President Donald Trump on Tuesday went after the Supreme Court after it rejected his push to restrict mail-in voting in this year’s midterms, saying justices who opposed him were “not the people I interviewed.”
His social media missive was just the latest in a long history of Trump assailing justices, particularly those he had nominated, who ruled against him on his administration’s most prominent initiatives. The president has been publicly furious with the Supreme Court over its decisions against restricting birthright citizenship and his ability to issue tariffs unilaterally.
On mail-in voting, the Trump administration had made a last-minute push to have the U.S. Postal Service play a central role in deciding who would be able to receive a ballot. But state election officials argued there was not enough time to make the changes for the Nov. 3 midterm elections — and said their systems were already secure and accurate.
The court ruled late Monday in an emergency order that the restrictions would most likely lose in court, at least for this year’s election.
“The Court’s inability and unwillingness to do the right thing for our Country will go down, in a very negative way, in the annals of History,” Trump wrote in a lengthy social media post Tuesday. “This Supreme Court is bullied and cajoled by the Radical Left into making decisions that have set America back at least a hundred years.”
Justices Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas publicly dissented from the order, and Trump on Tuesday called them “legends both.” Trump has nominated three of the justices on the Supreme Court — Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh.
“These are not the people I interviewed to serve on the United States Supreme Court, they are merely a shell of their original selves,” Trump said. He asserted that the court “is costing the United States Trillions of Dollars with shockingly bad rulings that are of such magnitude that it won’t be easily possible for our Country to recover or heal.”
He asserted that the court “is costing the United States Trillions of Dollars with shockingly bad rulings that are of such magnitude that it won’t be easily possible for our Country to recover or heal.”
Sounds like someone is projecting again, the poor dear.
Only things that dude is slammin’ are hamberders and Diet Coke.
Tuesday. “This Supreme Court is bullied and cajoled by the Radical Left into making decisions that have set America back at least a hundred years.”
Isn’t setting America back hundreds of years kind of his thing?
Yep. Anything for a dollar.
He’s done so much to rig the game in his favor and he still can’t fucking figure out how to play
Have we returned to using “slams” in headlines again?
And I lose a little bit of respect for AP news every time. Come on AP, we don’t have a lot of good news sources any more.
Did we ever stop?
“The Court’s inability and unwillingness to do the right thing for our Country will go down, in a very negative way, in the annals of History,”
Well, he got something right for once, but not in the way he thinks. Just for once they chose loyalty to the constitution over loyalty to Trump, and this is how he reacts.
“These are not the people I interviewed…"
I’m not American, so I’m not sure how it works, but the President doesn’t do the ‘interviewing’, does he?
They weren’t being loyal or defending the constitution, though they will now be able to say they did the right thing whilst the USPS will tamper with anything and everything they can. The SC will shrug and say they tried.
The President nominates a candidate for SCOTUS, so in theory he should probably have interviewed Barrett and Kavanaugh. I’m guessing another crony around him told him who to put forth for the nominations though and he didn’t actually do any work.
I’m not American, so I’m not sure how it works, but the President doesn’t do the ‘interviewing’, does he?
No, he does not.
Um Ackshually, his job is to nominate the judge, then the Senate gets to vote to approve it or not. (Or just ignore it! Thanks, Mitch!)
So, while there wasn’t an “interview”, in the same sense of a job interview, he probably talked to them all to brag about himself and extract a loyalty pledge before making the formal nomination. (He likely just got the names off a list the Heritage Foundation gave him, anyway).
You’re not even a citizen and you know more about how our government works than he does.
Maybe, but not necessarily in this case. POTUS nominates a person for SCOTUS, which imo should involve interviews or at least discussions with said candidate.
Demented rapist says what
He votes by mail! Wtf?
The contradiction doesn’t mean anything. It’s always ok for him to do whatever he wants to do for any reason at all, or no reason. They live for the contradiction because they get to do the whole Oh are you tRiGgEReD thing and laugh with their asshole friends who are all doing exactly the same thing all the time everywhere else that they exist.
He’s just going to do it anyway. He’s king. There’s no one to oppose him.
I guess the check he sent either bounced or wasn’t big enough
Sad that there were 2 dissenters in ruling. Rejecting on timing alone was necessary. So, the whole process had no seriousness, and instead is just fabricating anger, and setting up 6 more years of rants against election results and deep state.
Dude Clarence Thomas would dissent against a ban on eating children if Trump paid him enough.
Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh.
Slams!
