Of all the deals of President Donald Trump, none of them may be more dependent than those in 2016 with Leonard Liu. President Trump announced that the Federal Association will manage his judicial appointments.
Four years and 226 judges, including three judges in the US Supreme Court, later, Mr. Trump has prepared the Federal judiciary The youngest and more conservative. But now, as the courts continue to stop his policies, the president and some of his supporters seek to transform another governor.
When doing this, the president expanded from the rift on the political right between the parks of the hikers and those who distort them as a prevailing elite. The result is likely to be a political discourse on the courts, a letter that has already reached a new intensity in Mr. Trump’s second state.
Why did we write this
President Donald Trump has previously relied on the conservative federal association to help him reshape the judicial branch. After the recent setbacks in the court, the president refers to a new approach to examining the judicial candidates.
“Trump has indicated that he will not postpone the people who did it in the first period because they chose people who did not like them,” says Josh Blackman, a professor at the Law College in South Texas. “Where does this leave us? I don’t know.”
in Social media yet Last week, Mr. Trump put Mr. Liu – who described him as “Silisabag” and “bad person” – and the Federal Association, a conservative legal organization founded in 1982.
“I am very disappointed at the Federal Assembly because of the bad advice they gave me in many judicial nominations,” he wrote. “I am very proud of many of our choices, but with great disappointment in others. They must always do what is suitable for the country!”
For his part, Mr. Liu, co -chair of the Federal Association, responded warmly in a statement. He said: “I am very grateful to President Trump, who transformed federal courts, and it was an involved concession.” “There is more work to be done, for sure, but the federal judiciary is better than before.”
Mr. Trump now seems to prefer a new type of judicial candidate. The last of which is Emil Bouv: his former personal lawyer, and recently, directed the efforts of the Ministry of Justice to combat the justice system, Mr. Trump says he was armed against him.
Upon careful inspection, Mr. Bouv’s nomination to the American Court of Appeal may not appear as it seems to be. The presidents have nominated personal friends in the past, as well as people who have no experience on the bench. But the nomination placed the alarm bells on both sides of the corridor.
A different type of candidate
Like countless federal judges, Mr. Bouv worked as a federal public prosecutor. Like countless others, he was working in both private practice and the Ministry of Justice. But his own practice involves defending Mr. Trump himself from criminal prosecutions. In the months that followed the name of Mr. Trump, he was named the Senior Prosecutor at the Ministry of Justice, sometimes he acted as if he was still the president’s personal lawyer.
In January, the shooting was directed at more than ten years involved in cases related to January 6, 2021, when hundreds of Trump supporters attacked the American Capitol. In February, he suddenly ended the trial of the mayor of New York City, Eric Adams, apparently in an apparent agreement with the Trump administration. Nearly ten actors resigned In protest.
It did not start this way.
The judicial candidates of Mr. Trump, this term has an experience in work for conservative judges and prosecutors, and the experience of work in the areas where they were nominated. Karl Tobias, a professor at the Faculty of Law at the University of Richmond, says they have credit papers “standard case”.
“Various Bove,” he adds.
In fact, it seems that everyone agrees that Bove’s nomination is different. His supporters believe that Mr. Bouv is the type of various federal judicial needs.
Will Chamberlain, chief adviser to the third article of Article, a conservative legal organization established in 2019, says this He says It brings “copper joints to fight the left Lawfare.”
This desire for “courageous” judges seems to be the product of the Trump administration’s continuous conflicts in the courts. The federal judges released Almost 200 judgments Trump’s policies stopped, believing that they are illegal. The United States Supreme Court – with six conservative judges, including three of the two appointed Trump – was a unreliable back.
These frustrations reached a boiling point last week. On the day Mr. Trump officially announced the nomination of Bove, the American International Trade Court ruled that the President’s order with comprehensive international definitions was illegal. The decision was paid to the Federal Anti -Federal Association, which includes 500 words.
The Wall Street Journal, the next day.
“In the world of Mr. Trump, the only good judge is the one who always rules for him,” the council books. The Board of Directors added “its attacks on judicial governors”, “It is possible that Mr. Trump will see fewer judges, fearing that they will be replaced by party breakthroughs.”
Among the other conservative critics of Bove’s nomination, Mr. Trump’s recent speech, Ed Willian, the National Review; John Yu, a high -ranking lawyer in the George W. Bush administration.
presence Described Mr. Bove as “Doj Henchman” in one column, Mr. Willian doubled in a later piece.
“I have serious doubts that Pov has a personality and integrity worthy of assertion as a federal judge,” he is books. “I hope you are my skepticism bad.”
What is the “brave” judge?
At a time when Threats to the judges riseOthers believe that the judicial courage was presented as the judges examined what they consider exaggerated in the presidential authority.
“The way I adopted the utensils [the Constitution] Professor Tobias says: “To make the judiciary an independent branch of the government. The idea that the judge will build an opinion on loyalty to the president is a curse of that idea,” says Professor Tobias.
Now, Bove’s nomination is strange. Among a handful of Mr. Trump’s judicial nominations so far, Mr. Bouv is the only one who carries this level of partisan controversy. But the question now becomes whether Bove’s nomination is still strange or is the beginning of a new direction.
“I expect more nominations in this way,” says Mr. Chamberlain.
“You look at whether they have shown courage,” he added. “If you look at the Supreme Court, it was not in particular courage.”
Some examples: Judges saw that individuals who are subject to deportation under the law of war in the eighteenth century should obtain reasonable legal procedures; Then the Supreme Court issued an order late at night in April, bypassing the regular appeal process, because it seemed that the government violated this matter; Earlier this week, the court refused to hear two challenges to the laws of states prohibiting weapons similar to the attack.
“The court gives priority to dropping everything on behalf of illegal immigrants … while slow walking [cases about] “It is not good enough,” says Mr. Chamberlain.
Criticism draws consideration of the context of the recent Supreme Court rulings in favor of the main conservative reasons. In the past three years, for example, the judges have canceled Roe V. Wade, and they canceled the positive work and Organizational doctrine decadesLooking at Mr. Trump, the wide immunity of criminal prosecution.
However, this makes the Trump administration’s recent conflicts in the court until clear, says GPIMDE Johnson, a political scientist at the University of Georgia.
She says: “The success of the Federal Assembly and the conservative legal movement, not only to obtain these victories, but also to ensure that it is protected to move forward.”
For some, “prominent losses, or legal questions that are not consumed, raises fears that some land may be lost.”
For other conservatives, however, the response is a complete reflection of what the conservative legal movement – embodied by the Federal Society – has sought for decades ago.
The movement was partially established on the belief that judicial dates should be guided by ideology, not care, New York Times.
He added: “The call to isolate the judges or the desire to appoint judges who are not the best and brightness, but instead people get personal rewards from the president,” It was in front of the federal society. “
