Trump’s Controversial Approach to the Judiciary
Former President Trump’s connection to the judiciary is complicated, to say the least. It seems to stem from a rather dubious approach championed by the infamous Roy Cohn.
Cohn’s attitude toward the law often disregarded its principles. When his associates would tell him that the law was not on their side, Cohn would push back with a kind of bravado. He viewed judges not as guardians of justice but as mere politicians, susceptible to threats and coercion. You might say that Trump absorbed these lessons well, seemingly learning from the master.
Take Judge Gonzalo Curiel, for instance. Appointed to the federal bench in California, Curiel oversaw the fraud case involving Trump University. Trump even filed a million-dollar counterclaim—typical Cohn move—to pressure the plaintiffs. However, Curiel dismissed it and awarded the plaintiff a million dollars, showcasing how the court system wasn’t bending to pressure.
Curiel’s rulings were seen as a direct challenge to what Trump claimed about Trump University. In retaliation, Trump launched a series of racially charged attacks against Curiel, arguing that the judge’s heritage influenced his decisions. He went on to say things like Curiel couldn’t possibly be impartial because of his “Mexican” background. It felt more like bullying than any sort of legitimate critique.
Fast forward to Trump’s current tenure, and his attack on the judiciary shows no signs of slowing. He continues to express his disdain for judges, particularly those who disagree with him. House Republicans, perhaps inspired by Trump’s tactics, also aim to target judges involved in his legal challenges.
Interestingly, Chief Justice Roberts publicly rebuked this kind of rhetoric, stating that for over two centuries, attacking judges for their rulings has been seen as inappropriate. This stark reminder came just hours after Trump criticized Judge James E. Boasberg on social media, labeling him a “troublemaker.”
Some of Trump’s close advisors have joined in this campaign against the judiciary, likening judges to “communists.” These extreme statements have raised eyebrows, especially when powerful figures, including Elon Musk, weigh in, questioning the integrity of judges during their duty.
The threats judges are facing today are alarming, ranging from physical intimidation to bullying tactics. Some have reported receiving threats that hit close to home—like pizzas sent to the addresses of their murdered children—which only highlights the extremity of these tactics.
Meanwhile, other judges have found themselves in serious trouble, such as a Wisconsin judge arrested for allegedly helping avoid arrest of undocumented immigrants. It seems judges who oppose the current regime are at risk, facing potential violence or retaliation for doing their jobs.
In an inspiring moment, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson addressed these concerns at a recent judges’ meeting. Her powerful remarks about the relentless attacks on judiciary members were met with a standing ovation. She pointed out that these attacks aren’t random; they aim to intimidate judges and threaten the very fabric of democracy.
Jackson emphasized that when judges are fearful for their safety or careers, the principles of justice are compromised. The threats they face today are reminiscent of historical challenges judges encountered during critical moments in U.S. history, like the civil rights movement.
This 18-minute speech was one of the most compelling statements from a Supreme Court member during Trump’s second term, and it felt carefully constructed, perhaps even vetted by the court.
Judges often struggle to find solid ground against such personal attacks. Legal representatives are supposed to defend them, but many fear repercussions that could endanger their careers or finances. It’s a precarious time for judges navigating this hostile environment.
Curiel has faced his share of Trump’s ire, ultimately stating that the former president’s comments about him compromised the integrity of the legal proceedings. Unfortunately, the rules concerning public commentary mean he can’t defend himself as openly as he might like.
Cohn and Trump both thrived on vulnerability, and those tactics seem to linger in today’s political climate. We are certainly in a challenging era, to say the least.
