The Supreme Court has become a

The Supreme Court has become a joke. Justice is now blind on both eyes and listens only to Trump.

Obviously not good for the stock market, which needs stability and would react bullish to the ruling on this tariff nonsense if Trump is forced to reverse them.

Supreme Court Again Doesn’t Rule on Tariffs as Wait Continues

Disclaimer: Investing carries risk. This is not financial advice. The above content should not be regarded as an offer, recommendation, or solicitation on acquiring or disposing of any financial products, any associated discussions, comments, or posts by author or other users should not be considered as such either. It is solely for general information purpose only, which does not consider your own investment objectives, financial situations or needs. TTM assumes no responsibility or warranty for the accuracy and completeness of the information, investors should do their own research and may seek professional advice before investing.

Comments

We need your insight to fill this gap

Leave a comment

{"i18n":{"language":"en_US"},"detailType":1,"isChannel":false,"data":{"magic":2,"id":523871770252672,"tweetId":"523871770252672","gmtCreate":1768924430375,"gmtModify":1768925971552,"author":{"id":4140090365269462,"idStr":"4140090365269462","authorId":4140090365269462,"authorIdStr":"4140090365269462","name":"a4xrbj1","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/9d8912bc5b3237f119291ecf0caa4d5a","vip":1,"userType":1,"introduction":"","boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"crmLevel":12,"crmLevelSwitch":1,"currentWearingBadge":{"badgeId":"9427a906234c4b18a82ec3d7730b7fa8-1","templateUuid":"9427a906234c4b18a82ec3d7730b7fa8","name":"Star Contributor","description":"Published at least 3 PICK posts (or 10 IDEA posts) and, within the past 30 days, posted at least 1 PICK post (or 4 IDEA posts) and 1 comment","bigImgUrl":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/1866dcf97a73be1c330f85862546aedc","smallImgUrl":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/4f5c5fa8e2c7683bb5a7fce8753ee456","redirectLinkEnabled":1,"redirectLink":"https://ttm.financial/activity/market/2023/star-contributors/","hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":1,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2025.01.27","individualDisplayEnabled":0},"individualDisplayBadges":[],"fanSize":62,"starInvestorFlag":false},"themes":[],"images":[],"coverImages":[],"title":"","html":"<html><head></head><body><p>The Supreme Court has become a joke. Justice is now blind on both eyes and listens only to Trump.</p>\n<p>Obviously not good for the stock market, which needs stability and would react bullish to the ruling on this tariff nonsense if Trump is forced to reverse them.</p></body></html>","htmlText":"<html><head></head><body><p>The Supreme Court has become a joke. Justice is now blind on both eyes and listens only to Trump.</p>\n<p>Obviously not good for the stock market, which needs stability and would react bullish to the ruling on this tariff nonsense if Trump is forced to reverse them.</p></body></html>","text":"The Supreme Court has become a joke. Justice is now blind on both eyes and listens only to Trump. Obviously not good for the stock market, which needs stability and would react bullish to the ruling on this tariff nonsense if Trump is forced to reverse them.","highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/523871770252672","repostId":1121569249,"repostType":2,"repost":{"id":"1121569249","kind":"news","weMediaInfo":{"introduction":"Providing stock market headlines, business news, financials and earnings ","home_visible":1,"media_name":"Tiger Newspress","id":"1079075236","head_image":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8274c5b9d4c2852bfb1c4d6ce16c68ba"},"pubTimestamp":1768922854,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1121569249?lang=en_US&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2026-01-20 23:27","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Supreme Court Again Doesn’t Rule on Tariffs as Wait Continues","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1121569249","media":"Tiger Newspress","summary":"The U.S. Supreme Court once more declined to issue a ruling on President Donald Trump's tariffs on Tuesday, ensuring that the legal challenge to his central economic policy will remain unresolved for...","content":"<html><head></head><body><p>The U.S. Supreme Court once more declined to issue a ruling on President Donald Trump&#39;s tariffs on Tuesday, ensuring that the legal challenge to his central economic policy will remain unresolved for at least another month.</p>\n<p>The court is set to commence a four-week recess, and based on its standard procedures for announcing opinions, the next possible date for a decision on the tariffs is February 20.</p>\n<p>Oral arguments held on November 5 indicated that a majority of the justices were doubtful that Trump possessed the authority to implement the tariffs under a 1977 statute granting the president special emergency powers. The court&#39;s decision to expedite the case had fueled expectations among opponents for a swift ruling against the President.</p>\n<p>A ruling unfavorable to Trump on the tariffs would represent his most significant legal setback since his return to the White House. The case centers on Trump&#39;s &#34;Liberation Day&#34; tariffs enacted on April 2, which imposed levies of 10% to 50% on the majority of imports, in addition to duties on Canada, Mexico, and China, purportedly to combat fentanyl trafficking.</p>\n<p>An adverse decision could also pave the way for refunds exceeding $130 billion and weaken his threat to impose further tariffs on European nations resisting his bid to acquire Greenland. Trump has not specified what legal authority he would invoke to enforce those additional duties.</p>\n<p>The Supreme Court&#39;s customary procedure is to deliver opinions in argued cases from the bench. Although the justices are scheduled to hear arguments on Wednesday regarding Trump&#39;s attempt to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, no opinion releases are planned. Following Wednesday, the next formal session for the justices is not scheduled until February 20.</p></body></html>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Supreme Court Again Doesn’t Rule on Tariffs as Wait Continues</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nSupreme Court Again Doesn’t Rule on Tariffs as Wait Continues\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n<a class=\"head\" href=\"https://laohu8.com/wemedia/1079075236\">\n\n\n<div class=\"h-thumb\" style=\"background-image:url(https://static.tigerbbs.com/8274c5b9d4c2852bfb1c4d6ce16c68ba);background-size:cover;\"></div>\n\n<div class=\"h-content\">\n<p class=\"h-name\">Tiger Newspress </p>\n<p class=\"h-time\">2026-01-20 23:27</p>\n</div>\n\n</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<html><head></head><body><p>The U.S. Supreme Court once more declined to issue a ruling on President Donald Trump&#39;s tariffs on Tuesday, ensuring that the legal challenge to his central economic policy will remain unresolved for at least another month.</p>\n<p>The court is set to commence a four-week recess, and based on its standard procedures for announcing opinions, the next possible date for a decision on the tariffs is February 20.</p>\n<p>Oral arguments held on November 5 indicated that a majority of the justices were doubtful that Trump possessed the authority to implement the tariffs under a 1977 statute granting the president special emergency powers. The court&#39;s decision to expedite the case had fueled expectations among opponents for a swift ruling against the President.</p>\n<p>A ruling unfavorable to Trump on the tariffs would represent his most significant legal setback since his return to the White House. The case centers on Trump&#39;s &#34;Liberation Day&#34; tariffs enacted on April 2, which imposed levies of 10% to 50% on the majority of imports, in addition to duties on Canada, Mexico, and China, purportedly to combat fentanyl trafficking.</p>\n<p>An adverse decision could also pave the way for refunds exceeding $130 billion and weaken his threat to impose further tariffs on European nations resisting his bid to acquire Greenland. Trump has not specified what legal authority he would invoke to enforce those additional duties.</p>\n<p>The Supreme Court&#39;s customary procedure is to deliver opinions in argued cases from the bench. Although the justices are scheduled to hear arguments on Wednesday regarding Trump&#39;s attempt to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, no opinion releases are planned. Following Wednesday, the next formal session for the justices is not scheduled until February 20.</p></body></html>\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1121569249","content_text":"The U.S. Supreme Court once more declined to issue a ruling on President Donald Trump's tariffs on Tuesday, ensuring that the legal challenge to his central economic policy will remain unresolved for at least another month.\nThe court is set to commence a four-week recess, and based on its standard procedures for announcing opinions, the next possible date for a decision on the tariffs is February 20.\nOral arguments held on November 5 indicated that a majority of the justices were doubtful that Trump possessed the authority to implement the tariffs under a 1977 statute granting the president special emergency powers. The court's decision to expedite the case had fueled expectations among opponents for a swift ruling against the President.\nA ruling unfavorable to Trump on the tariffs would represent his most significant legal setback since his return to the White House. The case centers on Trump's \"Liberation Day\" tariffs enacted on April 2, which imposed levies of 10% to 50% on the majority of imports, in addition to duties on Canada, Mexico, and China, purportedly to combat fentanyl trafficking.\nAn adverse decision could also pave the way for refunds exceeding $130 billion and weaken his threat to impose further tariffs on European nations resisting his bid to acquire Greenland. Trump has not specified what legal authority he would invoke to enforce those additional duties.\nThe Supreme Court's customary procedure is to deliver opinions in argued cases from the bench. Although the justices are scheduled to hear arguments on Wednesday regarding Trump's attempt to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, no opinion releases are planned. Following Wednesday, the next formal session for the justices is not scheduled until February 20.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".DJI":2,".SPX":2,".IXIC":2}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":66,"commentLimit":10,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"symbols":[],"verified":2,"subType":0,"readableState":1,"langContent":"EN","currentLanguage":"EN","warmUpFlag":false,"orderFlag":false,"shareable":true,"causeOfNotShareable":"","featuresForAnalytics":[],"commentAndTweetFlag":false,"andRepostAutoSelectedFlag":false,"upFlag":false,"length":212,"optionInvolvedFlag":false,"xxTargetLangEnum":"ORIG"},"commentList":[],"isCommentEnd":true,"isTiger":false,"isWeiXinMini":false,"url":"/m/post/523871770252672"}