Opinion: Amy Coney Barrett and the Secret Legal Agenda That Played Trump Like a Chump
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
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US budget deficit forecast $1 trillion higher over next decade, watchdog says
By David Lawder WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. federal budget deficits will be nearly $1 trillion higher over the next decade than projected in January by the Congressional Budget Office as a result of tax and spending legislation and tariffs, a budget watchdog said on Wednesday. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget's latest forecasts show a cumulative deficit of $22.7 trillion from fiscal 2026 to 2035, compared to the CBO's January forecast of $21.8 trillion, which was based on laws and policies that were in place before U.S. President Donald Trump took office in January. The CBO, Congress' non-partisan budget referee agency, said on Monday that it will not issue its customary mid-year budget update this year and will issue its next 10-year budget and economic outlook in early 2026, offering no explanation for the move. The CRFB, which advocates for deficit reduction, projected a $1.7 trillion deficit in fiscal 2025 or 5.6% of GDP, down slightly from $1.83 trillion in 2024 and the CBO's 2025 projection of $1.87 trillion in January. But it said deficits steadily rise over the decade, reaching $2.6 trillion or 5.9% of GDP by 2035. The new CRFB estimates include the budget effects of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act tax and spending bill, as well as Trump's tariffs that are currently in place. But like CBO, they do not include the dynamic economic effects on growth from these changes, a forecasting rule that has drawn criticism from the Trump administration. The group projects the tax cut and spending bill to increase deficits, including interest, by $4.6 trillion through 2035, adding another year to the CBO's $4.1 trillion cost estimate through 2034. But CRFB estimates that this will be offset by $3.4 trillion worth of extra import duty revenue over the next decade due to Trump's new tariffs that are currently in place. New rules restricting eligibility for health insurance subsidies will reduce deficits by another $100 billion through 2035, and Congress' rescission of prior funding to foreign aid, public broadcasting and other programs would save another $100 billion if sustained over a decade, CRFB said. Net interest payments on the national debt will total $14 trillion over the decade, CRFB projected, rising from nearly $1 trillion or 3.2% of GDP in 2025 to $1.8 trillion or 4.1% of GDP in 2035. TARIFF CHALLENGE The forecasts are based on legislative and tariff changes since January but keep CBO's economic forecasts unchanged. Under an alternative scenario forecast by CRFB, the budget picture looks far worse, boosting deficits nearly $7 trillion higher than the CBO baseline. This scenario would see a significant part of Trump's tariffs canceled if the Court of International Trade's ruling against many of Trump's new tariffs is upheld, cutting $2.4 trillion from revenues over a decade. The alternative scenario also assumes extension of a number of temporary tax cuts in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, including tax breaks on overtime, tips, Social Security income and car loan interest, higher state and local tax deduction allowances and full expensing of factory investments, adding $1.7 trillion to deficits over 10 years. CRFB's alternative scenario also ditches the CBO's projection of a decline in 10-year U.S. Treasury yields over the decade to about 3.8%. If that interest rate stays at the current level of about 4.3%, interest costs would grow by about $1.6 trillion through 2035, CRFB said. The total 2035 debt-to-GDP ratio would grow from 118% in the CBO January baseline to 120% under the CRFB's projected baseline scenario and 134% under the CRFB's alternative scenario. 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
Axios
15 minutes ago
- Axios
Trump administration revokes security clearances of 37 U.S. officials
The Trump administration revoked the security clearances of 37 current and former officials on Tuesday that it accused of "politicization or weaponization" to "advance personal, partisan or non-objective agendas." The big picture: National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard publicly released a memo naming the officials, which Mark Zaid, a lawyer who represents intelligence officers and who's suing the Trump administration to have his revoked security clearance restored, said may have broken the law. Driving the news: Gabbard accused the officials in an X post on the administration's latest move to revoke security clearances of "politicizing and manipulating intelligence, leaking classified intelligence without authorization, and/or committing intentional egregious violations of tradecraft standards." Neither the memo nor Gabbard's post detailed evidence on these claims, but among the intelligence community public servants included in the list are officials who were involved in assessments on Russia's efforts to interfere in the 2016 election and others who worked on national security under former Presidents Biden and Obama. Others signed a letter supporting the impeachment inquiry into President Trump on allegations that he pressured Ukraine, which far-right activist Laura Loomer amplified last month as she noted some still held security clearances. What they're saying: Zaid wrote on X in response to Gabbard's post: "Can you say 'Privacy Act violation'? I certainly can. Further proof of weaponization and politicization. The vast majority of these individuals are not household names & are dedicated public servants who have worked across multiple presidential administrations." He said in a Tuesday night email that information regarding someone's security clearance "is maintained in a protected Privacy Act System of records" and the government "cannot simply release that information without written consent from the individual or the existence of a Routine Use, which I do not believe exists for this purpose." Representatives for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence did not immediately respond to Axios' Tuesday evening request for comment on the matter. Of note: Loomer noted on X that she had previously called for the security clearance of one of those named in the memo to be revoked, adding: "Thank you, Tulsi! MORE SCALPS." That official worked under then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper on an Intelligence Community Assessment that found Russia interfered in the first election that President Trump won, a conclusion that's received bipartisan support in Congress. However, Gabbard last month accused the Obama administration of a " manipulation of intelligence" around Russia's role in the 2016 election. Flashback: On his first day in office, President Trump revoked the security clearances of 51 former intelligence officials who signed a letter in 2020 saying emails from Hunter Biden's laptop carried "classic earmarks of a Russian information operation."
Boston Globe
15 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Ranger fired for hanging transgender flag in Yosemite and park visitors may face prosecution
Advertisement Joslin said their firing sends the opposite message: 'If you're a federal worker and you have any kind of identity that doesn't agree with this current administration, then you must be silent, or you will be eliminated.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Park officials on Tuesday said they were working with the U.S. Justice Department to pursue visitors and workers who violated restrictions on demonstrations at the park that had more than 4 million visitors last year. The agencies 'are pursuing administrative action against several Yosemite National Park employees and possible criminal charges against several park visitors who are alleged to have violated federal laws and regulations related to demonstrations,' Advertisement Joslin said a group of seven climbers including two other park rangers hung the flag. The other rangers are on administrative leave pending an investigation, Joslin said. Flags have long been flown from El Capitan without consequences, said Joanna Citron Day, a former federal attorney who is now with the advocacy group Public Employees For Environmental Responsibility. She said the group is representing Joslin, but there is no pending legal case. On May 21, a day after the flag display, Acting Superintendent Ray McPadden signed a rule prohibiting people from hanging banners, flags or signs larger than 15 square feet in park areas designated as 'wilderness' or 'potential wilderness.' That covers 94% of the park, according to Yosemite's website. Park officials said the new restriction was needed to preserve Yosemite's wilderness and protect climbers. 'We take the protection of the park's resources and the experience of our visitors very seriously, and will not tolerate violations of laws and regulations that impact those resources and experiences,' Pawlitz said. It followed a widely publicized instance in February of demonstrators hanging an upside down American flag on El Capitan to protest the firing of National Park Service employees by the Trump administration. Among the climbers who helped hang the transgender flag was Pattie Gonia, an environmentalist and drag queen who uses the performance art to raise awareness of conservation issues. For the past five years, Gonia has helped throw a Pride event in Yosemite for park employees. She said they hung the transgender flag on the iconic granite monolith to express that being transgender is natural. This year, Trump signed an executive order changing the federal definition of sex to exclude the concept of gender identity. He also banned trans women from competing in women's sports, removed trans people from the military and limited access to gender-affirming care. Advertisement Gonia called the firing unjust. Joslin said they hung the flag in their free time, as a private citizen. 'SJ is a respected pillar within the Yosemite community, a tireless volunteer who consistently goes above and beyond,' Gonia said. Jayson O'Neill with the advocacy group Save Our Parks said Joslin's firing appears aimed at deterring park employees from expressing their views as the Trump administration pursues broad cuts to the federal workforce. Since Trump took office, the National Park Service has lost approximately 2,500 employees from a workforce that had about 10,000 people, Wade said. The Republican president is proposing a $900 million cut to the agency's budget next year. Pawlitz said numerous visitors complained about unauthorized demonstrations on El Capitan earlier in the year. Many parks have designated 'First Amendment areas' where groups 25 or fewer people can protest without permits. Yosemite has several of those areas, including one in Yosemite Valley, where El Capitan is located. Park service rules on demonstrations have existed for decades and withstood several court challenges, said Bill Wade, executive director of the Association of National Park Rangers. He was not aware of any changes in how those rules are enforced under Trump. Associated Press journalist Brittany Peterson contributed reporting from Denver.
