The Wall Street Journal published an article of the title“Trump loyalist Promote the new judge’s militant slate. ” The first sentence repeats the theme: loyalty: “A rising faction within the conservative legal movement is laying the groundwork for Donald Trump to appoint the following judges.” prioritize loyalty to him The implicit connection is clear: Trump supporters in the executive branch are trying to install Trump supporters in the judiciary. Nonsense.
There is no world in this story that suggests that Trump’s appointees are “loyal” to him. These justices have a constitutional vision that goes far beyond the temporary issues that matter to Trump. Judicial appointments can last up to 40 years. President Trump will remain in office for at most four years. And if Trump wins, there will be no need for him to run for any further elections, and therefore no election-related lawsuits for Trump. Presumably, anti-Trump lawsuits will be filed in blue circuits, where Trump appointees are a discrete and insular minority. Does anyone think a few Trump appointees to the 9th Circuit will make a difference? Judges Katsas, Rao and Walker will be flying solo around the D.C. circuit for a while. And the Fourth Circuit has been lost for a generation. I really don’t understand the intent of this “loyalist” meme. This is not accurate, and even if it were, it would have no practical effect.
Instead, the real charm of this piece lies in this quote from Mike Davis:
Future Trump judicial nominees ‘must be even better’ bold more conservative and more fearless” said Republican legal activist Mike Davis, one of the conservative lawyers pushing for tougher policies in a potential second Trump administration than those appointed in the first administration. .
As I wrote,judicial courage“This should be an important indicator for future judges. I think any plausible judicial candidate would profess fidelity to textualism and originalism, or at least pretend to do so.” That’s a given. The better question is what the judge will do about it.” In jurisprudence, what? quantum The originalist evidence is sufficient to overturn the status quo. This is not simply a question of gaze judgment. I have written at length about how Judge Barrett has placed an extremely burdensome burden on litigants trying to change things. And bullet mode is common enough in lower courts. Of course, lower court judges cannot overturn Supreme Court precedent. Also, circuit priorities cannot be reversed on individual panels. But between those lines, Lower court originalism.
The article went on to say that conservatives were “surprised” by Justice Gorsuch’s comments. bostock The majority and Judge Kavanaugh concur.
For example, in 2020, some people were shocked when Gorsuch, the most liberal of the Trump trio, joined forces with liberal justices and Chief Justice John Roberts to extend federal civil rights protections to LGBT employees. There was also Others expressed outrage at Kavanaugh’s practice of filing concurring opinions acknowledging the concerns of his liberal opponents, even when he votes with the conservative majority. That’s what he also did in his 2022 decision to remove a woman’s federal right to have an abortion before the fetus is viable.
No one should be surprised by the actions of Trump’s appointees. They are currently working exactly the same as they are working below. To the extent that conservatives are dissatisfied with these judges, they should reconsider their appointment criteria.
The remainder of the article attempts to outline the division between the “old guard” and “new guard” within the Federalist Society.
Veterans of the movement, including the lawyers who helped found the Federalist Society in the 1980s, say the move is aimed at discrediting the conservative principles they have worked for decades to legitimize within a left-leaning legal community. They are afraid of it and are rebelling against it.
Since losing the 2020 election, Trump has broken with Federalist Society leaders. They enthusiastically pushed for mass judicial appointments during his first term, but have since backtracked on his efforts to block President Biden’s victory and faced dozens of criminals. did not openly support him because of his Fee.
President Trump is gravitating toward more combative lawyers outside the conservative legal community who say he wants to thwart regulators and centralize power in the White House. The changes have sidelined conservatives in favor of groups like America First Legal, run by former Trump adviser Stephen Miller. Miller, who is not a lawyer, said he founded the group to fight what he called an “unholy alliance of corrupt special interests” including big tech companies, fake news media and liberal politicians in Washington. Tachida. ”. . . .
Longtime members of the Federalist Society say the group does not advocate any particular position, but rather promotes conservative and liberal ideas more broadly and provides a career network for right-wing lawyers interested in government and the judiciary. It was established for the purpose of
Former Attorney General Ted Olson, who participated in the 1982 Yale conference, said, “I believe that the strength of the Federalist Society is that we allow our members to take positions, rather than taking positions.” “I’m one of the traditionalists,” he said. Law school founded by the group. . . .
Sarah Isgur, a spokeswoman for the Trump Justice Department who considers herself more of a traditional conservative, said the Federalist Society has historically led its movement to the most prestigious law schools and professions. Although I have tried to relate it to the above performance, I said that there is a different standard for start-ups.
FedSoc’s direction appears to be separate from issues regarding potential Trump candidates. But given the pending presidential search, I think FedSoc is at some kind of tipping point.
