Ex-prosecutors tear apar Trump for demanding total obedience from judges

When federal judges he appointed hand down rulings he dislikes, President Donald Trump not only criticizes the decisions — he also attacks the judges as disloyal. The implication is that because he appointed them, they are obligated to show their loyalty by voting a certain way. And he applies that standard to lower federal court appointees as well as to the three U.S. Supreme Court justices he appointed during his first presidency: Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett.

In a biting op-ed published by The Hill on April 13, former state prosectors Joel Cohen and Douglas Nadjari emphasize that Trump has no business expecting total obedience from federal justices simply because he appointed them.

"Unquestionably, any president of either party who nominates a judge or justice largely expects that his nominee will conform to his views," the attorneys explain. "That's probably the way it ought to be. But should a president expect fealty from his judicial nominees? Trump, as is typical, takes the issue up a notch. He has made clear to his nominees that if they don't side with him, he considers it an act of disloyalty and will unequivocally make their disloyalty public."

Cohen and Nadjari (now a law professor at Tulane University) add, "Still, it's one thing for a president to berate, and even fire, a Cabinet secretary or high-ranking administration figure for having demonstrated disloyalty through disagreement or disobedience. It's quite another to publicly debase judges or justices over court cases."

The attorneys stress that there is a huge difference between nominating judges because of their judicial philosophy and expecting total obedience from them.

"Indeed, do we really want a judicial nominee to be so loyal to the president nominating them that they will rule with him or her on every case?" Cohen and Nadjari argue. "And if Trump can pull that off, and a Republican-held Senate votes the president's nominee in, we can count on the next Democratic president and a Democratic Senate doing exactly the same thing. So much for an independent judicial branch of government!"

The attorneys add, "Presidents have perfect right to want — even to expect — their judicial nominees to see things their way on legal and policy matters. But they have no right to a guarantee."