United States
United Kingdom
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
IrelandWeissmann sees a Senate barrier to Trump's Supreme Court picks
On The Bulwark's Illegal News, he and Sarah Longwell examine how Democratic control could constrain judicial appointments and administration spending.
The Bulwark
Story of Why this story? 841,405 views so far, and here is what is inside it.
Trump’s Supreme Court Plans Just Hit a MASSIVE Roadblock (w/ Andrew Weissmann) | Illegal News
Next story: Democrats win Deep South House vote, Enten says in midterm review
638 more stories on 2026 US midterm elections ›
Things we can learn from the video
Press to jump
- 7:13The hosts interpret the result as a demand for congressional checks on executive power.
- 10:19Longwell draws on post-election focus groups with former Republican swing voters to explain their Democratic votes.
- 27:06Weissmann credits judges and civil litigation groups with blocking efforts to manipulate election processes.
- 42:20Weissmann argues Congress can use spending authority to constrain administration actions, including military and immigration enforcement activity.
- 48:58The title's Supreme Court argument arrives: a Democratic Senate could block Trump's preferred hardline nominees.
- 52:18Weissmann recalls Mueller's impatience with working groups while arguing against further delays in court reform.
A vacancy wouldn't be enough. Donald Trump would also need a Senate willing to confirm his Supreme Court nominee, and Andrew Weissmann argues that the election result has sharply narrowed that path.
That is the concrete obstacle behind the title of The Bulwark's Illegal News episode with Sarah Longwell. The Supreme Court discussion arrives roughly 49 minutes into a much broader post-election conversation: Weissmann's argument is that a Democratic Senate could block hardline nominees, not that Trump has lost the power to nominate anyone.
Longwell brings up Samuel Alito, displaying her post suggesting that it would be a good time for him to retire. Alito was nominated by George W. Bush. Replacing him would require Senate confirmation, giving the incoming majority leverage over any proposed successor.
The pair also look beyond appointments. Weissmann argues that Congress can use its spending authority to constrain Justice Department activity, military funding and immigration enforcement. His emphasis is on exercising powers lawmakers already possess, rather than treating an election victory as accountability accomplished.
The episode begins in a more celebratory register, with Longwell drawing on conversations with former Republican swing voters and Weissmann criticizing loyalty-driven appointments. Later, he credits judges and civil litigation groups with resisting efforts to manipulate election procedures.
His impatience with delay carries into the closing discussion of court reform. Recalling Robert Mueller's dislike of bureaucratic working groups, Weissmann makes the case for turning the new congressional majority into decisions, rather than another round of deliberation.
A U.S. Supreme Court justice since 2006, nominated by President George W. Bush.
More on Wikipedia ›Published on Trari
More on 2026 US midterm elections
Where next?
What do you think?
Is this your channel?For the channel's owners and team: a ready picture and text for your audience
Share the story with your audience. Everything is ready:
For an Instagram story or a WhatsApp status
For a community post or your channel's description
- Channel
- The Bulwark
- Subscribers
- 1,830,000 ▲ 10,000 this week
- Channel views, last 7 days
- 18,721,105
- Channel views, pace per day
- 2,989,954 (on a normal day: 2,636,117)
- Video published
- November 6, 2026
- Video views so far
- 841,405 (7 days online)
- Video views, pace per day
- 3,740 (on a normal day: 281,907)
The numbers
The episode drew about 840,000 views in its first week. Its subject, rather than an unusual surge in viewing, is the story here.
💡 Test your knowledge
Which corporate prosecution does Andrew Weissmann draw on in this episode?
Weissmann uses his work on the Enron prosecution as an analogy early in the discussion.