No cheers for Chief Justice Roberts! In the wake of the Supreme Court's recent decision on President Trump's tariff powers, a flurry of praise has enveloped the three conservative justices responsible for the ruling. The decision, which curtailed Trump's ability to impose fluctuating tariffs based on his whims, has been hailed as a significant affirmation of constitutional checks and balances.

Adam Liptak of the New York Times and David French have lauded the court’s actions as monumental and potentially the most crucial Supreme Court decision of the century. The Wall Street Journal echoed these sentiments, calling it a "monumental vindication" of the Constitution's separation of powers. However, not everyone joined this chorus of acclaim. George Will of the Washington Post offered a more critical view, urging the court to enforce the nondelegation doctrine more rigorously.

Despite these plaudits, the celebration might be premature or even misplaced. The Supreme Court’s decision comes after prolonged periods of legal battles that saw the Trump administration imposing and collecting tariffs under questionable legal grounds. Many argue that the justices could have intervened earlier instead of allowing the situation to escalate to the extent it did, costing American taxpayers and consumers dearly.

After the ruling, President Trump criticized the justices, particularly praising Justice Kavanaugh, while simultaneously disparaging the majority for their stance. His remarks continued to stir controversy, reflecting his ongoing contentious relationship with the judiciary.

Moreover, there remains significant concern over the practical outcomes of the decision. No clear directives have been given regarding the refund of the billions collected under the tariffs, potentially leading to more litigation. The lack of immediate clarity from the court means that businesses and consumers are left in a state of uncertainty.

The Supreme Court's decision, while legally significant, thus raises questions about timeliness, impact, and the broader implications on justice and economic policy. While it is a step towards reasserting judicial oversight over presidential powers, many feel it is a case of too little, too late. This sentiment is potent, especially considering past decisions where the same justices failed to check presidential overreach.

In essence, this isn't just about a legal victory or a testament to judicial independence. It's about the real effects on the American public, the economy, and the ongoing battle for holding powers accountable. As observers, we should remain critical and vigilant, recognizing that one decision does not necessarily rectify systemic issues within our judiciary or our broader political system.