{"id":48,"date":"2026-05-23T07:10:15","date_gmt":"2026-05-23T07:10:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/usabusinesschronicle.com\/?p=48"},"modified":"2026-05-23T07:10:15","modified_gmt":"2026-05-23T07:10:15","slug":"trumps-pathetic-court-picks-hit-new-low","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/usabusinesschronicle.com\/?p=48","title":{"rendered":"Trump\u2019s Pathetic Court Picks Hit New Low"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

In 1970, Nebraska Senator Roman Hruska defended one of President Nixon\u2019s Supreme Court nominees, Judge G. Harrold Carswell, from charges that he had a mediocre record on the bench. \u201cThere are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers,\u201d Hruska famously said. \u201cThey are entitled to a little representation, aren\u2019t they?\u201d<\/p>\n

Read more Veterans Affairs: Why Aren\u2019t Its Community Clinics Safer?<\/a><\/p>\n

If only President Trump\u2019s judicial nominees were merely mediocre, like most of those in his first term. Now, Trump is nominating candidates for federal judgeships who run away from the very Constitution they will, if confirmed, swear to apply and uphold.<\/p>\n

For more than a decade, we\u2019ve been \u201cshocked but not surprised\u201d by what Trump and his craven lackeys have said and done. It\u2019s important that the shock continues. If it recedes\u2014if we lose our sense of outrage\u2014we\u2019re really in trouble.<\/p>\n

Even so, it takes a lot to shock me these days. Trump\u2019s assaults on the body politic\u2014like a boxer with a punching bag\u2014come so fast that it\u2019s impossible to keep up. But every so often, we need to slow down and smell the swill.<\/p>\n

So consider this April 29 exchange in the Senate Judiciary Committee between Delaware Senator Chris Coons and John G.E. Marck, a former assistant district attorney in New York City and now the Acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Texas:<\/p>\n

\n

SENATOR COONS:<\/p>\n

Mr. Marck, if I might, just tell me about the 22nd Amendment. What does it provide?<\/p>\n

JOHN G.E. MARCK:<\/p>\n

The 22nd Amendment\u2014Senator, my career has mostly been in criminal prosecution. I haven\u2019t had an opportunity to use that one specifically.<\/p>\n

COONS:<\/p>\n

Anyone able to help him on the 22nd Amendment to the United States Constitution.<\/p>\n

ANOTHER JUDICIAL NOMINEE:<\/p>\n

Senator, I believe it is the amendment that deals with a two-term limitation.<\/p>\n

COONS:<\/p>\n

Correct. It states that no person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice.<\/p>\n

COONS:<\/p>\n

Mr. Marck, is President Trump eligible to run for president again in 2028?<\/p>\n

MARCK:<\/p>\n

Senator, without considering all the facts and looking at everything depending on what the situation is, this, to me strikes\u2014is more of a hypothetical of something that could\u2026<\/p>\n

COONS:<\/p>\n

It\u2019s not a hypothetical. Has President Trump been elected president twice?<\/p>\n

MARCK:<\/p>\n

President Trump has been certified the President of the United States two times.<\/p>\n

COONS:<\/p>\n

Is he eligible to run for a third term under our Constitution?<\/p>\n

MARCK:<\/p>\n

I would have to review the actual wording of it.<\/p>\n

COONS:<\/p>\n

All I need to tell you is that the language of the constitutional amendment makes it clear that no, he is not eligible to run for the third term.<\/p>\n

Anybody else brave enough to say that the Constitution of the United States prevents President Trump from seeking a third term? Anybody willing to apply the Constitution by its plain language in the 22nd Amendment?<\/p>\n

Nobody.<\/p>\n

All right, let\u2019s move on.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Anyone hoping to be a judge must know\u2014and be held to\u2014some basic American history: George Washington declined to run for a third term and that informal precedent was followed until Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II was elected to a third and fourth term. This was not popular, even among many Democrats, so a constitutional amendment was passed and ratified that, with 100 percent clarity, limits a president to two terms.<\/p>\n

The Orwellian obtuseness about basic facts is a defining feature of the Trump Administration, as we saw again when Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal moved on to January 6. He asked another nominee, Michael Hendershot: \u201cWas the Capitol attacked on January 6?\u201d Hendershot replied: \u201cIt\u2019s a matter of significant political controversy.\u201d<\/p>\n

That\u2019s it? This smug young rightwinger who could be on the bench for 50 years thinks there was no attack?<\/p>\n

Read more James Comey Is Insufferable. The Trump Charges Against Him Are Absurd<\/a><\/p>\n

Like earlier Trump nominees to the federal bench and other posts, Marck, Hendershot and two other Trump nominees for the U.S. District Court\u2014Arthur Jones, and Jeffrey Kuntz\u2014all refused to say Joe Biden won the election. Instead, they used the same stock phrase their White House handlers insisted upon: \u201cPresident Biden was certified the winner.\u201d<\/p>\n

Even the committee\u2019s ancient chairman, Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, thought this was stupid. When Senator Richard Blumenthal was speaking, Grassley can be heard on an open mic off camera asking, \u201cWhat would be wrong if they said Biden won?\u201d<\/p>\n

Blumenthal articulated the obvious but nonetheless shocking explanation for \u201cwhat would be wrong.\u201d He told the cowering, gutless nominees:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cYou\u2019re unwilling to use that word [won] because you are afraid. Afraid of what? President Trump? That is exactly what we do not need on the federal bench today. We need jurists who are fearless and strong, not weak and pathetic.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Blumenthal was speaking slowly, and, I thought, sincerely:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cI can\u2019t tell you how disappointed I am. We can disagree on issues of law. We can disagree on issues of fact, but for you to simply avoid a factual and responsive answer, I think, is a disrespect to this committee as well as to us.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse was more direct:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cI hope you realize how ridiculous the four of you look spouting these preposterous, canned answers in a forum in which you\u2019re supposed to tell the truth and you\u2019re supposed to demonstrate the judicial capacity to make independent factual decisions in hard cases.<\/p>\n

If you can\u2019t even sit here and say that Joe Biden won that election or that the Capitol was attacked, what if a hard case comes your way as a judge? Let\u2019s say the Trump administration is bearing down on that. Why would we ever believe that you would give the litigants a fair hearing and a fair decision if the executive branch was leaning in on you [as it\u2019s] leaning on you to give these ridiculous answers today?<\/p>\n

It would be nice if you could tell your executive branch handlers: I don\u2019t need to make myself ridiculous at your direction.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

These nominees are backed by Republican senators who mostly have secure seats but prefer to bend the knee, anyway, violating their own oaths to defend the Constitution. Unless something unforeseen happens, the four who appeared on April 29\u2014two from Texas, one from Florida, one from Ohio\u2014will be confirmed on a 12-10 party line vote.<\/p>\n

You should know the names of all of the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee so you can remember who thinks it\u2019s OK to have a judge who might try to figure out how to let Trump run again. Maybe Trump will be prevented from trying to do so, but \u201cattention must be paid\u201d (to quote from\u00a0Death of a Salesman<\/em>, enjoying another Broadway revival), to which senators could countenance it, and when they\u2019re up for reelection:<\/p>\n