In his second term, President Donald Trump is determined to have much greater control over the criminal nomination process, despite his regrets about earlier picking judges who later abandoned his agenda.
According to older advisers and sources familiar with the domestic discussion, Trump is physically directing a smooth, loyalty-first screening process shaped by the instructions from his first term — amid concerns with some of his Supreme Court officials including Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch. White House aides are interviewing potential judicial nominees for up to four times, taking their time to determine whether they just select tight constitutionalists.
Every single person advising the leader on these judges is committed to making sure that these justices align or judges coincide with the priorities of what a constitutional judge had assistance, and that’s the priority, according to a White House aide who spoke to the Washington Examiner.” This is Trump 2.0 and we have learned a lot when we were taking a four year break, and we’ve come into this administration as a well-oiled machine that is relying on good counsel from our White House Counsel, his DOJ
According to a source familiar with Trump’s inner-circle quagmires over his own appointees, the president’s airing his concerns is more like a pressure tactic than a complete divorce from the conservative legal movement.
” They’re being aggressive. They are intentionally making noise. According to the source,” I think they’re having some success with it,” and it’s a tactic, noting that the Trump administration is actually “pretty happy with some of the wins they’ve been getting in court.”
A White House source also acknowledged that Trump “may have frustrations towards some of the judges or justices that have ruled against what he feels is common sense”.
The White House has, to be clear, downplayed CNN’s initial reports about Trump’s frustrations, remaining unwavering in its commitment to supporting the Supreme Court despite the negative rulings it has rendered against him.
President Trump will always support the United States Supreme Court, in contrast to the Democratic Party, which, if given the chance, would cram the court and ultimately undermine its integrity, according to White House spokesman Harrison Fields. ” The President may disagree with the Court and some of its rulings, but he will always respect its foundational role”.
Based on how Trump has treated people he has previously unpopular with, another White House source criticized the reports.
The aide told the Washington Examiner,” If he’s pissed, he’s doing a remarkable job of not showing it.” ” The president usually makes it clear exactly who is on his s*** list”.
In a number of closely watched decisions this term, Barrett has sided with the high court’s Democratic-appointed bloc, initially causing backlash from MAGA supporters and online fanatics. She joined Chief Justice John Roberts in reversing Trump’s decision to freeze billions of dollars in foreign aid and the majority in opposing his administration’s plan to freeze his hush money case in New York just before his inauguration. She partially dissented from a decision allowing deportations of Venezuelan nationals, expressing more concern about due process protections than Trump’s hard-line immigration enforcement — an issue critical to Trump’s agenda.
Mike Davis, a former Gorsuch law clerk and former chief counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee nominees, has spoken out against Coney Barrett and Trump in the past and has criticized him in public. Davis is also the founder of the nonprofit advocacy group The Article III Project, which promotes the confirmation of conservative justices.  ,
Former White House chief political strategist Steve Bannon said last month,” She’s a rattled law professor with her head up her a**,” Davis, who was a rumored contender to become Trump’s attorney general before the president tapped Pam Bondi during his transition.
However, the White House’s efforts have turned to improving its judicial vetting process because Barrett is already serving a lifelong term on the Supreme Court and is ineligible for impeachment.
” The process for nominating judges to the federal bench is one]where ] the president’s always going to be the final decider”, the first White House aide said. These people will be thoroughly checked, if you will, on both judicial philosophy and, you know, just their personal backgrounds and street cred. Yes, we are accepting the recommendations from outside groups, part of that. … Hometown senators, hometown representatives, we’re going to entertain those as well. We want to make sure that we are vetted against these individuals, though, in the end.
According to the aide, it is a constitutionalist in the mold of Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas in terms of what the White House wants in its nominees.
” We’re going to dot every’ I,’ cross every’ T,’ and we’re going to comb through everything. This is a procedure, isn’t it? Why haven’t there been many more judges, many people ask. This is a thorough process”, the aide said. The president has had a particular interest in the process, and that is one thing we want to emphasize. He will demand more information if he believes he doesn’t have enough information.
The aide added that Trump is committed to an “extremely thorough process”, requiring nominees to be interviewed” not just once, not just twice, maybe three, four times” to ensure they reflect a genuine constitutionalist philosophy. The assistant said the aim is to nominate judges who are “every member of the staff can stand by,” as opposed to those who merely support a political ideology that is “adjacent to what a constitutionalist would believe.”
For instance, the White House is collaborating with organizations like Davis’s Article III Project to endorse Whitney Hermandorfer as Trump’s first appellate nominee for his second term. Hermandorfer, who has been a member of the Federalist Society since she was in graduate school, was nominated last month to become the next judge on the U. S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.
Despite Trump’s criticism of the Federalist Society, a nonprofit organization that promotes a textual and original interpretation of the Constitution, the group has such a powerful influence on the conservative legal system that it is almost impossible to downplay its impact.  ,
Even if the administration sought to exclude Federalist Society-affiliated attorneys from judicial consideration, doing so would drastically shrink the talent pool. Because the network of the organization is so firmly rooted in the right-of-center legal system, disqualifying its members would leave few viable alternatives.
Because it’s just a null set, according to a source familiar with Trump’s inner circle planning,” they’re not able to fill the federal bench with people who are conservatives, who don’t have Federalist Society ties.”
Meanwhile in the Senate, several Republican lawmakers pushed back on Trump’s frustrations with past appointees such as Barrett.
Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA ), a vocal member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, supported Barrett, but he did not directly challenge Trump over his alleged animosity with the justice.
” Well, I don’t like it, but America is here,” I said. You can believe what you want, but I don’t agree with it. According to Kennedy,” I believe she did a good justice.”
Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL ), a fellow member of the president’s family, expressed frustration with lower court judges ‘ nationwide injunctions against Trump’s most important executive agenda points, not the Supreme Court.
” I mean, they got their own mind, yeah, but it’s just unfortunate. The Supreme Court is, in my opinion, essentially non-biased, and we’ve seen the voting. With all these injunctions, it’s the federal judges who are out of control. They’re just trying to slow him down”, Tuberville told the Washington Examiner, saying,” I’ve had hit and misses on coaches I hired”.
One of the few Republicans willing to publicly challenge Trump’s judicial vetting process is Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), another member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  ,
During Trump’s first term, Hawley helped sink at least two of the president’s nominees — Michael Bogren, whom he accused of harboring anti-Catholic bias, and Halil Suleyman” Sul” Ozerden, whom he criticized for lacking a solid constitutionalist record. Hawley has long argued that Republican-appointed judges must have a proven track record of conservative jurisprudence, rather than just passing credentials.  ,
On Wednesday, Hawley boasted confidence over four federal district court nominees from his home state of Missouri lined up for a nominations hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, suggesting that Trump’s second-term picks are up to par with the once-critical lawmaker’s framework.
CLICK HERE TO ACCESS MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
The high court, according to Carrie Severino, a conservative judicial advocate, former Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas law clerk, and president of the Leo-backed group JCN.
” I don’t agree with every decision the justices make, but if it weren’t for them Roe would still be on the books, companies could engage in DEI and racism with impunity, the administrative state would be even more powerful, and Trump himself would probably be in jail,” Severino, whose nonprofit organization advocates for conservative judges, told the Washington Examiner.
