Trump, Bashing the Federalist Society, Asserts Autonomy on Judge Picks

The New York Times ^ | May 30, 2025, 7:06 p.m. ET | Charlie Savage

[E. Pluribus Unum]

The president has grown increasingly angry at court rulings blocking parts of his agenda, including by judges he appointed.

President Trump appears to be declaring independence from outside constraints on how he nominates judges, signaling that he is looking for loyalists who will uphold his agenda and denouncing the conservative legal network that helped him remake the federal judiciary in his first term.

Late Thursday, after a ruling struck down his tariffs on most imported goods, Mr. Trump attacked the Federalist Society, leaders of which heavily influenced his selection of judges during his first presidency.

“I am so disappointed in The Federalist Society because of the bad advice they gave me on numerous Judicial Nominations,” Mr. Trump asserted on social media. “This is something that cannot be forgotten!”

Hours earlier Thursday, the Justice Department severely undercut the traditional role of the American Bar Association in vetting judicial nominees. A day before, Mr. Trump picked a loyalist who has no deep ties to the conservative legal movement for a life-tenured appeals court seat, explaining that his pick could be counted on to rule in ways aligned with his agenda.

Together, the moves suggest that Mr. Trump may be pivoting toward greater personal involvement and a more idiosyncratic process for selecting future nominees. Such a shift would fit with his second-term pattern of steamrolling the guardrails that sometimes constrained how he exercised power during his first presidency.

But it could also give pause to judges who may be weighing taking senior status, giving Mr. Trump an opportunity to fill their seats. Conservatives have been eyeing in particular the seats of the Supreme Court justices Clarence Thomas, who will turn 77 next month, and Samuel A. Alito, 75.

[Dr. Franklin]

Let the American Bar Association nominate mixologists. They are a very unprofessional organization which produces judges who don’t understand that there are two sexes.

[hardspunned]

Eight years too late!

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

Well, with all of Trump’s legal knowledge, he should do just fine picking his own judges.

[Karl Spooner]

Trump is a very slow learner, he was warned about them in his first term.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

You are obviously a much faster learner than Trump. When did you earn your first billion?

[_Jim]

Then, there is this:

“Heritage Pulls Out All Stops for Amy Coney Barrett’s Confirmation”

https://www.heritage.org/courts/impact/heritage-pulls-out-all-stops-amy-coney-barretts-confirmation

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

Newsflash - being good at one thing doesn’t mean you’re also good at every other thing.

[KingofZion]

Too bad for him. The judges are there to uphold the Constitution and a co-equal branch. The same judges are the ones who struck down numerous bad laws and EOs during the Obama and Biden terms.

It is unfortunate that Congress refuses to do its job passing laws. Then Trump would not need to issue so many EOs.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Newsflash - nobody is perfect, and Trump is far better than anybody we have had in my lifetime, including Reagan as much as I respect him. Trump is a fighter. He’s not going to get everything right, but he loves the USA and the American people.

[Governor Dinwiddie]

Ugh. "Amy Coney is so nice! And she likes to compromise. Plus she has lovely colored chill'uns!"

[iamgalt]

“ The same judges are the ones who struck down numerous bad laws and EOs during the Obama and Biden terms”

Nope and there is no comparison. Biden experienced nothing like this. The Presidency is under assault by the Judiciary.

[GrootheWanderer]

If Trump was trying to make sure no conservative judges retire in the next four years, it seems to have worked. Reports are that several judges have said they are canceling plans to take senior status for fear of the quality of person he would appoint to replace them. Alito and Thomas are expressing the same concern. Thomas, in particular, is very close to Leonard Leo.

[Captain Jack Aubrey]

There’s nothing coequal about the branches of the federal government. That is a myth. There are checks and balances between the branches but they are not co-equal. For example, can the president remove a congressman? No. Can the congress remover president? Yes. can the Supreme Court remove a congressman ? no . Can the Congress remove a Supreme Court justice ? yes. And so on.

[Theodore R.]

Yes, but please don’t pick another Coney Barrett.

[Brian Griffin]

Can I see your financial accounts dating back as far as you can provide.

Please provide pictures of the bookshelves in your home.

What news programs do you watch? Do you normally watch them all the way through?

What subscriptions does your household have?

Rate CNN on the left to right spectrum.

If Jane Fonda offered to shake hands, what would you do?

Have you watched The View all the way through at lease once.

Name at least two persons I should consider for the job other than yourself.

List some of your best professors in law school.

Name at least three federal judges that you admire.

Name some movies as they come to mind that you enjoyed.

Did you vote for me in 2016? 2020? 2024?

Specify the federal tax rates a person should pay by income if you had that choice.

I’d like to speak with your significant other.

[Brian Griffin]

An American who would adopt foreign children probably leans left.

[Brian Griffin]

Let Thomas and Alito suggest their possible replacements.

[No name given]

Quite.

[gwjack]

You are absolutely right. The different branches are not co-equals. For many years I have bristled when I heard that word used to describe power of the branches. I have usually pointed out that the Congress has certain powers as set forth in Article 1; the executive branch has much different powers under Article 2; and last, the Judiciary has only the powers contained in Article 3. The powers are not the same, and there are no duplicative powers with other branches. So co-equal? Never intended or granted.

Saying the branches are co-equal is like saying the heart is co-equal with the lungs. They are not. They each have different, very important functions, but they are not co-equal.

Gwjack