Sometimes the president's greatest legacy is the judiciary he leaves behind. When he was campaigning, now, President Donald Trump used the Supreme Court in the judiciary as a way to convince Republicans who were reluctant to support him. So the Democrats would have an absolute free run. Probably you wouldn't even campaign because it would be impossible to win. And what does that mean. That means that automatically they are going
to appoint very, very very liberal judges. Trump has already put conservative Justice Neil Gorsich on the Supreme Court, re establishing the fine for conservative advantage. Now he's moving to shift the federal, appellate and district courts to the right. Joining me is Paul Barrett, editor for Bloomberg business Week, who has written an article entitled Trump begins shifting courts
right ward, just as Republicans hoped. Paul, only one other president, James Garfield in one, had a Supreme Court vacancy to fill as soon as he took office, and Trump also has a hundred and seven vacancies on try and appellate courts. Why is that vacancy lists so high? Right, and the number of openings has actually increased to a hundred and
thirty six since he took office. And a big part of the reason why it's so high is the Republican strategy under Senator Mitch McConnell of holding open those seats not confirming UH President Obama's nominees. And that was UH
put into effect most dramatically with the Supreme Court opening. UH. You had Justice Scalia who died unexpectedly in February of UM and hit and that seat just stayed open even though Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to fill it UM and it was held open until President Trump took office. When people think of presidential judicial appointments, they usually think about the Supreme Court, but explain the importance of the
appellate and district court judges. Sure, there are eight hundred and ninety slots, and the lower federal courts and the district courts are the place where trials criminal and civil take place, and the federal circuit courts are the appellate courts where the losing party can can appeal. And from the circuit courts, a small number of cases are filtered up to the Supreme Courts, some seventy or seventy five
A year. So because the Supreme Court takes so few cases, a lot of matters for for all practical purposes are resolved in the lower courts. So if you have an individual dispute um, that's likely where it's going to get resolved. And even if you have a test case um where there's some big question of law a foot, still it's likely to be one of the courts of appeals that has the final word because the Supreme Court, you know,
all likelihood will simply decline to review the case. Trump outsourced the Supreme Court pick to two establishment conservative groups. Is he doing the same with the other vacancies. Yes. The Heritage Foundation in waw Shington and the Federalist Society, which has chapters all over the country based at law schools and elsewhere, are playing a significant role in advising uh President Trump's White House staff, as they have played that role for past Republican president So this is not
anything new. These outside groups basically are kind of recruitment vehicles. Um, they're familiar with lawyers all over the country who might not be immediately familiar to the White House. Liberal judicial activists are concerned that Trump shaping the judiciary is going to mean cutbacks, you know, going backward on hard for rights and liberties. Can he accomplish that in four years? He can, if if he moves aggressively to fill these these open slots. And he's just beginning to do that now.
He's made fifteen nominations to the lower courts so far. UM. If he moves quickly, he can begin to shift the balance back towards the red and away from the blue. UM. And UH, I think the liberal groups are uh, you know, justified in their fear because UH, with advice from the Federal Society and Herrihage Foundation, UH, the White House has been choosing impressive uh, particularly courts of appeals UH nominees.
And these are people who in many cases have had a scholarly background and then have served in lower court or or or themselves law professors. And they're the kind of people who will have influence if they get on the court. I take it they're all very conservative. Is there any chance that some of them will not get through? Well? Yes, I mean in in any administration, there's usually at least at the fringes. UM, some nominee judicial nominees who become
the focus of controversy and that is already true. Um with the Trump nominees. Uh, there's a guy named Damien Schiff and a Kentucky lawyer named John Bush, and both of them, as it happens, were prolific bloggers in their earlier life and gave expression to what I think it's uh safe to say or some rather far right political views, which is fine if you're just a blogger, but can become embarrassing if you're up for confirmation. And I think those two in particular, UM may find themselves with a
fight to get through the Senate. It's a very important topic, a great article. Thanks as always for being here, Paul Barrett, Editor for Bloomberg business Week,