The New York Times Accidentally Exposed How Democrats Are Using Judges Against Trump

## The Accidental Confession

Jeffrey Toobin has a track record of questionable decisions. We all remember the Zoom incident that doesn’t need rehashing here. But his latest blunder might be even more revealing, just in a different way. In a Monday column for The New York Times, the legal analyst basically confessed that there’s a coordinated effort to use federal judges as political weapons against President Trump.

The piece was supposed to be about the American Constitution Society’s grand plan for reshaping the judiciary. Instead, it turned into an inadvertent admission that the left doesn’t actually have a judicial philosophy. They just have opposition.

Here’s where it gets interesting. Toobin writes about Phil Brest, the new ACS president who came straight from Biden’s White House counsel office. Brest helped push through 235 federal judges during Biden’s term. That’s more than Trump managed in his first four years. Impressive numbers, right?

Then Toobin drops this gem: “Those judges, and others appointed by Democratic presidents, have proved that the most effective resistance to Mr. Trump has come not from Democratic politicians but rather from federal judges.”

Read that again. He’s not talking about judges faithfully interpreting the law. He’s describing them as “resistance.” As political operatives in robes.

## When Resistance Becomes Strategy

The whole point of an independent judiciary is that judges aren’t supposed to resist anyone. They’re supposed to apply the law impartially, whether they like the president or not. That’s literally the job description. But Toobin just casually admits that these Biden appointees see themselves as a bulwark against the current administration.

You know what’s fascinating? The article was titled “The Plan for a Radically Different Supreme Court Is Here.” Except there is no plan. No coherent legal philosophy. No alternative framework for constitutional interpretation. Just opposition masquerading as jurisprudence.

The American Constitution Society has long been positioned as the progressive answer to the Federalist Society. But here’s the difference. The Federalist Society actually stands for something. Originalism might not be everyone’s cup of tea, but it’s a real judicial philosophy. It says the Constitution means what it meant when it was written. You can agree or disagree, but at least it’s an actual framework for deciding cases.

What does the ACS offer? Toobin can’t say. Brest can’t say. Because apparently the answer is “whatever stops Trump.”

## The Philosophy That Isn’t

Toobin even admits this explicitly. He writes that Brest “has no clear answer” about what these judges will stand for, only what they stand against. Think about that for a second. We’re appointing lifetime federal judges based on who they oppose rather than what legal principles they follow.

This isn’t about liberal versus conservative interpretations of the law. Every judge brings some worldview to the bench. That’s unavoidable. The question is whether you’re trying to apply a consistent legal framework or whether you’re just playing team sports with the Constitution as your ball.

The modern originalist movement exists precisely because of this problem. Past Supreme Courts embraced “living constitutionalism,” which sounds nice until you realize it basically means the Constitution can mean whatever five justices want it to mean on any given Tuesday. That’s not law. That’s preference dressed up in legal jargon.

Originalism emerged as a response to that chaos. It said, look, we need rules that don’t change based on who’s in power. The Constitution has an amendment process for a reason. If you want to change what it means, convince your fellow citizens and amend it. Don’t just have judges rewrite it from the bench.

## The Struggle Session Continues

What Toobin’s column really reveals is the left’s ongoing identity crisis about the judiciary. They want judges who will advance progressive outcomes, but they also want to maintain the fiction that these judges are just neutrally calling balls and strikes. You can’t have both.

The Federalist Society succeeded because it was honest about its goals. Yes, we want originalist judges. Yes, we think that’s the correct way to interpret the Constitution. Here’s our reasoning. Agree or disagree, but at least you know where we stand.

The ACS can’t even manage that level of transparency. Instead, we get vague talk about “building a bulwark” and continuing the “Biden era focus on judicial appointments.” Appointments of whom? People who believe what, exactly? Silence.

This matters because judicial appointments are lifetime positions. These aren’t political operatives who leave when the administration changes. They’re supposed to be interpreting law for decades, long after today’s political fights have faded into history books. If the only qualification is “will they resist Trump,” what happens when Trump is gone? Do these judges suddenly develop a judicial philosophy, or do they just move on to resisting the next Republican president?

## What This Means Going Forward

The real danger here isn’t just the partisan hackery. It’s the erosion of institutional legitimacy. When judges are openly described as resistance fighters, when their primary qualification is political opposition rather than legal acumen, people notice. They stop trusting the courts. And once that trust is gone, it’s almost impossible to rebuild.

We need judges who follow the law even when they don’t like where it leads. That’s the whole point of having an independent judiciary. If judges are just politicians in robes, then we might as well elect them and drop the pretense.

Toobin probably didn’t mean to expose all this. But sometimes the truth slips out when you’re not careful. The left doesn’t have a competing judicial philosophy. They have a political strategy that happens to involve judges. And now, thanks to one careless column, we have it in writing from The New York Times itself.

American Conservatives