Cal Thomas: Beyond disagreement

Editor's note: The following text is a transcript of a podcast story. To listen to the story, click on the arrow beneath the headline above.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. 

I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. 

Up next: barbs for the bench.

After that 6-3 Supreme Court case against President Trump’s emergency tariffs that we reported extensively yesterday … the president did weigh in. He turned his fire not only at the opinion; he reserved special scorn for two of the justices he appointed.

WORLD Commentator Cal Thomas says disagreement is one thing. What followed was something else.

CAL THOMAS: Presidents have disagreed with Supreme Court decisions before.

They have criticized the reasoning. 

Warned of consequences. 

They have urged Congress to step in.

But after a 6–3 ruling last Friday against his emergency tariff authority—including three conservative justices he appointed—President Trump went further. He went after the justices themselves. 

Listen:

TRUMP: They also are a frankly, disgrace to our nation those justices. They’re just being fools and lap dogs… they’re very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution.

Consider the last four words, “Disloyal to the Constitution.”

The irony is difficult to ignore.

The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, cited the Constitution directly—specifically the separation of powers. The Court said Congress, not the president, holds the authority to impose tariffs under the emergency statute he invoked.

Reasonable people can differ with that interpretation. Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas dissented. They were forceful. They predicted the result would leave a “mess,” even that it lacked “common sense.”

But their argument was about doctrine and consequences—not about the motives of their colleagues. They didn’t degrade the other justices.

The president did, and then some. He went beyond questioning the majority justices’ judgment; he personalized it.

REPORTER: Are you surprised in particular by their decision today? 

TRUMP: I am. 

REPORTER: And do you regret nominating them? 

TRUMP: I don't want to say whether or not I regret it. I think the decision was terrible, yeah. [reporters clamoring] I think it’s an embarrassment to their families, if you wanna know the truth, the two of them, yeah. 

Later, when asked whether the justices would still be invited to his State of the Union address tonight, the president added this:

REPORTER: Are they still invited to your State of the Union address? Will you speak with them?

TRUMP: Yeah, they are invited—barely, barely. Three are happily invited [laughs] no no, honestly, I couldn’t care less if they come, okay? 

There was a time when presidents defended their authority vigorously while preserving the dignity of their office. They pressed their case. They challenged the ruling. They respected the institution, even when they believed it was wrong.

Today, public discourse sounds different. More coarse. More personal. More juvenile.

There is already enough contempt in our culture. Films are saturated with it, social media amplifies it, cable news rewards it. Do we really need the presidency to contribute to the decline?

Some defend this tone as authenticity. They say bluntness signals strength. 

Perhaps.

But presidents are not merely political combatants; they are representatives of the nation. They set a tone and model a standard.

Tariffs themselves are not the central issue here. One can argue that many countries impose baseline tariffs on U.S. goods. One can argue Congress should revisit trade law.

One can even argue the Court ruling was mistaken. 

But none of that requires calling justices “fools.” None of it requires questioning their patriotism. None of it requires suggesting they are an embarrassment to their families.

Strong leadership does not require coarse language or personal insult. I would argue it requires the exact opposite.

For WORLD, I’m Cal Thomas.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.