Trump privately complains about Amy Coney Barrett and other Supreme Court justices he nominated

Wompity womp womp womp.

Trump's anger, sources said, has been fueled by allies on the right, who have told Trump privately that Barrett is “weak” and that her rulings have not been in line with how she presented herself in an interview before Trump nominated her to the bench in 2020.

Last week, as Trump raged over a three-judge panel’s decision against his tariff plan, he took aim at Federalist Society leader Leonard Leo, who played a major role in helping Trump identify judges to put on the federal bench.

In a Truth Social post, Trump called Leo a “real ‘sleazebag’ … a bad person, who in his own way, probably hates America.”

Did her really think SCOTUS would just bull doze America with his agenda?

Basically the oligarchs convinced Trump to name his 3 justices so that abortion would be banned and money could control politics.

"I run the country and the world."

Pick me! Pick me next, Mr. President! I’ll rule any way you want me to. Just look at the classified document case I buried for you already.

Allies on the right = Laura Looner

[quote]according to multiple sources familiar with the conversations

[quote]the sources familiar with the matter said.

Sounds like something out of People magazine.

It's always suspicious when it's some anonymous source.

Like urban legends, as soon as you hear "I heard it from a friend of a friend" you know it's bullshit.

You know he’s seething that he can’t fire them. “Lifetime appointment” asshole.

With his attack on Leo, Trump - in true Trump fashion - isn’t exactly keeping his feelings close to the vest.

It’s like he has bad judgment or something

He's always had a dictator's mindset. He gets the vast majority of what he wants simply because Congress is MIA and the federal courts are generally conservative, but since he doesn't get every last thing, it's a betrayal.

It must be Trump hatred.

I can't believe you guys actually believe this. 😂

Actually, I can because many of you live in a woke bubble and only watch "news" you want to hear.

With recent polling released this week showing approval for Democrats at an all-time low and that the majority of Americans don't see them as leaders but as "ineffectual slugs," not to mention being mocked for spending $20 million on learning how to talk to men in order to win them back (all of which was not even mentioned here on DL) shows how out-of-touch and desperate Dems are are, throwing shit at a wall to see what sticks.

This article coming from CNN, no less. 🤣

Does he need a whambulance?

I wish Leonard Leo would do something about it.

[quote] Trump's anger, sources said, has been fueled by allies on the right, who have told Trump privately that Barrett is “weak”

On the contrary. She’s displaying surprising spine and ethical boundaries. Quite unexpected.

[quote] But he has directed particular ire at Justice Amy Coney Barrett, his most recent appointee, one of the sources said.

Well, she has a vagina so that tracks.

R14, knowing what we know about Trump, how is it—oh, never mind, you’re a troll.

Does he still think ACB has “good genes” now? Yes he said that once.

Did he really think these now justices-for-life were going to believe they "owed him something" for giving them their jobs?

Tee hee!

I'm watching for whether Trump attempts to use his win at the Supreme Court in the 2024 "US vs. Trump" case to test whether his now-protected "official acts" (even when they break the law/violate the constitution) include the firing a member of the Supreme Court.

Someone with legal standing (e.g., the fired Justice) would then have to sue Trump, and the remainder of the Supreme Court would have to decide whether or not Trump would be liable for firing the Justice.

This is exactly the kind of envelope-pushing and double-crossing (in this case, of members of the Supreme Court) that Trumps seems to relish.

He nominated these justices during a time when overturning Roe was the primary objective. The pool of candidates available to Trump was stocked with right wing zealots, but those individuals were still institutionalists at the end of the day. It will take time before the outright insurrectionists and traitors have been elevated to sufficient prominance where they will be taken seriously as Supreme Court justices.

Depending on whether MAGA survives Donald Trump, Amy Coney Barrett might be the best we can expect for the foreseeable future.

Wouldn't get you hopes up. ACB is the Susan Collins of the Supremes.

[quote]Someone with legal standing (e.g., the fired Justice) would then have to sue Trump, and the remainder of the Supreme Court would have to decide whether or not Trump would be liable for firing the Justice.

That's not how that would go down. The Supreme Court would ignore a directive like this and go about business as though it never occurred. It would probably trigger a constitutional crisis of some sort, but this sort of lawsuit will not be what triggers it.

R25. Interesting. So if the Supreme Court didn’t take the case, and a lower court(s) ruled in favor of Trump, would that ruling(s) hold but be ignored by the Supreme Court?

I APPOINTED THREE DAVID SOUTERS TO THE COURT!

They can always do a stare decisis with the lower court -- and let the lower court decision stand. Then the Supremes don't have anything to apologize for.

He is a fucking moron who does not understand how the Court or the law work, Although the Supreme Court has a 6-3 originalist majority, they are not going to bulldoze over the Constitution to do Trump's bidding.

Remember, it is all about Trump. You must be loyal to Trump, not the Constitution. These justices are loyal to the Constitution, and not Trump. Ergo, he thinks they are liberals, the establishment, anti-Trump, etc.

R27 Like he knows who David Souter was...

R26

I am going walk back my earlier statement. Because while I was in the process of answering your question at R26, it occurred to me, "If Trump did file suit in federal court to enforce an action like that, who would represent the people?"

I don't have a good answer for that. The government's attorneys typically represent the people, but Trump controls the solicitor general's office and the Department of Justice.

I am not sure who defends us from our own government, to be honest.

Now that I am thinking about it, I cannot imagine a constitutional crisis any more grave than the scenario you outlined. I was wrong in my initial response. Let us hope it does not come to pass.

I believe the Constitutional crisis began in earnest on 7/1/24 when Justice Roberts released the majority Supreme Court decision in Trump v. United States that declared that a sitting president has the right to take “bold and unhesitating action” in “official acts” without regard to legal liability. That was during Biden’s administration. I think Roberts and Coney Barrett now realize their decision may ultimately destroy US democracy because Trump is president again and is out for revenge. I think the other 4 conservative justices know but don’t care, as long as they can hold onto their power by appeasing Trump as much as needed.

Judge Amy has more starch in her bonnet than I gave her credit for.

Wasn’t there some icy interaction between them at the SOTU or some other Congressional address of his? I seem to recall FB reels of it. But it seems like 100 years ago now (it was probably February).

MAGA rage against Justice Barrett has been brewing.

[quote] He is a fucking moron who does not understand how the Court or the law work

To your point, I remember during the '16 campaign Trump making some reference to the Supreme Court "investigating" something. His ignorance about government was & remains mind-blowing.

R37, I recall him saying during that campaign that he would select justices who would investigate Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while she served as Secretary of State.

It could be worse. Dump hasn't put Aileen Cannon on the court.....yet. She will do whatever he asks.

Yes, R38, that refreshes my memory.

I missed her reaction to Trump after his speech to Congress earlier in the year.