Since I was traveling, I’m a bit late to  Trump’s fantastic 510-word Truth Social post, in which he calls Leonard Leo a sleazebag and blames the Federalist Society that Trump-appointed judges — including US Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Reif — have ruled against him and even suggests that people he calls “Radical Left Judges” are in cahoots with “very bad people” who by context must include Leo. 🤡🤡🤡

Simply fantastic.

I’ve annotated the post to unpack the treatise, which reads as if Peter Navarro and Mike Davis got together, chomped a bunch of hallucinogens, and stole the keys to Trump’s Truth Social account.

The key points are:

• The tariffs are — Trump lies, repeatedly — super duper good!
• The US Court of International Trade ruled they’re illegal, but the Federal Court of Appeals (which disappears later in this screed) put that ruling on hold
• Leonard Leo (and not Mike Davis, who played a central role in confirming judges during Trump’s first Administration) must be responsible every time a Trump-appointed judge rules against Trump, because it surely can’t be the law and surely can’t be Trump’s (or Mike Davis’) shitty picks
• And therefore (there’s really no therefore here — it does not logically follow at all) SCOTUS must reverse this decision

I’ve been tracking the significance of right wing support for these tariff challenges from the start.

It matters that not just a Leonard Leo-funded group but also a Koch-backed group opposed Trump’s tariffs — and his unconstitutional power grab in imposing them — even before Gavin Newsom and then a bunch of other Democratic states did (last week’s decision pertained to the Koch-funded effort; the one associated with Leo is still pending). It matters that there are some issues that are so dear to right wing jurisprudence (or pocketbooks) and are so clearly reserved for Congress that left, right, and centrist opposition to Trump can agree on those issues. It matters that the topic at hand, Trump’s tariffs, have already done so much damage to the US economy and stature in the world.

This treatise appears to be an attempt to deal with both those issues: Trump has been ruled to have violated the law over and over again, including (increasingly) by Trump-appointed judges and if SCOTUS sides with the Koch Foundation and Democratic states on this, it’ll be an enormous rebuke to Trump’s unlawful power grabs.

This legal case is one that threatens his entire bid to authoritarian power, not because it is key to codifying his police state, politicizing government, or destroying civil society — the other topics that SCOTUS has and will review in months ahead — but because it unifies left, right, and center.

And so Trump implores SCOTUS, a SCOTUS on which his two most reliable allies, Clarence Thomas and Sammy Alito, also happen to have benefitted from a lifetime of Leo’s lucrative attention, to “QUICKLY and DECISIVELY” side with him here. Poor Trump even whimpers, “I hope that is not so, and don’t believe it is!” that Leo controls SCOTUS, because if he did (the post implies) Trump would lose this case.

Perhaps Trump means this as a challenge to Clarence and Sammy’s self-respect.

As I said, I got to this fantastic post late. Much ink has been spilled about the extent to which this reflects a real break from Leo’s vetting of judicial candidates. Certainly Davis has promised to find real nutjobs in this second term. The screed appeared the day after Pam Bondi wrote the American Bar Association to tell them she believed their adherence to legal standards made them biased and so would exclude them from reviewing Trump’s judicial nominees. So it may well just be an effort to roll out a wider approach to installing hack judges.

That’s an interesting and important question; after all, Trump has yet to confirm any judge this term, so it’s possible that without Leo’s diligence, Trump simply won’t stack the courts like he did his first term. It’s also true that (as this post and his recent nomination of Emil Bove makes clear) Trump’s litmus test for judges going forward will be fealty to him, not the law.

But in the short term, I’m most interested in who gets Sammy Alito in the divorce. Who gets the hundreds of judges Trump appointed his first term. Who gets Aileen Cannon. Who gets everyone else who owes a decade of career advancement to Leo’s curation and care?

I imagine, in the short term, this is meant just like it reads. “Thank you for your attention to this matter!” Trump concludes, after giving SCOTUS an order. Don’t let Leonard Leo tell you what to do, that’s my job!

But it could well backfire among judges who do owe allegiance to the networks Leo built.