Welcome to the deep dive. Today, we're digging
into something really fascinating in recent politics.
It's this surprising trend where judicial appointees,
specifically those appointed by Donald Trump,
end up ruling against his administration's actions.
Right. It kind of cuts against the grain, doesn't
it? Because the underlying assumption, certainly
from the executive side, often seems to be that
you appoint judges who will Well, see things
your way. Exactly. And the sources we're looking
at suggest the former president himself expected
his judges would, quote, rule for him when he
is sued. The reality. The scorecard, as our sources
put it, shows quite a few significant losses
for his administration delivered by those very
judges. OK, so let's jump right into those rulings.
What patterns do we actually see here? Let's
start with maybe the clash between executive
power and constitutional limits. Good place to
start. You had Judge Corinna Marget in Oregon.
She ruled against using the National Guard in
a way that bordered on martial law. Her quote
was really powerful. What does she say? She wrote,
This is a nation of constitutional law, not martial
law. Pretty direct. Wow. Yeah, that sets a tone.
It suggests the oath matters more than who appointed
you. It seems that way. And this wasn't, you
know, an isolated incident. We saw it pop up
again and again, even with obscure old laws.
So it wasn't just about national security situations.
What about core legal principles like due process?
Did that come up? Oh, definitely. Especially
around immigration. That seemed to be a real
flash point. So we'll take Judge Fernando Rodriguez,
Jr. he looked at the administration trying to
use the Alien Enemies Act. Isn't that like really
old from wartime? Exactly, a very old statute.
He ruled using it to deport Venezuelan nationals
in peacetime was simply unlawful. And then you
had Judge John Holcomb affirming that Well, even
people facing deportation still have rights.
They're entitled to due process, a proper hearing.
So you can't just bypass the system. That's what
the judges were saying. And speaking of hearings,
immigrant detention was another big area. Right.
The administration wanted to expand detention
without immigrants getting a hearing before a
judge first, correct? Precisely. And three different
Trump appointees pushed back. Judges Dominic
Lanza, Rebecca Jennings, and Kyle Dudek. All
of them essentially said, no, you can't just
expand attention like that unilaterally. People
need that hearing before a judge. It's fundamental.
So a consistent theme of judicial process, taking
precedence. Yes. And it wasn't just the rulings
themselves. Things got a bit tense institutionally.
How do you mean? Well, the judges started feeling
the political heat, and some began to push back
publicly. They weren't just ruling, they were
defending the judiciary itself. Okay, that's
interesting. Like, who? We have a quote here
from U .S. District Judge Thomas Collin of Maryland.
He called out what he saw as a, quote, concerted
effort by the executive to smear and impugn individual
judges. So judges felt they were being attacked
for just doing their jobs. That's certainly the
implication. He called it unprecedented and unfortunate.
it signals a real strain between the branches.
And were there other examples of judges kind
of reinforcing their independence? Yeah, a couple
more standouts. Judge Dabney Friedrich ruled
that a pardon related to January 6th couldn't
be used to shield someone from prosecution for
totally unrelated crimes. OK. And Judge Mary
McElroy blocked the administration from pulling
about what was it, $233 million in FEMA disaster
grants away from blue states. Basically saying
you can't use disaster aid as a political weapon.
Pretty much. So faced with all these rulings
from his own picks, how did the former president
react? Did he reconsider his criteria? Well,
not according to these sources. Instead of acknowledging
maybe a misjudgment in the selections, the blame
got shifted. Shifted where? Reportedly, he blamed
the Heritage Foundation. Said they gave him bad
advice on who to appoint. Blaming the very conservative
group that helped vet so many nominees. Right.
It points to maybe some internal friction within
the conservative legal world about, you know,
what they're actually looking for in a judge.
Absolutely. So if we boil it all down, what's
the main takeaway from looking at these sources?
I think it's pretty clear. These judges, once
they got on the bench, seemed to put the law
and the Constitution first. Loyalty to the person
who appointed them? Well, that seems secondary.
Which leaves us with a big question for you,
the listener, to think about. Is this pattern
we've discussed just about this particular group
of judges appointed under specific circumstances?
Or does it maybe tell us something more fundamental?
That maybe the judicial branch, once someone
takes that oath, inherently answers to the law
itself, not the politics of the moment. Something
to consider the sheer institutional strength
needed for the courts to push back like that.
Definitely something to mull over. That's our
deep dive for today.