Trump Goes Off on the Federalist Society For Recommending Judges When He Was ‘New to Washington,’ Slams Federal Judges Who Blocked Him From Imposing Tariffs

The Gateway Pundit ^ | May 29, 2025 | Cristina Laila

[Dr. Franklin]

President Trump went off on the Federalist Society for recommending him judges when he was ‘new to Washington’ after a three-judge panel on the US Court of International Trade blocked him from unilaterally imposing tariffs.

On Wednesday, a three-judge panel at the US Court of International Trade ruled President Trump exceeded his authority to unilaterally impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA).

The three judge panel included: Gary Katzmann (Obama), Timothy Reif (Trump) and Jane Restani (Reagan).

The Trump DOJ immediately appealed the federal court’s permanent injunction and the federal circuit court’s en banc order (court’s entire slate of judges) granted the Trump Administration an immediate administrative stay less than 24 hours later.

Trump went off on the judges in a lengthy Truth Social Post on Thursday evening:

[Dr. Franklin]

Trump's quote:

The U.S. Court of International Trade incredibly ruled against the United States of America on desperately needed Tariffs but, fortunately, the full 11 Judge Panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Court has just stayed the order by the Manhattan-based Court of International Trade. Where do these initial three Judges come from? How is it possible for them to have potentially done such damage to the United States of America? Is it purely a hatred of “TRUMP?” What other reason could it be? I was new to Washington, and it was suggested that I use The Federalist Society as a recommending source on Judges. I did so, openly and freely, but then realized that they were under the thumb of a real “sleazebag” named Leonard Leo, a bad person who, in his own way, probably hates America, and obviously has his own separate ambitions. He openly brags how he controls Judges, and even Justices of the United States Supreme Court — I hope that is not so, and don’t believe it is! In any event, Leo left The Federalist Society to do his own “thing.” I am so disappointed in The Federalist Society because of the bad advice they gave me on numerous Judicial Nominations. This is something that cannot be forgotten! With all of that being said, I am very proud of many of our picks, but very disappointed in others. They always must do what’s right for the Country! In this case, it is only because of my successful use of Tariffs that many Trillions of Dollars have already begun pouring into the U.S.A. from other Countries, money that, without these Tariffs, we would not be able to get. It is the difference between having a rich, prosperous, and successful United States of America, and quite the opposite. The ruling by the U.S. Court of International Trade is so wrong, and so political! Hopefully, the Supreme Court will reverse this horrible, Country threatening decision, QUICKLY and DECISIVELY. Backroom “hustlers” must not be allowed to destroy our Nation! The horrific decision stated that I would have to get the approval of Congress for these Tariffs. In other words, hundreds of politicians would sit around D.C. for weeks, and even months, trying to come to a conclusion as to what to charge other Countries that are treating us unfairly. If allowed to stand, this would completely destroy Presidential Power — The Presidency would never be the same! This decision is being hailed all over the World by every Country, other than the United States of America. Radical Left Judges, together with some very bad people, are destroying America. Under this decision, Trillions of Dollars would be lost by our Country, money that will, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. It would be the harshest financial ruling ever leveled on us as a Sovereign Nation. The President of the United States must be allowed to protect America against those that are doing it Economic and Financial harm. Thank you for your attention to this matter!

I am thinking of creating an Anti-Federalist society to discuss why the Anti-Federalists were right about their fears of the federal judiciary becoming too powerful. In many ways, the Anti-Federalists were the original conservatives, not the Federalists.

[sjmjax]

I use to have a collection of the anti-federalist papers.
They predicted so much of what we are now experiencing.

[backpacker_c]

A lot of people talked about their fears about who Trump would pick for the supreme court and other judical positions.

Trump sought to assuage their fears, by saying he would pick from a list of supposedly vetted people from the federalist society, who were said to be constitution following judges.

Trump kept his word, provided a list and followed it.

The provided list and judges on it, didn't.

[Revel]

He would get way better recommends from wild Steve Bannon

[Dr. Franklin]

A lot of people talked about their fears about who Trump would pick for the supreme court and other judical positions.
Trump sought to assuage their fears, by saying he would pick from a list of supposedly vetted people from the federalist society, who were said to be constitution following judges.

There is a big difference between a conservative and a federalist. They are not synonymous

[Dr. Franklin]

He would get way better recommends from wild Steve Bannon

He might try just nominating some of his smaller donors who have shown a commitment to the MAGA movement and not those who donated just in hopes of an appointment.

[frank ballenger]

Someone said today all the Presidents go along with the tradition of former “blue judges” or “red judges” in various districts being replaced by the same as a matter of courtesy and tradition. And that Trump courteously gave them a leftist one even though he was and is a GOP President.

Phooey.

[dadfly]

‘I am thinking of creating an Anti-Federalist society to discuss why the Anti-Federalists were right about their fears of the federal judiciary becoming too powerful. In many ways, the Anti-Federalists were the original conservatives, not the Federalists.’

hear, hear!

i have read the Anti-Federalist papers many times. they had it all right.

[SpaceBar]

If Trump hired a lemon, he has only himself to blame.

That’s what responsibility means.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

They always must do what’s right for the Country!

Well, right there is Trump's problem. It isn't the job of judges to do "what's right" for the country. It's their job to apply the law. Oliver Wendell Holmes once commented that the Sherman Act was a "foolish law". But he also said "I have little doubt that country likes it, and I always say, as you know, that if my fellow citizens want to go to Hell, I will help them. It's my job."

But in light of Trump's opinion as to what judges are supposed to do, it's no wonder he has gone sour on the Federalist Society.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

There is a big difference between a conservative and a federalist. They are not synonymous.

There is an even bigger difference between either of those, and a MAGA populist.

[alstewartfan]

Or Mark Levin.

[freepersup]

That is some DEEP thinking. Thank you for stating an axiom spanning time and space.

[alstewartfan]

Trump cannot know EVERYONE. 🙄

[dennisw]

Its about Trump blew up at these smarmy little phonies. We know these “Federalist” turds pushed hard for Amy Loony Barrett.
Here’s hoping that Pres. DJT gets 2-3-4 Supreme Court appointments.

[datricker]

Mark Levin is just the other side of the Michael Medved Shekel

Its like the Mossad has stopped trying

[Dr. Franklin]

I use to have a collection of the anti-federalist papers. They predicted so much of what we are now experiencing.

To understand why the federal judiciary was so scary to them, one must first understand that the state courts then were quite different. There was no functional difference between and appellate court and a trial court, because the appellate courts were all also trial courts. Cases were retried on appeal de novo requiring witnesses to travel to the state capital, etc. The juries were far more powerful than they are today.

After the federal judiciary was established, the states in turn modeled their courts after the federal model, and in all U.S. courts the judges shrank the power of a common law jury to what it has become now. The Anti-Federalists were right that the U.S. Constitution would abolish common law jury trails. While we still have juries, few cases get decided by one, and the modern right is not what it was of yore.

[Dr. Franklin]

Well, right there is Trump's problem. It isn't the job of judges to do "what's right" for the country. It's their job to apply the law.

The problem is that the judges decide if their are doing their job correctly, and none of them will call out their peers for willful misapplication of the law. Their attitude is that judges should do what they think is right, regardless of the law. Thus, the modern judge personifies the law. As in Alice In Wonderland, the verdict comes first and trial comes second. They decide what result they want, and the law doesn't matter. Their opinions are creative writing exercises to convince the simple-minded that "the law" controlled their decision. It's all nonsense. I've called for a judicial discipline court to address judges who don't apply laws, and the judges of that court should be distinct from the other federal court judges.

[dadgum]

FKK the Federalists, their ideas, their acolytes, and their defenders.

Burn
Burn
Burn

[SunkenCiv]

• Trump's visa crackdown plunges 275,000 Chinese students into uncertainty [05/29/2025]
  • Trump's tariff tally: $34 billion and counting, global companies say [05/29/2025]
• Would I, or the government, be better off paying taxes on my income or from the investments generated from my income? [05/29/2025]
  • DNC TDS BS: All of This Uncertainty Is Causing a Tremendous Amount of Chaos for Businesses of All Sizes [05/29/2025]
  • Victoria's Secret Takes Down US Website After Security Incident [05/29/2025]
  • Mcdonald's is Leaving Chicago... Because Of Crime [05/29/2025]
• Effects of Massachusetts public defenders strike felt across state as advocates fight for higher wages [05/29/2025]