Trump privately complains about Amy Coney Barrett and other Supreme Court justices he nominated

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: CNN Politics

Published 9:00 AM EDT, Tue June 3, 2025


CNN — President Donald Trump has privately complained that the Supreme Court justices he appointed have not sufficiently stood behind his agenda, according to multiple sources familiar with the conversations. But he has directed particular ire at Justice Amy Coney Barrett, his most recent appointee, one of the sources said.

The behind-closed-doors grievances have been wide-ranging, and while many have been about Barrett, Trump has also expressed frustration about Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, the sources familiar with the matter said. The complaints have gone on for at least a year, the sources said.

The president’s anger, sources said, has been fueled by allies on the right, who have told Trump privately that Barrett is “weak” and that her rulings have not been in line with how she presented herself in an interview before Trump nominated her to the bench in 2020. “It’s not just one ruling. It’s been a few different events he’s complained about privately,” a senior administration official told CNN.

In a statement, principal deputy press secretary Harrison Fields said: “President Trump will always stand with the U.S. Supreme Court, unlike the Democrat Party, which, if given the opportunity, would pack the court, ultimately undermining its integrity. The President may disagree with the Court and some of its rulings, but he will always respect its foundational role.” A spokesperson for the Supreme Court did not respond to a request for comment.

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/03/politics/amy-coney-barrett-justice-trump

[BoRaGard]

1. "She's like, a woman, and stuff. You know, Nasty." - Krasnov (R-Felon/Rapist)

[republianmushroom]

2. The little convicted felon can't handle that woman

are smarted and more intelligent than him.

[Ocelot II]

3. He assumed that because he appointed them they now owe him

and therefore would always decide cases in his favor. Everything is transactional with him. But of course it doesn't work that way, and although those justices are conservative that doesn't mean he automatically wins - a lot of what he does isn't "conservative" at all, and those justices won't ignore the law completely despite their biases.

[3catwoman3]

5. Trump is not conservative. He is "self-servative."

[jgmiller]

10. I love that line never heard it before

[3catwoman3]

14. It's my own creation, just today.

I'm a word nerd, and I love neologisms. Feel free to spread it around.

[electric_blue68]

17. Well done 👍

[electric_blue68]

19. I just looked it up bc I didn't know what it meant

I'd thought about I might have guessed
neo + logos

[no_hypocrisy]

4. Grousing that he can't fire her and other "renegades".

[flashman13]

6. The SCOTUS has a history of Associate Justices becoming their own person

and not being the person that the President thought they were nominating.

[aggiesal]

7. What a bunch of bull $h1t this statement is ...

"... The President may disagree with the Court and some of its rulings, but he will always respect its foundational role.”

Why doesn't Mierda47 accept its foundational decisions?

[Ocelot II]

8. He doesn't respect any "foundational role" other than his own.

[PatSeg]

9. I guess their "agenda" is the constitution

Apparently, he never took that into consideration. He apparently thinks with enough bullying, everyone will bow down to him.

[FakeNoose]

11. I can remember back to 2020 when he disrespected RBG

He couldn't even wait until Justice Ginsberg was in the ground ... he HAD to announce her replacement immediately. And it was Amy Coney Barrett, who is close to being the least-qualified Justice we've ever had on SCOTUS. Sheesh!

To top it off, Chump had the announcement reception in the Rose Garden during the height of the 2020 lockdown. Almost nobody wore masks at the event and several were exposed to Covid. I believe that's even when Chump himself caught it, but he didn't show symptoms right away.

[BumRushDaShow]

12. September 26, 2020

And later -



Fauci calls Amy Coney Barrett ceremony in Rose Garden 'superspreader event'

[FakeNoose]

13. Yes, the assholes all infected each other

[ProudMNDemocrat]

15. TACO Don did not get the MEMO....

US Supreme Court Justices DO NOT rule on or in favor of a President's agenda. They rule on what is Constitutional or not!

So far, the system seems to be holding up. Apprehending people off the streets WITHOUT due process and deporting them is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!! Any Supreme Court Justice who rules in favor of that ic VIOLATING their oath to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution.

Too fucking bad, TACO Don! You nominated these people. If these Justices are ruling in favor of the Constitution, then perhaps your "BEST" people need to read it to you.

[ananda]

16. I don't like the Trump justices either.

But if they do something Trump doesn't like,
it's OK with me.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

18. Deadline: Legal Blog-Justice Amy Coney Barrett's stance would further weaken transgender rights

The Trump appointee wrote a concurrence in the Skrmetti case joined only by Thomas. Alito seems to agree with them, too.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s stance would further weaken #transgender rights.

The Trump appointee wrote a concurrence in the #Skrmetti case joined only by #Thomas. #Alito seems to agree with them, too.

— [The Great War & Modern Memory] (@ps9714.bsky.social) 2025-06-18T19:53:43.041Z

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/transgender-rights-skrmetti-decision-barrett-rcna213740

When the Supreme Court upheld a ban on gender-affirming care for minors Wednesday, it didn’t resolve a broader question of whether transgender people are entitled to certain legal protections that would help them press constitutional challenges. But Justice Amy Coney Barrett went out of her way to explain why she thinks transgender people don’t deserve such protection.

Her explanation came in a concurring opinion to Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority ruling in United States v. Skrmetti. Justices sometimes write concurrences to add their own thoughts, even if those thoughts don’t create binding legal opinions on their own. They can lay the groundwork for future majority rulings and influence lower courts in the meantime. And though the Trump appointee’s concurrence was only joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, if her reasoning is adopted by a majority of the court in the future, it could further weaken transgender rights.

Barrett noted that, while laws are presumed constitutional and are generally upheld so long as they bear a rational relation to a legitimate goal, there are exceptions to the general rule, such as for classifications based on race and sex. When those so-called suspect classes are at issue, the government faces a greater burden to show why its actions are constitutional. In the Skrmetti case, the majority said Tennessee didn’t have to shoulder that greater burden because, the majority reasoned, the state law didn’t classify people based on sex or transgender status.

Barrett listed multiple reasons why she thinks transgender people don’t deserve this suspect class status. Among other things, she suggested that transgender people have not sufficiently faced a history of legal discrimination like people have faced based on race or sex......

So, while the question of what general legal protections transgender people have wasn’t the main issue in the Skrmetti case, at least three justices appear prepared to rule against them on that broader question, which could make it even more challenging for them to press legal claims in all sorts of cases going forward.

I know that some MAGA types are mad at Barrett for not rubberstamping rulings for trump. This ruling shows why the Federalist Society picked this very conservative asshole to be on the SCOTUS. She may not rubberstamp rulings for trump but she is still an asshole