVE BRANCH POWERS

They are caving to pressure from "slimeballs"!

And they are not just "radical" Democrats, but also "RINOs"!

I've almost never seen Donald Trump as angry as he was after the Supreme Court struck down his tariffs as illegal. 

When he was reading from his notes, it was barely controlled fury. When he kept going off script, he was dripping with disdain. 

TRUMP REVEALS HIS 'NEW HERO' SUPREME COURT JUSTICE AFTER TARIFFS RULING

On the Republicans In Name Only business, the stunner is that the 6-3 ruling was backed by two of his appointees, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Comey Barrett. 

They joined the majority opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, a consensus builder whom the president has tangled with in the past. 

Gorsuch and Barrett did exactly what we say we want judges to do – consider the evidence and use their best judgment in interpreting the Constitution. 

So why is Trump, who preferred to cite Brett Kavanaugh's dissent, attacking two of the conservatives in such personal terms? Are they being disloyal to the legal process in saying he didn't have the authority to unilaterally impose tariffs on countries around the world – or to him personally? 

Who are the unnamed slimeballs, by the way, and how do they wield so much clout?

During the Q&A session, Trump was asked why he didn't just work with Congress. 

"I don't have to," he said. 

But that was the central point of the high court ruling, that Trump needed congressional approval before imposing a blizzard of tariffs. 

Many conservatives who were not big fans of tariffs openly expressed relief that the Supreme Court had taken this blunt-force weapon out of Trump's hands. 

The president was on a long winning streak with this court, which, among other things, expanded his immunity for virtually all actions in office. I guess they weren't lapdogs then. But Friday's ruling made clear that even a conservative court has its limits. 

Don’t take my word for it. The Wall Street Journal’s conservative editorial page says Trump owes an apology "to the justices he smeared" and "the institution itself." He doubtless won’t offer one, but his rant in response to his tariff defeat at the court was arguably the worst moment of his presidency."

From the left, Maureen Dowd said in the New York Times that Trump threw a "hissy fit" after the court, which had been "acting subservient to the megalomaniac in the White House, suddenly found a spine."

There are even reports that he cursed the courts that day.

Trump said he would use a different law to impose a 10 percent global tariff, which by the weekend he raised to 15 percent. That can only last for five months. But more importantly, it's a modest levy compared to the draconian tariffs that the president had been imposing or threatening to impose on various countries, allies or not, as part of his trade war, or simply because he had a testy call with a foreign leader.

TRUMP RAISES GLOBAL TARIFF TO 15%

JD Vance accused the high court of "lawlessness." Sorry, Mr. Vice President, it’s fine to rip the ruling, but the court’s job is to interpret the law as it applies to the other two branches.

In an online blast aimed at Gorsuch and Barrett, Trump wrote: "They vote against the Republicans, and never against themselves, almost every single time, no matter how good a case we have." Barrett, however, voted with the majority in granting presidents sweeping immunity, though she did say the court’s decision went too far in that case.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick slammed "the misplaced gloating from Democrats, ill-informed media outlets, and the very people who gutted our industrial base, the court did not rule against President Trump’s tariffs. Six justices simply ruled that IEEPA authorities cannot be used to raise even $1 of revenue." (IEEPA is a 1977 emergency law.)

Well… the court did rule against the tariffs. And the media’s court correspondents are hardly "ill-informed," they’re specialists, in some cases lawyers. Plus, Lutnick’s own boss is blaming Republicans. 

At the presser, Trump fielded a kinda dumb question from a reporter: Are the justices still invited to Tuesday’s State of the Union? 

"Barely," said Trump. What is this, middle school? They might not get to sit at the cool kids’ table? The president said he didn’t care if they showed up, Neither does anyone else. 

SUBSCRIBE TO HOWIE'S MEDIA BUZZMETER PODCAST, A RIFF ON THE DAY'S HOTTEST STORIES

Trump was on target in saying this will be fought out in court for two years, though it will probably be much longer than that. Are the companies that paid the $175 billion in tariffs now entitled to refunds? Who knows?

We are looking at the likelihood of economic upheaval. It is, at the very least, a blow to Trump's agenda. He doesn't like being told he can't do something. For all his spin, Trump had warned that a loss in the Supreme Court would be devastating–and now we'll find out just what that looks like. 

Maybe he wants to go back to talking about UFOs?