The Infantile President Soils His Diapers in Reaction to Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court of the United States generally approved President Donald Trump’s policy initiatives by executive orders. For example, it ruled in favor of Trump’s ban on transgender persons from the U.S. military; its withholding of billions of dollars in foreign aid to the most vulnerable populations in the world; its withdrawal of temporary deportation protects for people fleeing persecution in their native countries.

The Court also approved the administration’s decimation of the Department of Education; and Trump’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) access to sensitive government and personal data.

Even before Trump was elected to a second term, the Supreme Court ruled in 2024 that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution. Did the majority of justices have Donald Trump in mind in their decision?

On the rare occasion that the Supreme Court ruled against Trump, the infantile President of the United States crapped his diapers after learning that the Court had declared unconstitutional his imposition of tariffs on international companies and nations across the globe.

The justices voted 6 to 3, striking down one of Trump’s signature issues, which could properly be labeled as his obsession for most of this adult life.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion stating that “We decide whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) [1977] authorizes the President to impose tariffs.”

Although President Trump “asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, or any product, at any rate, for any amount of time,” continued Roberts, the law Trump invoked to do so “cannot bear such weight.”

In other words, except in emergencies, and for limited periods of time, only the Congress can impose tariffs since they are essentially taxes on U.S. companies and U.S. consumers.

In a temper tantrum lasting 45 minutes soon after the court’s ruling, Trump lambasted the Justices in the White House press room:

“The Supreme Court’s ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing,” he began. “And I’m ashamed of certain members of the court — absolutely ashamed — for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country.”

During his diatribe, Trump assailed the Justices’ patriotism, and he indicted the court for being “swayed by foreign interests,” which he never explained and which could be viewed as projection on his part.

Trump’s harshest criticism was directed at Justices Gorsuch and Barrett whom he elevated to the court when he said with scorn: “I think it’s an embarrassment to their families, you wanna know the truth, the two of them.”

On the other hand, Trump praised the justices siding with him in their minority opinion.

“I’d like to thank and congratulate Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh for their strength and wisdom and love of our country, which is, right now, very proud of those justices,” Trump said. “When you read the dissenting opinions, there’s no way that anyone can argue against them.”

Trump commonly attacks anyone attempting to hold him accountable to the law. For example, in the summer of 2016, as he was running for the presidency, he forcefully tried to intimidate a federal judge who presided over a civil fraud lawsuit against his Trump University.

Trump argued that U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel had “an absolute conflict” due to his ethnic background, adding, “I’m building a wall. It’s an inherent conflict of interest.”

Judge Curiel was born in East Chicago, Indiana, to Mexican parents.

Precedent without Vile Attacks

Donald Trump is certainly not the only president of the United States to have been “disappointed” by Supreme and lower Court rulings they considered as opposing their executive agendas.

Examples of past presidents challenging judicial decisions include Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, FDR, Obama, Biden, and others ranging on a continuum from public criticism to, on rare occasions, public defiance.

Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809), following his presidency, roundly criticized the judicial branch’s power to proclaim what the law is and he considered the federal judiciary as a “subtle corps of sappers and miners” of the foundations of the Constitution.

Andrew Jackson (1829-1837), who wished to take Native American land east of the Mississippi River, refused to adhere to the Court’s ruling in Worcester v. Georgia (1832), which sided with Cherokee sovereignty. Jackson said of the Chief Justice, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”

In an April 1832 letter, Jackson wrote that the Court’s decision was “still born” and that the Court was unable to “coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate.”

Jackson’s opposition to the Court ruling gave permission to the state of Georgia to forcibly evict the Cherokee people onto what came to be known as the “Trail of Tears.”

Abraham Lincoln (1861-1865) publicly argued against and defied the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision upholding slavery in U.S. territories when he was running for President in 1860. In addition, he ignored a ruling by Chief Justice Roger Taney that Lincoln’s suspension of the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War was unconstitutional.

Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909) castigated the Court in his 1908 State of the Union address for causing “lasting harm” and for having no sympathy with the needs of poor people in their rulings. Roosevelt accused the Court of relying on “outgrown” 18^th-century economic principles to determine modern industrial cases.

He denounced the judiciary’s misuse of the “liberty of contract” theory that he asserted ultimately violated the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to invalidate safety laws and individuals’ rights to negotiate employment conditions like, for example, wages and hours, without government interference.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1933-1945) sharply criticized the Supreme Court for what he considered as blocking his progressive New Deal legislation. He referred to the justices’ “horse and buggy definition of interstate commerce.” Though it did not succeed, Roosevelt went further by proposing in 1937 his “court packing” plan to add up to six new justices on the Court to better guarantee more favorable rulings.

Richard Nixon (1969-1974) disputed the unanimous Supreme Court decision in United States v. Nixon (1974) compelling him to release the “Watergate tapes” by arguing for executive privilege. He eventually complied with the order, which ultimately added to the evidence resulting in his resignation.

Barack Obama (2009-2017), in his 2010 State of the Union address in front of Supreme Court members, criticized the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission by what Obama argued would “open the floodgates for special interests” by reversing long-standing campaign finance restrictions and empower corporations and other outside groups to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections.

Joe Biden (2021-2015) claimed that the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down his student loan forgiveness initiative “misinterpreted the Constitution.” His administration investigated other legal avenues to achieve these policy goals.

Trump’s Tantrums:

While past presidents have certainly disagreed with Supreme Court decisions when they were in office, most have at least maintained a certain degree of decorum and respect for the justices and the institutions of our government. Donald Trump, on the other hand, rails and bristles with personal attacks and often name-calling against anyone he perceives as standing in his way.

And who knows the reasons? Maybe because his daddy gave him everything he wanted. Maybe because his wealth insulated him from disappointment. Maybe because he considers women as disposable objects depending on his moods and tastes. Maybe he thinks he can get away with actions that others would have been held accountable for undertaking.

Or maybe Donald Trump actually believes that as President of the United States, he is all powerful and that the “unitary executive theory” Trumps (pun not intended) all articles of the Constitution by vesting unitary governmental power in the president.

Rather than working with the Congress to impose tariffs, however, Trump’s latest plan is to get around the Supreme Court:

“…I, as President of the United States of America, will be, effective immediately, raising the 10% Worldwide Tariff on Countries, many of which have been “ripping” the U.S. off for decades, without retribution (until I came along!), to the fully allowed, and legally tested, 15% level,” wrote Trump on his so-called Truth Social.

Holding fast to his tariff obsession, Trump cites the Trade Act of 1974 as authorizing the tariffs. This act, however, can only remain in effect for no more than 150 days.

Who knows what his next tantrum amounts to and who his next enemies will be.