Only after I moved in and tried to fall asleep on the first night did I realize why I was able to rent the place so easily: It was a few blocks down the street from a fire station, and the trucks passed under my window whenever they responded to a call. It took me about a month—a painful, exhausting, bleary-eyed month—to get used to it. Now I can sleep through almost anything.
Trump’s social-media rants these days are so frequent and so voluminous that it is rarely worth paying them any specific attention to them. But his Mother’s Day post about the Supreme Court is a notable exception. The president gave a surprisingly frank assessment of his view of the Supreme Court—and how he expects personal loyalty from the justices that he appoints to it.
“I ‘Love’ Justice Neil Gorsuch! He’s a really smart and good man, but he voted against me, and our Country, on Tariffs, a devastating move,” Trump wrote. “How do I reconcile this? So bad, and hurtful to our Country. I have, likewise, always liked and respected Amy Coney Barrett, but the same thing with her. They were appointed by me, and yet have hurt our Country so badly!”
Naturally, that partial silence was not out of respect for the court. Trump obviously does not hold the three liberal justices in high regard. Last month, for example, he described Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson as “low IQ,” an insult that he typically reserves for Black lawmakers and officials, in another social media post. Chief Justice John Roberts has also been frequently criticized by Trump in the past, but received a less harsh treatment after his rulings for Trump in the disqualification case and the immunity case.
Two things stand out here. One is that Trump implicitly admits that, by siding with him, Gorsuch and Barrett would not be doing “the right thing.” So deeply ingrained in American culture is judicial independence that even Trump himself, the arch-heretic of American civil republicanism, must acknowledge it. The other is that Trump drops the pretense and explicitly demands loyalty from them.
But it is still striking to see him demand it from Supreme Court justices—and, by extension, from a co-equal branch of government—simply because he appointed them. If this is his public thinking about the justices, it casts doubt on whether any second-term Trump appointee can be trusted to place the national interest or the law ahead of Trump’s personal and political goals.
That under-oath answer would be more reassuring if Trump hadn’t spent the last year waging a war against Fed independence and specifically demanding that interest rates be set to his liking, at his whim. His administration has launched pretextual investigations into both Jerome Powell, the outgoing Fed chair, and governor Lisa Cook. Trump tried to fire Cook from the Fed last summer despite statutory for-cause removal protections; the Supreme Court blocked her removal pending its decision on the merits later this term.
If Trump is willing to demand personal loyalty from Supreme Court justices, what about his lower-court nominees? Senate Democrats have asked Trump nominees for federal judgeships whether they believe Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election. On multiple occasions, they have merely responded that Biden was “certified” as the winner—an evasive response that flatters Trump’s conspiracy theories about the election, defies the will of the American people, and suggests a lack of independent judgment.
This would surely be news to Democratic presidents. Both of Obama’s confirmed Supreme Court nominees voted against him in a 2014 case on his recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board. Justice Elena Kagan sided with the court’s conservatives on blocking Medicaid expansion requirements in the landmark 2012 case on the Affordable Care Act’s constitutionality. I have personally never looked at the three current liberal justices in quite the same way since they voted to overturn Trump’s disqualification from the Colorado presidential ballot two years ago in Trump v. Anderson.
If anything, Trump should be thrilled with his treatment by the Supreme Court these days. During his first term, the court was much more willing to constrain Trump in key cases—keeping DACA on the books, blocking a citizenship question for the 2020 Census, allowing a New York grand jury to subpoena his financial records from his accountant, and so on. Back then, I noted, he seemed to assume that the court was closely aligned with him even when it very clearly wasn’t.
From there, Trump once again recounted the scope of his 2024 electoral victory—which was middling at best—and expressed dismay that the court would likely soon strike down his birthright-citizenship executive order. It is unclear whether he has any personal insight into the court’s decision-making. Leaks from the high court are increasingly common these days, and past presidents have occasionally received a clandestine heads-up about key rulings from friendly justices.
“Well, maybe Neil, and Amy, just had a really bad day, but our Country can only handle so many decisions of that magnitude before it breaks down, and cracks!!!” he continued, in what can be interpreted as either a prediction, a threat, or an act of desperation. “Sometimes decisions have to be allowed to use Good, Strong, Common Sense as a guide. A negative ruling on Birthright Citizenship, on top of the recent Supreme Court Tariff catastrophe, is not Economically sustainable for the United States of America!”
What Trump’s rant does underscore is how he thinks about the court and its place in American society—not as a neutral arbiter of constitutional law, but as a Pez dispenser to give him easy wins. In fairness to Trump, the court failed to disabuse him of his notion when it defied the Constitution on his behalf in 2024. But even these justices appear to have some limits—at least for now—as shown by the tariffs ruling that he despises.
This rhetoric must also be held against any nominee he puts forward in a role that requires any sort of institutional neutrality, whether at the Federal Reserve or a federal district court somewhere in Florida or Texas. The president has made clear once again that he expects reciprocal favor from anyone he installs in a high government position. This is not a new siren blaring across our political landscape, but Americans cannot afford to sleep through it.
Hence then, the article about trump thinks the supreme court works for him was published today ( ) and is available on The New Republic ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Trump Thinks the Supreme Court Works For Him )
Also on site :