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]

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.

Amy Conehead is an example of what is wrong with the present system. She is a goody-two-shoes elitist. Everyone remembers her type from school. She seeks approval from the establishment, and doesn't challenge much they do. Nothing she does impresses me, and I am usually disappointed by her decisions.

[dennisw]

Agree. Especially with liberal and Democrat judges. Their decision comes first. Then they find the laws that justify it. Though with Trump these days, we get Federal judges who will quote inapplicable laws. In order to delay and delay matters. They are willfully obstructing justice by pulling laws out of their ass.

Why? Because they are partisan Democrat activists, who must do all for “the cause”.

[dadfly]

true, as a practical matter, the fed courts have taken over the states in many ways including jury power.

Hamilton thought (wrongly) the prima facie power of the other two branches would insulate us from, what Yates correctly foresaw: that the judiciary would use the power of interpretation to gradually change the meaning of strictly limited and defined federal gov’t enumerated powers. (and that the legislative branch would find that convenient.) one man understood human nature, history and the courts. the other was more of a social engineer, relying on pure reason to buttress his black and white arguments.

it is somewhat comforting to me that Trump has realized his many errors in the first term, learned from them, and in spite of some comments here, is committed to doing what is right and best for America. hopefully if it comes to really using the Article II power of the presidency, he will do that as a last resort to save us all.

[PGR88]

The good news is that Trump, and future Republicans, won’t be duped by Federalist Society RINOs ever again

[Brian Griffin]

This country is getting flooded with fentanyl, which is a leading cause of death for younger people.

It is an emergency. I believe Trump can tariff China, Mexico and probably Canada as a result.

The 10% base tariff for all countries is dubious.

Trump needs to say that tax cut continuation is not possible given judicial meddling.

[Brian Griffin]

The federalists were the big national government advocates.

[Brian Griffin]

Just sign this resignation letter right here. Then I can submit your name to the Senate.

[Brian Griffin]

“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.”

I have proposed and posted tariff formulas that Congress should enact into law, with the possible exception of a 10% money export tax replacing the 10% base tariff.

I am a strong advocate of Congress setting formula-based tariffs. One set of fairly simple rules for all with rates based on reality.

[paudio]

That’s because their philosophy of “constitution is a living document.” Basically it means what the constitution says depends on the one who ‘interpret’ it according to the context and situation. So, when people say “following the law”, according to this philosophy, it means anything goes as long as the judge can provide a narrative to support the decision (not the severity of the actual act, but the severity of the accusation that is important). The boundary is how far they can stretch the wordings to whatever the judges want. In other words, following the law is a very liquid and flexible concept.

[Jeff Chandler]

You may be right.

[Fury]

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.

Talk about the “buck stops here”… two blocks down the street…

[FLT-bird]

He’s right. A lot of Federalist Society types have proven to be chamber of commerce/Establishment types....ie turds. Never forget, Christopher Wray was in the Federalist Society. It is NOT a good housekeeping seal in case anybody thought it was.

[nathanbedford]

If politics is downstream from culture, what can we say about law?

The sources of legal culture are written opinions and law schools. These sources create the jargon, the mode of thinking, the mode of argumentation and persuasion, the traditions, the folkways, the shibboleths, the pantheon of values and, ultimately, the philosophy that animates jurisprudence.

Of these two sources the most obvious is perhaps not the most important. The written opinions of courts are of course obvious sources, and they are in many respects a definitive source of the existing state of the law. It is here that lawyers will point to to identify what the law currently is.

But it is the law schools that create the culture that is memorialized in opinions. Yes, courts can and do make new Law and can even blaze new paths with new goals, new priorities, and a new vocabulary to fit the new law, but these innovations are invariably rooted in the dynamics of the law schools. Like the Marine Corps, law schools commence their training of young minds by annihilating everything those minds thought they knew to prepare the ground to sow a whole new cognition. At this point of philosophical uprootedness, the student is open to a philosophical, moral, and intellectual rebuild that produces the legal mind.

Historically, the opportunity was used to inculcate the tools of the trade, the vocabulary, the knowledge of precedent, the technique of argumentation, the agility and nimbleness of multisided analysis. But the opportunity thus created also permits the insinuation of a whole new value system, a new philosophy, a new worldview that feads on a kind of cynicism created in the process that results in a cynical, opportunistic view of the lawyer and his role. Equally, it promotes cynicism about the law; it can convert law to be not something to be discovered but to be invented.

The modern law school actually despises the responsibility of a trade school, and has shifted the emphasis entirely to producing a cadre of young lawyers bent on effecting public policy through law. This shift was greatly accelerated in the civil rights era when stain of Jim Crow morally and intellectually demanded reform. Today, it has become accepted that the law should be shaped to accommodate reform. Trump derangement syndrome has only reinforced that process.

Cynicism is running its natural course, the moral justification for reform has been watered down as the hubris increases. It is one thing to reform a system that denies to a race of people their God-given rights, and quite another to abandon the Constitution in order to frustrate Donald Trump.

Cynicism and intelligence are not mutually incompatible. Many of those judges motivated to wage law against Donald Trump, are as intelligent as they are opportunistic and they have not entirely abandoned trade school tools to shape their opinions to conform, at least in appearance, to all the indicia of a legitimate, even traditional legal system. Their problem is not stupidity but arrogance.

[Chickensoup]

Perhaps hanging judge should have an entirely different meaning in these corrupt days?

[UnwashedPeasant]

Instead of strict Constitutionalists and Originalists, Trump could nominate activists like the Left does. Of course, it would be hard to get them confirmed.

[Openurmind]

IMPOSSIBLE! He must be mistaken! He is way too 4D chess smart to be steered wrong!!! It can never happen!!!

[Phoenix8]

Leonard Leo has a resume of pure neo-con.

Born in nyc , then grew up and lived in New Jersey. He worked for Jorge Bush, and the UN.

Source said he is largely responsible for 1/3 of the SCOTUS judges in office now including the perfidious Roberts.

[Phoenix8]

Whom has he appointed that is a strict constitutionalist/originalist?

To me that would be more like Thomas ,or especially the late Scalia.

[9YearLurker]

No Dem president in my lifetime named conservative judges as a courtesy, I am quite sure.

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

Trump was sabatoged completely his first term. He was surrounded by Deep State operatives who gave him nothing but bad advice and thwarted him at every turn. All of his advisors and those he sought for help, stabbed him in the back and gave him bad advice and recommendations.

The 2020 coup steal for Biden was the most corrupt episode in US history, but a positive result came from it — Trump got 4 years to wargame what he would do differently if he were ever re-elected. He has now surrounded himself pro-MAGA people who are there to help him, rather than sabatoge his administration

You bet he got nothing but bad recommendations his first term, right down to Amy Coney Barrett.