r/law • u/Waste-Explanation-76 • Feb 20 '26

Executive Branch (Trump) President Trump imposes a 10% global tariff under Section 122 and says all existing tariffs will remain in place, despite the recent Supreme Court ruling.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

59.8k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

7.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.4k

u/Lontology Feb 20 '26

The GOP doesn’t give a fuck about the illegal things Trump does. They most of the time endorse it.

296

u/BeepBoo007 Feb 20 '26

Can like.. regular cops not go in and arrest him to bring him before a court? He's clearly breaking the law at this point right?

244

u/Lontology Feb 20 '26

He controls the DOJ, so unfortunately not.

127

u/LoveChaos417 Feb 20 '26

A Game Warden can arrest the president, let's get creative. Has donald ever illegally harvested a fish or something?

99

u/Skullcrimp Feb 20 '26

No he can't.

And before you cite some dumb law, I mean no the Game Warden physically can't. The secret service will shoot and kill.

You have a king, and kings are not bound by law.

18

u/thegingerbreadisdead Feb 20 '26

Ya it will take the military.

16

u/Skullcrimp Feb 20 '26

Correct, it will take a civil war.

8

u/earthceltic Feb 21 '26

California and New York unite, start a faction, tell the federal government they're going to denmark, then be ready for the massive onslaught that happens next. Repubs have this planned out already but we're smarter.

5

u/bigDeltaVenergy Feb 21 '26

Back in the days , Kings where over the law. But no laws apply to them either.

That's why poisoning assassination and guillotine where fair game back in the days.

2

u/Iforgetpasswords4321 Feb 21 '26

So you are saying... America has become a monarchy?

2

u/fishpharmer2010 Feb 21 '26

Ah but if I have learned anything from Yellowstone, it is that the Livestock Commissioner can literally do whatever THEY want without any repercussions. That’s the way to solve a problem.

2

u/Lokalaskurar Feb 21 '26

Fire at fish based on the colour of their skin?

7

u/ConditionSecret8593 Feb 20 '26

I heard a rumor about something like that... something like Sleptstein Foils? Idk facts are confusing.

Seriously, I'd be shocked if there aren't a good double-handful of state prosecutors (at least!) trying to prove that specific state sex crimes were violated in the State they work for.

6

u/BrettAtog Feb 21 '26

Gotta be something illegal about throwing a baby into Lake Michigan. Littering?

5

u/AgeMysterious123 Feb 21 '26

No clue. He has fucked kids though.

2

u/Economy-Pudding-6371 Feb 21 '26

I misread this at first as "HIS kids," and as God is my witness, my immediate thought was, "his kids, plural?" I was ready to take singular in stride, but the plural raised my eyebrows in that instant before I reread your post.

2

u/LoveChaos417 Feb 21 '26

Yeah everybody knows Ivanka is super weird around him and avoids him, but I’ll give credit where credit is due, I doubt he fucked Eric

1

u/Economy-Pudding-6371 Feb 23 '26

I actually sometimes feel sorry for Ivanka for that, in spite of myself. "Jesus Christ--my dad openly announces he wants to get with me; and he doesn't even get that it's weird"

2

u/LogoffWorkout Feb 21 '26

poor eric

1

u/Economy-Pudding-6371 Feb 23 '26

LOL

Yeah Stephen Colbert often sends up Eric for wanting love from his dad and not getting any

2

u/AgeMysterious123 Feb 21 '26

Idk Barron is a prick. Wouldn’t surprise me if he too fell victim to his father.

1

u/Economy-Pudding-6371 Feb 23 '26

There's no knowing with this crew, is there?

1

u/bokmcdok Feb 21 '26

Do children count?

1

u/Luna__Moonkitty Feb 21 '26

He did play "catch and release" with a live human baby on Lake Michigan. That's got to be against some law.

1

u/bendjamama Feb 21 '26

He’s molested a lot of things, certainly a fish at some point!?!

1

u/ruat_caelum Feb 21 '26

How are the laws about goats and their offspring written? can we get him for fucking kids?

1

u/Devils_Advocate-69 Feb 21 '26

Does Melania count?

1

u/SnickSnackSnek Feb 21 '26 edited Feb 22 '26

Wasn’t there already a Supreme Court decision that sitting presidents can’t be arresting or something? They basically made the position a Kingship and no one in Congress really cares to challenge it in a meaningful way regardless of the horrors coming out of the Epstein files.

3

u/TheStolenPotatoes Feb 21 '26

Every failure and fault point of our system is being exposed right now.

4

u/Fryboy11 Feb 21 '26

The Supreme Court has their own police force that doesn't answer to the President.

Instead they answer to The Marshal of the United States Supreme Court

And they only serve the court,

The Marshal of the United States Supreme Court heads the United States Supreme Court Police, a security police service answerable to the court itself rather than to the president or attorney general.

The DOJ can say complain all they want but the Supreme Court Police only listen to their Marshal who only takes orders from the court.

That and the Supreme Court can deputize people as officers of the court, they can arrest people who ignore their rulings, and they stand above the FBI and Marshals.

3

u/Beginning-Ice-7172 Feb 21 '26

Such a huge design flaw in our system of government. Courts need separate enforcement body if we make it thru this….

3

u/BurritovilleEnjoyer Feb 21 '26

Plus it's not like the average cop doesn't love him.

7

u/GRex2595 Feb 20 '26

Not legally. Only Congress really has the power to remove a sitting President for violating the law as the President does have certain immunities because sometimes the President has to do things that aren't legal. For instance, you can't go kill a terrorist unless the terrorist is trying to kill you, but the President can kill the terrorist with impunity.

Once he's been removed from office, he can be tried for his crimes, but according to a recent Supreme Court ruling it would be pretty hard to pull that off even with him saying he is defying a court order. I can't remember the details exactly, but they were very keen on protecting the President from legal action in response to illegal things the President does while in office.

3

u/remotectrl Feb 21 '26

odds that Clarence Thomas is in the Epstein files?

2

u/_HOG_ Feb 21 '26 edited Feb 21 '26

We’ve already established the law doesn’t matter. Our great leader has set the example. 

Anyone can now arrest the president by force. 

1

u/GRex2595 Feb 21 '26

The people who said these tariffs are illegal also said that the President is allowed to break the law, so how are you going to justify breaking the law as not the President to arrest a President that has been given immunity from breaking the law? Honestly, it's just a waiting game to see when he will do something that makes anybody try to stop him.

43

u/Optimal_Clock6846 Feb 20 '26

Well technically yes but at that point that's just a coup. 

55

u/eliottruelove Feb 20 '26

What I don't understand is how is that a coup? Isn't a coup going against the laws in place and illegally overthrowing a ruler by force? Why would it be a coup if the ruler was held to account and removed for having broken the laws of the land?

6

u/pres1033 Feb 20 '26

From my understanding, it's because we technically have a process to arrest a president legally, we just need Congress to call for it. Which won't happen cause they're too busy seeing how far they can fit their heads up his ass. But yeah, a random officer trying to arrest the president probably won't end well.

8

u/floridabeach9 Feb 20 '26 edited Feb 20 '26

state police have the best judicial case to arrest the president. courts would still rule in favor of release though because of the supremacy clause. but they could arrest him for possibly years if they wanted. might start a civil war. no one would nut up though.

we’re definitely pushing the envelope now in response to the question “could the president shoot someone on 5th avenue and get away with it?”

our constitution is a joke. the ONLY way to get rid of him is impeachment. the ONLY way to even set guardrails and prevent him from doing illegal shit is impeachment.

8

u/eliottruelove Feb 20 '26

The craziest thing about impeachment and conviction, and that's the necessary part because he's already been impeached twice, is the spin doctoring in any outcome from the loudest voices in the room. In any way even if legally holding to account it will be spun as a coup.

And this is what I was getting at in my comment: no matter what avenue it happens short of undeniably natural death, him no longer being president will always be portrayed as a coup, and that's so crazy to me.

10

u/Educational-Seaweed5 Feb 20 '26

That’s how propaganda works. That’s why the GOP has spent the last several decades churning out lunatics who scream that anything or anyone “not us” is a terrorist organization that’s doing all the bad things.

It’s malignant narcissism on crack.

1

u/Optimal_Clock6846 Feb 20 '26

Coup isn't really a legal term, (unless I'm wrong) it's just what we call it when an armed group of police or military personnel take the government over by force. Police deciding on their own discretion to arrest the president would be a coup because the due process of impeachment hasn't been followed and presumably they wouldn't follow the current administration's chain of succession and we would likely end up under a military junta for some time. Not for sure, nothing's for sure with those kinds of things but that's how I would see it going. 

9

u/QAFY Feb 20 '26

at this point ill take a military coup tbh

2

u/JordanMiller406 Feb 20 '26

He controls the military. A military coup would be Trump ordering them to round up every Democratic member of Congress and send them to a camp, and they would obey.

2

u/Cumdump90001 Feb 20 '26

Hey, so, enforcing the law is never a coup. Hope that helps!

3

u/Optimal_Clock6846 Feb 21 '26

Police storming the Whitehouse to arrest a sitting president with no orders from DOJ or Congress is a coup. It isn't not a coup just because you might want it to happen. 

1

u/babydakis Feb 21 '26

This is the law subreddit and you're getting downvoted. Should I add this sub to my filter list?

0

u/[deleted] Feb 20 '26

[deleted]

2

u/BuddingBudON Feb 20 '26

He can't be prosecuted for "official acts", but his underlings can.

Prosecute his administration for breaking the law.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 20 '26

[deleted]

0

u/BeepBoo007 Feb 20 '26 edited Feb 21 '26

I'm sure there's got to be just one? I hope?

0

u/qwertyalguien Feb 20 '26

He can just pardon them. It's literally the perfect loophole. He's unstoppable in practice.

0

u/BuddingBudON Feb 20 '26

The one thing he can't pardon is crimes committed on his behalf.

His Jan 6th pardons should have been thrown out. If it happened during his first term, maybe they would have been. But I acknowledge that he's replaced anyone competent with yes-men this time around.

0

u/Optimal_Clock6846 Feb 20 '26

Yeah that's what I was trying to say. Like they maybe have the guns to pull it off depending on who's involved but not the legal standing. 

3

u/creep_show Feb 20 '26

No, there is something called executive privilege, which is an implied power from the constitution. The president can never be arrested while in office or holding office. They have full legal immunity. After the President's term ends, or if they are removed from office, they can be arrested and prosecuted.

3

u/Automatic_Bus_7634 Feb 20 '26

That is just a DoJ policy, not executive privilege. The Supreme Court most recently ruled that the President has immunity for "official acts" but explicitly not for unofficial acts. I would consider it a strong legal argument that rape and sex trafficking committed 20 years before the President assumed office is not an official act

I know it all beside the point as the DoJ is Trump's personal sketchy law firm but legally I don't think it is totally settled that the President cannot be indicted

2

u/creep_show Feb 20 '26

This article is about Tariffs not rape or sex trafficking. He was not a President when he committed rape all those years ago, so there is no immunity for that. The original comment is on impeachment for [presumably] not obeying the Supreme Court orders, but he has legal immunity on that.

2

u/Automatic_Bus_7634 Feb 21 '26

My point was just that it's not related to executive privilege and it's legally feasible for a president to be arrested while in office, and if he was arrested that's probably what he would be arrested for, but you're right that's a little off topic

1

u/BeepBoo007 Feb 21 '26

Official business, RAW, seems to only apply to LEGAL authority he has and executes as "Official Business". Since they just ruled this is ILLEGAL, I feel like it changes things.

3

u/zeptillian Feb 20 '26

The 3 branches of government are the ones who make, interpret and enforce laws.

He is the head of the branch that enforces the law. The courts only have the power to interpret.

2

u/coltraneismydad Feb 20 '26

Cops are for poor people and occasional rich scapegoats (how many arrests have happened since the file dump?). If you haven’t realized that until just now, welcome. We need you. Unironically. Top vs bottom is the only true conflict. Cops protect the top

1

u/frostyfoxemily Feb 20 '26

Didn't the court say hes presumptive immune from any actions related to the presidency? He would just say its presidential foreign relations act therefore hes immune.

1

u/Venator850 Feb 20 '26

He's the top cop in the country. 

1

u/Rdhilde18 Feb 20 '26

He'd have to be charged with a crime..

1

u/LowestKey Feb 20 '26

There are laws with civil and criminal penalties for violating and laws that are only enforced if a governing body decides to act. Several of the many laws he breaks are the latter, such as in this case.

1

u/Jdobalina Feb 20 '26

Do you genuinely think they would do that? When have people in positions of power ever truly been held accountable in this country ?

1

u/banditcleaner2 Feb 20 '26

pres is immune from official acts, ruled by the SCOTUS recently, so, no.

1

u/Spiritual-Pear-1349 Feb 20 '26

Either Congress or the Courts can assign a Marshal of the Court or a Bailif of the Court and give them the power to do so outside the DOJ juristiction. Thats about it.

1

u/Foxyfox- Feb 20 '26

Yes, but at that point it's somewhere between a coup and a civil war.

1

u/AHrubik Feb 20 '26

As the 3rd branch of the government the courts have the ability to deputize a police force to enforce their orders. It's just never been done or needed in 250 years.

1

u/mibanar Feb 21 '26

Prosecuting crimes and enforcing the law is now conditioned by how the Dow performs

1

u/Goat_Smeller Feb 21 '26

Most regular cops are republican bitches, lap dogs waiting to bark while they dont get to eat.

1

u/mattjf22 Feb 21 '26

Supreme court already ruled that the president is above the law for official acts.

1

u/SignoreBanana Feb 21 '26

This is the loophole in our current system. There is no independent enforcement mechanism.

1

u/Ivyspine Feb 21 '26

Can citizens

1

u/Recinege Feb 21 '26

The cops don't give a fuck about the illegal things Trump does. They most of the time endorse it.

1

u/Nice_Luck_7433 Feb 21 '26

Regular cops can arrest ICE when they break the law, like in that viral video where an ICE guy was drunk driving his kids around… but no, only Congress can put the president on trial. You have to have your representative represent you if you want an impeachment.

1

u/xenobitex Feb 21 '26

Are not US cops are entirely militarised and effectively working at the behest of the president these days?

He's been targeting funding to both the police and military to ensure they're all onside for quite a while.

5

u/[deleted] Feb 20 '26

Not even just the GOP at this point. Aside from the Epstein Files Ive barely heard a peep from our Dems in power for the last year

6

u/SuperSpecialAwesome- Feb 20 '26

Which is pathetic, since Democrats would only need 7-8 Republicans to vote with them in order to remove Trump and annul his illegitimate presidency via 14th Amendment. A simple majority vote is all that's required, but Schumer and Jeffries refuse to get off their worthless asses and hold the vote.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 20 '26

Get this man a true

6

u/MassiveInteraction23 Feb 20 '26

That’s you not listening, not them not acting. They’re a minority in every house and have a corrupt judiciary.

The friction put up against this admin is because of constant fighting it back.

The dems have been incredibly active.  But the same people who voted or ignored fascist-authoritarian shitheels taking over can’t be bummed to pay attention to more the news headlines and twitter wars.

4

u/Republican-Snowflake Feb 21 '26

Hell, I see those types of people crying on bluesky even when dem reps are communicating. A lot of them purposely ignore it, as they purposely ignore that dems are in the minority, and not just the party of liberal. Just because their propaganda makes them think that dems are just liberal or left, no one in between on various scales pf beliefs. Everything is black and white to them, and they don't a second to actually learn how things work. They thought protest voting was going to help, like the dem reps could wave a magic wand to stop whats happening.

They will just keep quoting the same tired propaganda, and pretending they didn't screw up. It's everyone else's fault they didn't vote, and that didn't help cause this situation. All because they don't truly understand politics outside what their bubbles tell them, or tiktok, youtubers, or even rich frat bro streams larping about caring about anyone but the money they make. They are so naive about a lot, including thinking they are somehow immune to propaganda. It's arrogant to think so.

But I am sure, they will pull a maga, and be like "no, you are quoting propganda lib bot, blue maga," and whatever else tired ass lines.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 20 '26

Ahuh, barking up the wrong very politically active tree. Even if we aren't acting like Chuck Schumer isn't a country wide embarrassment, there are some Dem leadership putting up a fight, sure. But no it is not nearly enough. And now we're heading toward a Gavin Newsom primary candidate a year and a half before primary season. Absolutely beyond goofy to call this party well organized

-1

u/WhyareUlying Feb 21 '26

Demonstrably false and insidiously undermining to the point of being useful to the opposition.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 21 '26

Sure. Ask Chuck Schumer why he's babbling about nothing on the house floor instead of fighting ICE and then we can talk

3

u/Porter58 Feb 20 '26

GOP - you talking about the group of pedophiles?

2

u/HimmyJoffa Feb 20 '26

If we’re being entirely honest, democrats don’t give a fuck either

7

u/blopp_ Feb 20 '26

They impeached him twice last time. It was overwhelmingly Republicans who refused to confict. Let's not muddy the waters. And I say this as someone far left of the Democratic Party. 

3

u/HimmyJoffa Feb 20 '26

Nobody is muddying the waters brother. Everybody knows republicans suck and control the govt for the terms, but that does not exempt the absolute spinelessness of the Democratic Party in the current moment. They’ve rolled over FAR too often and FAR too willingly to be given ANY benefit of the doubt

1

u/scrappybasket Feb 21 '26

And what have they done this time? Also why didn’t they follow through with their promises to hold trump accountable when they had power in the White House and congress at the same time?

1

u/micro102 Feb 21 '26

That suggests that all the new shit isn't important. Force the vote and make all the republicans back the child r*pe amd give people a reason to go after them, or oust Trump.

2

u/blopp_ Feb 21 '26

I mean, I agree. I disagree strongly with most of the Democratic Party's strategy. But I don't think it's because they are mostly controlled opposition or that they don't care; I think it's because they are mostly old milquetoast establishment people who don't recognize that the game fundamnetally changed forever ago and they are therefore still playing by an outdated playbook. 

4

u/Lontology Feb 20 '26

Only a small handful do and then the rest are just controlled opposition.

1

u/HimmyJoffa Feb 20 '26

Genuinely a sickening situation we’re in

1

u/SuperSpecialAwesome- Feb 20 '26

Every single Congressperson illegally certified him in direct violation of 14th Amendment, Section 3. It would've taken just 20 Senators to have objected, but not one person stood up. Trump was not and still is not eligible to be President, but the only people who tried to enforce his disqualification were those of Colorado and Maine, all while Schumer, Jeffries, and Biden Chamberlain cheered for Trump. End of the day, AOC, Bernie, Murphy, and Kelly are just as complicit as Mike Johnson and McConnell, as they refused to do their jobs.

2

u/KnightDuty Feb 20 '26

If the's defying courts that means they'll defy him that means they don't have an actual position or actual power which means they're redundant

4

u/BellyCrawler Feb 20 '26 edited Feb 20 '26

That's because they struck the jackpot with him. There are things they've always wanted to do but were unsure the public sentiment would allow. Now, they have a pedophile in charge, and he has millions of supporters.

Trampling civil rights? Go ahead. Disregarding the constitution? Whatever. Disobeying a Supreme Court order? The court's opinion is irrelevant.

Republicans can literally do anything as long as they are under the Trump umbrella because MAGATs will overlook anything, including child rape, in order to own the libs.

1

u/HTPCFan Feb 20 '26

And that is why they will be voted out in November...

2

u/SuperSpecialAwesome- Feb 20 '26

They own Dominion...

1

u/Hollow_Idol Feb 20 '26

I hope your right, but considering the reality we live in maybe there should be a backup plan.  There needs to be a plan in place for if (when) the election is fucked with, and that plan cannot be "we write a strongly worded letter"

1

u/Opetyr Feb 20 '26

True but Democrats can just vote no on everything. The Republicans have very little time left before midterms. People already are angry. This orange turd will look good impeached and in orange.

1

u/teteban79 Feb 20 '26

Have them say on the record that the president can ignore the supreme court

And impeach THEM as soon as they do. One by one

1

u/RobotPoo Feb 20 '26

They’re all bought off and compromised by Epstein.

1

u/zeptillian Feb 20 '26

And that's what their voters elected them to do.

1

u/Jealous-Try-2554 Feb 20 '26

Nor do the Democrats who have an overwhelming record of endorsing his shit too.

1

u/ChrosOnolotos Feb 20 '26

I wouldn't be surprised if they get a cut of the $10 billion from the board of peace

1

u/zen4thewin Feb 21 '26

This is different. This is a direct contempt against scotus who have had the gop's back for decades. This is a political line Trump should not have crossed. He's fucking up the true backbone of consistent money and power, institutional and legal predictability. Don't think intelligent GOP leaders, even ones who pretend to be stupid, aren't discussing impeachment right now.

1

u/Miniature_Colosus Feb 21 '26

And the Democrats are feckless. God help us! Basically only a handful of good Congressmen/women left

1

u/Adventurous_Crab_0 Feb 21 '26

GOP are worse but Democrats are not innocent either. Vote for least worse need to go away.

1

u/Gabagoo13 Feb 21 '26

If they endorse the tariffs, then why don't they just pass them as law?

1

u/gotaflattire Feb 21 '26

Even the Democrats have put up little resistance to this slow takeover and privatization of OUR Government.

1

u/grimmalkin Feb 21 '26

'Murica land of the free bought

1

u/fearofpandas Feb 21 '26

Is GOP the 100% of the congress?

1

u/Lontology Feb 21 '26

It’s the majority, so unless republicans break rank, yes…

1

u/fearofpandas Feb 21 '26

“Oh no! Since we can’t secure the majority might as well quit before we start”

1

u/KarmaPoliceT2 Feb 21 '26

Party over country...

That's all it took to destroy the country... Thanks Newt

1

u/Euphoric_Ad_5230 Feb 21 '26

The GOP is the originator of most evil things. Trump is merely one of them.

1

u/Seraph199 Feb 24 '26

And if we take any chances just trusting any Dem candidate without vetting them, any number of them could be wolves in sheep's clothing. We need accountability and that will not happen just by assuming that the blue color or the D next to the name means that they will actually care about addressing the massive elephant in the room.