Photo via Washington Examiner

Trump regrets his Supreme Court picks. The Constitution doesn’t

Read the original at Washington Examiner ↗
Cite

Blitz, A. (2026, October 2). Trump regrets his Supreme Court picks. The Constitution doesn’t. Washington Examiner. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op-eds/4751173/trump-supreme-court-picks-regrets-constitution/

Dated when The Aporia collected the article, usually within hours of publication. Check the original for its exact date and byline.

Washington Examiner · collected 2026-10-02 · by Arie Blitz

Quick Summary

President Donald Trump expressed regret over nominating Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court during a Time interview, stating they had voted against him too often. However, legal experts argue that justices should make decisions based on the Constitution and the law, not loyalty to the president who appointed them. The article discusses the historical context of judicial independence, referencing Chief Justice John Marshall's Marbury v. Madison decision in 1803, which established the principle of judicial review.
Written by AI on 2026-10-02, from this article's own text only (the story summary below draws on all the coverage).

AI analysis

Story summary

In a recent interview with Time magazine, President Trump expressed regret over his nominations of Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, stating they "voted against me too often." He criticized their rulings on matters such as tariffs and mail-in voting, which went against his policies. In contrast, Trump praised Democrats for their loyalty but noted that former President Biden, whom he claims doesn't know who these justices are, still receives unwavering support from them. The interview highlights the president's expectation of judicial loyalty rather than adherence to constitutional principles, a stance that diverges from the traditional role of Supreme Court justices as impartial arbiters of law and not political allies.

Written for “Trump Regrets Supreme Court Picks” on 2026-11-03, grounded in this article and the 1 other(s) covering the same event.

Story

📰 Trump Regrets Supreme Court Picks
Politics · 2 article(s) covering the same event. See how they differ ↓

Compared with similar articles

This article reads unscored and hedges 2% of its claims. Each row says how that neighbour differs.
New York Post
Hedges 0 of 31 claims Outlet record 66/100
NBC News
Hedges 4 of 42 claims Outlet record 60/100
“The articles discuss different aspects of President Trump's relationship with the Supreme Court: one focuses on his criticisms as a new term begins, while the other reports on his regrets about certain justices voting against him.”
How this article was measured signals, leaning charts, publisher record, byline, topics and claims

Signals How these are calculated →

Claims extracted
59
sentences that state something as happening or true
Uncertain
2%
1 of 59 hedged ("reportedly", "may", "according to")
Leaning
withheld
no quote in the article backed the model's score
Publisher signals
70/100
Washington Examiner's corrections and hedging, across everything collected from it. Not a measure of accuracy.
Outlets on this story
2
Politics
Same framing elsewhere
1
articles that frame the event the way this one does
Analyzed 2026-10-02 · how these are computed

How this is being covered How these are calculated →

Article leaning vs. publisher reliability
Source leaning vs. consistency

Publisher

Washington Examiner · 4026 article(s) · 7 correction(s) detected
Running correction rate · 7 correction(s)

Who wrote this

Arie Blitz
9 article(s) here · 1 carrying a prediction
🔮 “I was trying to save my own life, but I knew I could not let all those people die.”
🔮 A president may consider judicial philosophy when choosing a nominee.
🔮 Consider the film’s most explosive claim: that approval was once given for a strike expected to kill 500 civilians to eliminate one Hamas target.
🔮 Game theory asks a simple question: When one player changes the rewards and penalties, how will the others respond?
🔮 Before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could make Israel’s case to the United Nations on Thursday, scores of diplomats got up and left.
🔮 His explanation was not that the images were unverifiable or that publication would endanger the hostages.
🔮 There was also reason to believe Hamas understood that Oct. 7 would be fought not only with guns and rockets, but with images.
Also by Arie Blitz
Nothing else under this byline is closely related to this article, so these are simply their most recent.
All 9 articles by Arie Blitz →

Topics

Article 3 Constitution Supreme Court Time the Supreme Court

Subjects

the Supreme Court ORG · 5× Trump PERSON · 4× Jefferson PERSON · 3× Marbury PERSON · 3× Adams PERSON · 2× Congress ORG · 2× Supreme Court ORG · 2× Brett Kavanaugh PERSON · 1× Donald Trump PERSON · 1× Neil Gorsuch PERSON · 1×

Narrative

That is closer to the constitutional standard — assuming by “good decisions” he means decisions faithful to the Constitution and the law rather than decisions favorable to him.
framing: assertive · carried by 1 article(s) · first seen 2026-10-02
🔮 A president may consider judicial philosophy when choosing a nominee.
2026-10-02 · Washington Examiner
Trump regrets his Supreme Court picks. The Constitution doesn’t · assertive framing

Claims (59 extracted, 1 hedged)

President Donald Trump says he regrets nominating Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. asserted
he → say → Court
Asked in a Time interview whether he regretted those choices, Trump answered: “Yeah. asserted
Trump → ask → choices
What can I do? asserted
I → do → What
I put them in. asserted
I → put → them
They voted against me too often.” asserted
They → vote → me
He added that he had given them “the position of a lifetime.” asserted
he → add → lifetime
But “they voted against me” is the wrong way to think about what Supreme Court justices do. asserted
justices → vote → what
A justice does not cast a vote for or against Trump. asserted
justice → cast → Trump
The fact that Trump appointed that justice should have no bearing on the legal analysis. asserted
Trump → appoint → analysis
The court decides cases involving statutes, constitutional provisions, executive power, precedent, and the arguments of litigants. asserted
court → decide → litigants
Sometimes those decisions favor an administration. asserted
decisions → favor → administration
Sometimes they do not. asserted
they → do → ?
Trump himself seemed to recognize the distinction as the interview continued. asserted
interview → seem → distinction
Asked whether he wanted loyalty from his Supreme Court justices, he answered: “No, I don’t want loyalty. asserted
I → ask → loyalty
I want good decisions.” asserted
I → want → decisions
That is closer to the constitutional standard — assuming by “good decisions” he means decisions faithful to the Constitution and the law rather than decisions favorable to him. asserted
he → assume → him
On that assumption, he has it exactly right. asserted
it → have → assumption
A president may consider judicial philosophy when choosing a nominee. uncertain
president → consider → nominee
Originalism, textualism, precedent, federalism, and executive power matter. asserted
Originalism → matter → ?
But selecting a justice because of how that person interprets the law is very different from expecting favorable outcomes once the justice reaches the bench. asserted
justice → select → bench
Article 3 creates that distance. asserted
Article → create → distance
Federal judges hold office during “good Behaviour,” and their compensation cannot be reduced while they serve. asserted
they → hold → Behaviour
Alexander Hamilton defended permanent judicial tenure in Federalist No. 78 as essential to an “independent spirit” in judges charged with enforcing a limited Constitution. asserted
Hamilton → defend → Constitution
Only 14 years after the Constitution took effect, that principle faced a defining test. asserted
principle → take → test
Marbury v. Madison arose from the bitter transfer of power from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson. asserted
Marbury → arise → Jefferson
In Adams’s final days as president, William Marbury was appointed a justice of the peace. asserted
Marbury → appoint → peace
His commission had been signed and sealed but not delivered when Jefferson took office. asserted
Jefferson → sign → office
Jefferson directed that the remaining commissions be withheld, and Marbury asked the Supreme Court to order Secretary of State James Madison to deliver his. asserted
Marbury → direct → his
The Supreme Court of 1803 was not the commanding institution it is today. asserted
it → command → 1803
It was young and caught in intense partisan conflict over the federal judiciary. asserted
It → catch → judiciary
An order against Madison risked simply being ignored. asserted
order → risk → Madison
Chief Justice John Marshall found another path. asserted
Marshall → find → path
The court held that Marbury had a legal right to his commission. asserted
Marbury → hold → commission
But it also held that Congress had attempted, through the Judiciary Act of 1789, to give the Supreme Court original jurisdiction beyond what Article 3 permitted. asserted
Article → hold → what
So the court refused to issue the writ Marbury sought — and in doing so established the precedent of judicial review. asserted
Marbury → refuse → review
Marshall supplied the famous formulation: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” asserted
law → supply → department
Notice what the court did. asserted
court → notice → what
It did not ask what Adams wanted. asserted
Adams → ask → what
It did not ask what Jefferson wanted. asserted
Jefferson → ask → what
It did not even accept more power simply because Congress offered it. asserted
Congress → accept → it
…and 19 more, not listed.
💬Give feedback
🕘History 🎫Support