Opinion: Amy Coney Barrett and the Secret Legal Agenda That Played Trump Like a Chump
President Trump is facing more legal challenges than ever as his administration runs roughshod over law and precedent. As his policy moves are challenged as legal overreach or outright violations of the Constitution, he is, understandably, paying particularly close attention to what happens in the courts, including the decisions rendered by the hundreds of judges he appointed during his first term. And he is not happy with what he sees.
After a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade, including one judge he appointed, ruled against him unanimously in a tariff case, he flew into a rage on Truth Social. In a message, he condemned the conservative Federalist Society—long the preeminent right-wing legal group—and labeled one of its former officials, Leonard Leo, 'a real 'sleazebag'… a bad person who, in his own way, probably hates America.' He went on: 'I am so disappointed in The Federalist Society because of the bad advice they gave me on numerous Judicial Nominations.'
According to reports, Trump is particularly perturbed by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, whom he appointed to the Supreme Court after the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for siding with the court's liberals in a couple of cases. Barrett is ideologically very conservative but not a complete partisan, which means she won't always do whatever a Republican president wants. This is proving to be a particularly bitter discovery for him.
That's the bad news, Mr. 'Art of the Deal.' The chips are in and you got played. The Federalist Society wasn't your servant. You were its tool.
In early 2016, Trump made clear that he was outsourcing the task of selecting judges. 'We're going to have great judges, conservative, all picked by the Federalist Society,' he said that March after a meeting with Leo, then its executive vice president and guiding force. What could go wrong?
But for the Federalist Society, Trump was a vehicle (dare we say a clown car?) to achieving the goal of a transformed judiciary. Its loyalty wasn't to him, or to Trumpism, but to a vision of the American system remade. In that new system, conservative judges are the prime shapers of policy and power, ensuring that social conservatism and unfettered business interests reign.
The Federalist Society has to be considered one of the most successful political organizations in American history, and much of that success is due to its patience. Founded in 1982 as, ostensibly, a law school debating society with a conservative bent, it quickly became an incubator of ideas and, most critically, a network for ambitious lawyers looking to climb up the ladder and implement a right-wing legal vision. Nearly every prominent Republican legal figure, including all the conservatives on the Supreme Court, has ties to the Society. Membership is a stamp of approval for Republican judges filling clerkships and Republican politicians filling their administrations: They're on the right team.
Capturing the judiciary and reshaping the law would be the work of decades, spread across multiple presidencies. But all the right's legal victories of recent years—overturning Roe v. Wade, outlawing affirmative action, making campaign finance law all but meaningless, weakening the ability of labor unions to organize—can be directly traced to the Federalist Society.
All of that sounds—or sounded—fine to Trump, whose first and only consideration is his own interests. He cares deeply about loyalty, but it only runs one way: from everyone else to him. Once you give someone a lifetime appointment, however, they may no longer need to scratch your back. Let's not kid ourselves: Trump has gotten the vast majority of what he wants from the courts, which during his first term he filled with a collection of partisans and hacks. But there are limits to how far they'll go; Politico reports that Trump has been incensed that the Supreme Court didn't overturn the 2020 election for him.
Don't give them too much credit. The Supreme Court's most important recent ruling is probably Trump v. United States, in which it said that the president is almost completely immune from prosecution. (Somehow the republic managed to survive almost 250 years without the president being allowed to do all the crimes he wants.)
That may have been what Trump had in mind when at his address to Congress in March, he said to Chief Justice John Roberts, 'Thank you again. Won't forget.' Trump is always keeping score, and his thanks will again turn to anger the next time a ruling doesn't give him what he wants. But the Federalist Society already has its victory. And if Trump doesn't like it—this time or any time? He'll be gone eventually, but the right-wing legal movement will go on.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
23 minutes ago
- CNBC
Some lawmakers in both parties question the legality of Trump's Iran strikes
WASHINGTON — Several members of Congress in both parties Saturday questioned the legality of President Donald Trump's move to launch military strikes on Iran. While Republican leaders and many rank-and-file members stood by Trump's decision to bomb Iran's major nuclear enrichment facilities, at least two GOP lawmakers joined Democrats across the party spectrum in suggesting it was unconstitutional for him to bomb Iran without approval from Congress. "While President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional," Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, who usually aligns with Trump, said on X. "I look forward to his remarks tonight." Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., said in response to Trump's social media post announcing the strikes: "This is not Constitutional." Massie introduced a bipartisan resolution this week seeking to block U.S. military action against Iran "unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force against Iran" passed by Congress. In brief remarks from the White House on Saturday night, Trump defended the strikes but did not mention the basis of his legal authority to launch them without Congress' having given him that power. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., reacted in real time during a speech in Tulsa, Oklahoma, slamming Trump's actions as "grossly unconstitutional." "The only entity that can take this country to war is the U.S. Congress. The president does not have the right," Sanders told the crowd, which broke out in "no more war!" chants. Some Democrats called it an impeachable offense for the president to bomb Iran without approval from Congress. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., said Trump's move is "absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment." "The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers," she said on X. "He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations." Rep. Sean Casten, D-Ill., said on social media: "This is not about the merits of Iran's nuclear program. No president has the authority to bomb another country that does not pose an imminent threat to the US without the approval of Congress. This is an unambiguous impeachable offense." Casten called on House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., to "grow a spine" and protect the war powers reserved for Congress. Johnson said Trump respects the Constitution as he sought to lay the groundwork to defend his decision to act unilaterally. "The President fully respects the Article I power of Congress, and tonight's necessary, limited, and targeted strike follows the history and tradition of similar military actions under presidents of both parties," he said in a statement. Johnson's remarks, along with support for Trump's move offered by Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., indicate that Trump may have sufficient political cover to avoid blowback from the Republican-controlled Congress. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said Trump "failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East." But he stopped short of labeling the military action illegal or unconstitutional. House Minority Whip Katherine Clark, D-Mass., was more direct on the legal question. "The power to declare war resides solely with Congress. Donald Trump's unilateral decision to attack Iran is unauthorized and unconstitutional," said Clark, the No. 2 Democrat. "In doing so, the President has exposed our military and diplomatic personnel in the region to the risk of further escalation." Appearing Saturday night on MSNBC, Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., who co-authored the resolution with Massie, wondered whether the anti-war voters who support Trump would back his move. "This is the first true crack in the MAGA base," he said, noting that Trump's rise in the 2016 primaries was aided by his move to slam President George W. Bush for the Iraq war.
Boston Globe
27 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Senators Markey and Warren decry Trump's Iran strikes as unconstitutional
'Only Congress can declare war — and the Senate must vote immediately to prevent another endless war,' Warren said. Fellow Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey agreed, calling the strike 'illegal' for having lacked congressional approval. He said in a statement that Saturday's attack may set back Iran's nuclear ambitions, but added that not only can the country 'rebuild its program,' it 'will now be highly motivated to do so.' 'A diplomatic solution remains the best way to permanently and verifiably prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon,' Markey said. Chants of 'No More War' broke out at a Bernie Sanders rally in Tulsa, Okla., after the Vermont Senator read Trump's 'alarming' social media post announcing the strikes. 'The American people do not want more war, more death,' he said. Advertisement Massachusetts Peace Action, a Cambridge-based advocacy group, called for state leaders to speak out. The organization specifically called on Congressional leaders to pass the war power resolutions filed by Senator Tim Kaine and Representative Thomas Massie to prevent further US military action. 'We call on Massachusetts political leaders to speak out strongly against President Trump's lawless military adventure,' the organization wrote on Saturday night, shortly after the US attack on Iran. Brian Garvey, the organization's executive director, said an 'emergency event' was being planned outside Park Street Station at 1 p.m. Sunday, in protest of the strikes. Advertisement 'This direct attack by the United States on Iran a dramatic escalation by President Trump,' Garvey said in a phone call Saturday night. 'It's incredibly dangerous, it's unnecessary, and frankly, it's illegal.' Garvey said the founding fathers were explicit in giving Congress the power to declare war, adding that this is 'not how the government is supposed to work.' 'It is perhaps especially terrible because this is a president who ran saying he was going to seek peace,' he said. 'Back in 2016, he said the Iraq War was a big fat mistake. I fear that what he is leading us into could be even worse than that debacle and quagmire.' Garvey said he was 'fearful' for the US service members stationed in the Middle East, and 'outraged' that the strikes threatened their safety. Camilo Fonseca can be reached at
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump faces backlash from Maga base after strikes on Iran
President Donald Trump faced a fierce backlash from parts of his Maga movement over his decision to launch strikes against Iran, with Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
