Simon Cameron said “A good politician is one who, when he gets bought, stays bought.” But Thom Tillis, senator from North Carolina, wasn’t bought by Trump and decided that he’d had enough of being owned by him. He opposed the Big Beautiful omnibus reconciliation bill, and within a day learned that Trump would crush him for his disloyalty. Tillis’ response was to announce that he would not be running for Senate again. This bill crossed the threshold of shame for Tillis, even if confirming Hegseth, Gabbard, RFJ Jr. and K$sh Patel did not.

David French ekes out an explanation for the Senate Republicans confirming Trump’s cabinet and high office choices, notwithstanding the Constitution’s placing the onus on the Senate to “advise and consent” so that a malignant president didn’t appoint wholly unqualified but unquestionably loyal hacks to those offices.

By now, Americans are accustomed to the devolution of Trump’s team. Serious people populated the highest levels of the executive branch at the start of Trump’s first term, but now some of the most important positions in American government are held by cranks like Kash Patel, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Pete Hegseth.

But as bad as those men are, their influence is ultimately limited — first by Trump himself, who feels completely free to overrule and disregard any decision they make for the sake of his own interests and whims, and second by time itself. Trump’s political appointees won’t be in American government for long, and while they can inflict lasting damage during their short tenures, the next president can replace them and at least start the process of repair.

To be fair, it’s not as if these high-level executive branch officials are actually expected to do the job required of their offices. In the Trump administration, cabinet secretaries are functionaries whose duty is to do as Trump tells them and praise Trump shamelessly, no matter what stories they are required to spew to demonstrate their fealty. Whether the damage they inflict can be repaired remains an open question. It’s true that neither Trump, nor his minions, will stay in office forever, but undoing the damage seems a lot like Brandolini’s Law. It won’t come easy.

But what about Trump’s pocket judge, Emil Bove? He wouldn’t be the first loyal Trump sycophant on the bench. Let’s not forget Aileen Cannon. And he told the Senate that “I am not anybody’s henchman,” which is exactly what a henchman would say.

In a Truth Social post announcing Bove’s nomination, Trump included this ominous line: Bove, he wrote, will “do anything else that is necessary to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.” That statement caused Ed Whelan, a senior fellow in the Ethics and Public Policy Center, to write in National Review that there is a “danger that Bove, if confirmed, would leap to the top of Trump’s list for the next Supreme Court vacancy.”

If Bove is telling the Senate Judiciary Committee the truth, then Trump doesn’t seem aware of it. He was hated before joining the Trump administration, and proved his loyalty during his criminal defense of Trump and firing of those perceived as disloyal to Trump once he was ensconced in the DoJ. So what makes his nomination any different than the cast of Fox & Friends?

Emil Bove, however, would be a problem for a very long time. At 44 years old, he’s been nominated for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench. That means he’d long outlast Trump in the halls of American power, and if past performance is any measure of future results, we should prepare for a judge who would do what he deems necessary to accomplish his political objectives — law and morality be damned.

But Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and, on a good day, Barrett, you say? What about the cohort of judges appointed during Trump 1.0  at the behest of the once loved, now hated, scoundrel Leonard Leo?

Judicial liberals no doubt have many differences with the Federalist Society, but as a rule, both conservative and liberal jurists share commitments to the Constitution, the rule of law and the judiciary as the branch of the federal government that is tasked with interpreting the law, not with driving public policy or political agendas.

In other words, liberal and conservative judges have mainly differed in their judicial philosophies, not in their commitment to integrity and America’s liberal democracy.

Bove, by contrast, has signaled as clearly as he can that he is committed to Trump.

One can take issue with the spectrum of judicial philosophies, from originalism to living constitutionalism, while still believing that when you walk into a courtroom, whether trial or appellate, there is the possibility of prevailing if you provide the best argument for your cause. When Biden was in office, the progressive group Demand Justice sought to lard the courts with judges who would reliably rule as told. They demanded Biden expand the Court to gain a majority. They were outrageously and dangerously wrong.

But as David says, this is different. It’s not just about judges with an ideological bent. Presidents get to appoint those judges and justices who share his view of judicial philosophy, subject to their being modestly qualified for the post. Trump has no judicial philosophy, any more than he has any ideological views beyond self-aggrandizement and self-enrichment. Bove isn’t nominated because he shares Trump’s judicial philosophy, but because he would leap off the bench and lick Trump’s shoes if Trump told him to.

Regardless of any changes one might wish for judges, like term limits in place of life tenure upon good behavior, the status of a federal judge is that he sits for life, unless Trump issues an Executive Order to the contrary. No matter how much deference Senate Republicans are willing to give Trump, lacking the shame felt by Thom Tillis, life tenure for Trump’s henchman crosses the line. Emil Bove would be a good Trump judge. That disqualifies him from appointment.