SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
judiciary
Million-Dollar Ad Blitz Targets Senate Dems Who Voted for 'Trump Loyalist Judges'
"This isn’t normal," said the president of the group behind the ad campaign. "If Senate Democrats don’t take a stand and strongly oppose these judicial nominees who have disqualified themselves—we will."
Dec 03, 2025
The progressive advocacy group Demand Justice on Wednesday launched a seven-figure advertising campaign targeting three members of the Senate Democratic caucus who have voted to confirm President Donald Trump's lifetime judicial nominees, enabling the ongoing right-wing takeover of the nation's courts.
The first series of ads will target Sens. Maggie Hassan (D-NH), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), and Angus King (D-Maine), three of the 16 members of the Senate Democratic caucus who have voted to confirm at least one Trump judge this year. Other Senate Democrats who have voted with Republicans in support of at least one Trump judicial pick include Sens. Dick Durbin of Illinois, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Adam Schiff of California, and Chris Coons of Delaware.
"It is outrageous that Senate Democrats are voting to confirm Trump’s judicial nominees who refuse to tell the truth about January 6th and the 2020 election,” Josh Orton, the president of Demand Justice, said in a statement. “This isn’t normal. If Senate Democrats don’t take a stand and strongly oppose these judicial nominees who have disqualified themselves—we will. And we won’t let up.”
The group's campaign will also include a national cable TV ad buy and "coordinated digital rollout across key battleground states" naming and shaming Democrats who support "Trump loyalist judges" even as the lawmakers condemn the president's authoritarian assault on democracy.
Watch the Demand Justice ad targeting Maggie Hassan, who on Tuesday voted to confirm Lindsey Ann Freeman, Trump's nominee to the US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina:
Freeman, like other Trump judicial picks, refused during her confirmation process to say directly that the president lost the 2020 election.
"President Biden was certified as the winner of the 2020 presidential election and served as the 46th President of the United States," Freeman wrote in response to questions from Durbin, who ultimately voted in favor of her confirmation.
In a report released last month, Demand Justice analyzed Trump judicial picks' written responses to senators' questions. The analysis shows that "nominees' responses appear nearly identical, with many nominees using verbatim phrasing, repeating key words, and, overall, using unusual and evasive language that’s almost entirely outside the normal, historical, and common lexicon used to describe such events."
"Every nominee provided near-identical phrasing to avoid a direct answer about the 2020 election, instead referencing the results of the congressional 'certification' process, or answering by noting that President Biden 'served' as president," the report notes. "And 21 of 27 nominees provided extremely similar responses in regard to January 6, often describing what transpired as a 'political issue' and refusing to comment further."
Orton of Demand Justice said that "it is unprecedented for lifetime nominees to the federal bench to provide dishonest and misleading answers about historical facts—and it is deeply concerning that Trump’s nominees are parroting such strikingly similar language, the president’s own language, to avoid telling the truth."
That more than a dozen Senate Democrats still voted to confirm at least one of those nominees is "simply unacceptable," said Orton.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Report Highlights ‘Pattern of Dishonesty' on 2020 Election From Trump’s Far-Right Judicial Picks
“It is unprecedented for lifetime nominees to the federal bench to provide dishonest and misleading answers about historical facts," said the president of Demand Justice.
Nov 11, 2025
President Donald Trump has appointed 27 judges to federal courts so far in his second term, and in addition to their right-wing interpretation of the law, an analysis of the judges' comments to senators during the confirmation process reveals a key commonality between the president's appointees: All were willing to evade direct questions about whether Trump lost the 2020 election and whether the US Capitol was attacked by a violent pro-Trump mob on January 6, 2021.
Demand Justice examined the Questions for the Record (QFRs) that were submitted by the Senate to the 27 judicial nominees regarding the election and January 6, and found that their answers to those two specific questions were nearly uniform in many cases—repeating certain phrases verbatim and "overall, using unusual and evasive language that’s almost entirely outside the normal, historical, and common lexicon used to describe such events."
None of the 27 nominees affirmatively answered that former President Joe Biden won the 2020 election, as proven by numerous courts that rejected lawsuits claiming otherwise and by both Republican and Democratic election officials. Instead, the nominees said Biden was "certified" as the winner, and 16 of them said he "served" as president.
Some of the nominees, including Emil Bove of the US Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, Whitney Hermandorfer of the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, and Kyle Dudek of the Middle District of Florida, expanded on their answers, saying they would avoid "opining on the broader political or policy debate regarding the conduct of the 2020 presidential election."
Demand Justice said those comments "strongly, and falsely," suggested the 2020 election results are still a matter of legal dispute.
Josh Orton, president of the group, told MSNBC's "Morning Joe" on Tuesday that the nominees' answers preserved "their ability to say, 'I did not contradict Donald Trump' on what we know are the two most third-rail issues to Donald Trump."
"If nominees don't answer these two questions, I think it amounts to, essentially, a political loyalty test," said Orton.
NEW: Demand Justice report finds a pattern of dishonesty and evasion from Trump's judicial nominees. Watch as @joshorton explains on @Morning_Joe how Trump's judges are effectively taking loyalty tests to the President. pic.twitter.com/MFj2m8gElj
— Demand Justice (@WeDemandJustice) November 11, 2025
Regarding questions about whether the US Capitol was attacked on January 6 and whether the attack was an insurrection, said Demand Justice, "not one nominee was willing to speak to the events that occurred on that day."
Twenty-one of them, including Bove, Hermandorfer, and Joshua Divine of District Courts for the Eastern and Western Districts of Missouri, characterized the attack—in which Trump supporters tried to stop Congress from certifying the 2020 election results—as a matter of debate.
None of the nominees mentioned the law enforcement officers who died as a result of the attack, even though some mentioned violence against law enforcement broadly in their other QFR answers; the fact that the House and Senate chambers were broken into; or the death threats rioters directed at then-Vice President Mike Pence.
“It is unprecedented for lifetime nominees to the federal bench to provide dishonest and misleading answers about historical facts—and it is deeply concerning that Trump’s nominees are parroting such strikingly similar language, the president’s own language, to avoid telling the truth,” said Orton.
Orton added that "the kicker" of the report is that 15 members of the Democratic Caucus have voted for Trump's judicial nominees despite their evasive and dishonest answers about January 6 and Trump's 2020 loss.
"Excuse me? People died," said Orton. "If you're willing to appease Trump's big lies, you have no business anywhere near a court, period."
This morning, @joshorton unveiled a new report that found all 27 of Trump's judicial nominees, who have gone through the process in his second term, have used strikingly similar, evasive language to answer basic questions about the 2020 election and January 6th. Watch --> pic.twitter.com/WaqdyFcAC7
— Demand Justice (@WeDemandJustice) November 11, 2025
Democrats who have voted in favor of confirming Trump's nominees include Sens. Chris Coons (Del.), Tim Kaine (Va.), Mark Kelly (Ariz.), and Amy Klobuchar (Minn.).
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Fourth Branch: How Conscience and Civic Vigilance May Save the Republic
Ordinary citizens, lower courts, military officers, advocacy groups, and artists together form a novel “fourth branch,” acting as a moral immune system of the body politic, sustaining its health when power itself has become a vector of disease.
Oct 13, 2025
With the executive overreaching and the judiciary acquiescent, the Republic’s immune system strains under political and institutional dysfunction. The legislative branch, meanwhile, toggles between paralysis and performative outrage, its constitutional authority weakened by partisan spectacle. When the formal organs falter, the Republic depends on the dispersed actors of the “fourth branch”—a novel, emergent moral network—tasked with upholding civic and constitutional integrity.
Ordinary citizens, lower courts, military officers, advocacy groups, and artists together make up this fourth branch of government, sustaining the body politic when power itself becomes a vector of disease. Like any living organism, the Republic survives only if parts of its system remain healthy, responsive, and attuned to threat. Two hundred fifty years after the nation’s founding, that resilience appears to reside outside the glare of public office and the ceremonial pomp of political power.
The organs of government—the executive, legislature, and judiciary—were built to temper ambition with accountability. The executive pursues policy goals and national leadership, yet is held in check by congressional oversight, the threat of impeachment, and the Senate’s advice and consent powers. The legislature advances laws and represents constituents, but its ambitions are restrained by the separation of powers and judicial review. The judiciary interprets laws and shapes precedent, yet its authority is bounded by norms, constitutional limits, and the actions of the elected branches that carry out its rulings. In this delicate interplay, each branch’s drive is held in tension with the others, forming a dynamic system of mutual restraint—a mechanism of civic immunity that preserves the Republic’s health whenever power tempts corruption.
When those formal checks falter or are stretched to their limits, other actors step forward. Among the first responders to constitutional stress and executive and legislative overreach are the lower courts. Their judgments, often meticulous and unnoticed, resist the infection of unchecked power, preserving both legal precedent and the vitality of constitutional norms. Historical examples—from district courts enforcing Brown v. Board of Education (1954) to federal judges upholding limits on executive overreach during Watergate—show that judicial restraint and principled decision-making act as vital lymphocytes in the body politic. In recent years, lower courts have repeatedly pushed back against attempts by both parties to expand executive power, reaffirming the judiciary’s enduring role in protecting constitutional norms and maintaining systemic balance.
The individuals of the fourth branch embody resilience, restoring the Republic not through office or ceremony, but through conscience, vigilance, and mindful, ethical action.
Equally critical is the principle guiding the military. Officers sworn to uphold the Constitution function as nodes of resilience. When orders risk undermining constitutional norms, restraint and adherence to lawful principle operate as systemic immunity, ensuring coercive force is not deployed toward corruption or authoritarian consolidation. From Union officers defending constitutional principles during the Civil War to the US military’s post-World War II commitment to civilian control, such principled restraint has protected the Republic from abuse. It has also reinforced societal stability during periods of extraordinary national stress.
Advocacy groups and civic organizations form a diffuse network of immune cells, detecting threats, mobilizing responses, and maintaining transparency. From the NAACP’s legal challenges during the civil rights movement to investigative journalism exposing abuses of power, as well as contemporary grassroots advocacy and sustained public protest, these actors function as a persistent, often invisible immune surveillance, preserving the health of the body politic. These efforts exemplify the kind of decentralized vigilance and ethical engagement that underpins the emergent “fourth branch,” helping sustain systemic stability even when formal institutions falter.
Similarly, artists and curators participate in this moral immune system, using cultural production to expose injustice and inspire civic engagement. From Picasso’s Guernica, which revealed the horrors of war, to the Mirror Shield Project by Cannupa Hanska Luger—created in 2016 for the Indigenous-led protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline at the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation—art serves as a tool of ethical witnessing. Luger’s mirrored shields, intended as non-violent instruments of protest and protection, exemplify how creative interventions confront corruption and violence, mobilize empathy, and sustain the body politic’s vitality. Other contemporary examples include Ai Weiwei’s installations highlighting human rights abuses and forced migration, Mel Chin’s environmental advocacy and socially engaged art projects, and Theaster Gates’ community-driven work in Chicago that engages citizens in social and political renewal. These artistic acts, like investigative journalism or civic advocacy, function as moral lymphocytes, detecting societal “infection,” prompting reflection, and inspiring collective action.
Yet the deepest layer of defense resides in ordinary citizens. Democracy isn’t merely a formal arrangement of offices; it is sustained by conscience and participation. Every jury that renders judgment according to law rather than ideology; every community that organizes to defend the vulnerable; every voter in presidential, midterm, state, and local elections; and every citizen who peacefully protests or refuses to normalize corruption and injustice contributes to the body politic’s immune function. Herein lies the lifeblood of the fourth branch: a novel, emergent moral structure whose collective actions preserve health and resilience in the face of institutional illness and degradation.
As Montesquieu famously wrote in The Spirit of Laws (1748), “That anyone who possesses power has a tendency to abuse it is an eternal truth.” He emphasizes balance and vigilance in those who hold office, a caution echoed by Hannah Arendt’s warning against thoughtless compliance and the banality of evil, and by Immanuel Kant’s assertion that moral law—accessible through reason alone (his Categorical Imperative)—guides action even under pressure. When the organs of governance are compromised, these insights become urgent guides for ethical engagement, illuminating the vigilance demanded of the emergent fourth branch.
The metaphor extends further: Like any organism, the body politic is vulnerable to fatigue and infection. Judges may falter. Officers may waver. Citizens may grow indifferent. Yet recognizing systemic vulnerability can catalyze meaningful action. Just as immune systems strengthen in response to challenge, civic vigilance grows in response to institutional illness. The Republic’s health depends on persistent engagement, not the passive expectation of heroic leadership—a principle perfectly captured by John F. Kennedy in his 1961 Inaugural Address: “Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.” Citizenship isn’t merely a document; it invites—and requires—active participation in the nation’s health and well-being. This can mean resisting authoritarian forces or preventing private interests from capturing public institutions. Such engagement takes many forms: at town halls, shareholder meetings, voting booths, or even the checkout counter.
History demonstrates that resilience often emerges from unexpected quarters. The quiet rulings of lower courts, the disciplined adherence of officers to constitutional oaths, the tireless work of advocacy groups, and the conscientious refusal of citizens to acquiesce in corruption sustain the body politic. Their work is seldom glamorous, yet it is indispensable. The fourth branch enables the Republic to heal and resist, ensuring that liberty endures even when formal organs of power succumb to illness. Democratic health is measured not by office, rank, or visibility, but by the vitality of this dispersed moral network. These actors collectively form the body politic’s immune response, detecting threats, containing infection, and restoring systemic balance.
Benjamin Franklin’s warning—“A republic, if you can keep it”—has never been more urgent. Its keepers are often neither powerful nor celebrated, but those whose acts are small, disciplined, and principled. Acting as the lymphocytes, macrophages, and antibodies of the body politic, they preserve democratic health when governance structures fail. The individuals of the fourth branch embody resilience, restoring the Republic not through office or ceremony, but through conscience, vigilance, and mindful, ethical action. We may never know all their names, yet we may still sense their impact—and feel gratitude for it.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Don’t Despair: Trump Keeps Losing Bigly
The courts, backed by impacted people, are proving to be a significant check on Trump’s thirst for absolute power.
Sep 05, 2025
US President Donald Trump is on a losing streak this week. Just look at the latest judicial decisions challenging his policies, from mass deportations to tariffs to his troop deployments to US cities.
The courts are proving to be a significant check on Trump’s thirst for absolute power.
These cases illustrate the point:
Immigration
Over Labor Day weekend, Immigration and Customs Enforcement attempted to begin deporting up to 700 unaccompanied Guatemalan children. In the dead of night, the first children were loaded onto planes in south Texas. “These are unaccompanied children who do not have a parent or a guardian with them,” Efrén Olivares, an attorney representing the minors, said on the Democracy Now! news hour.
At 1:00 am on Sunday morning, Olivares and his colleagues filed an emergency complaint with the federal court in Washington, DC. Judge Sparkle Sooknanam was woken after 2:00 am, and by 4:00 am she issued a temporary restraining order blocking the deportations until the children had the immigration hearings to which they have a legal right.
Meanwhile in Texas, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, considered the nation’s most conservative, ruled that Trump’s use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport people was illegal.
Tariffs
The Appeals Court in Washington DC ruled that Trump’s so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs were illegal and unconstitutional, noting that only Congress has the power to impose tariffs. The ruling was “a sweeping decision that unequivocally rebukes President Trump’s idea that he can impose tariffs on American consumers on his own,” Neal Katyal, the attorney who argued the case, said on Democracy Now!
Domestic Deployment of the Military
Trump says, “We’re going in,” threatening to invade Chicago using, among other forces, the Texas National Guard.
But in California, a federal judge, invoking the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act that bars the use of military in domestic law enforcement, ruled in favor of Gov. Gavin Newsom, finding Trump’s deployment of the California National Guard to the streets of Los Angeles, along with several hundred US Marines, was illegal. Judge Charles Breyer, the brother of retired US Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, issued an injunction barring the Trump administration from “deploying, ordering, instructing, training, or using the National Guard currently deployed in California, and any military troops [from] engaging in arrests, apprehensions, searches, seizures, security patrols, traffic control, crowd control, riot control, evidence collection, interrogation, or acting as informants.”
These are just a few of the recent court cases that have rebuked Trump as he attempts to subvert the US Constitution.
We recently got a personal glimpse into what judicial wins over Trump look like. In the high mountain air of Telluride, Colorado, we had a chance to spend time with E. Jean Carroll, the renowned advice columnist and journalist. She was at the Telluride Film Festival for the premier of the new documentary, Ask E. Jean.
Carroll had a long and storied career as the advice columnist for Elle Magazine, and has published several books. In recent years she became known as one of the most prominent women to accuse Donald Trump of sexual abuse, saying he raped her in the dressing room of the Bergdorf Goodman department store in the mid-1990s, in Manhattan.
The courts are playing a central role in opposing the lawless Trump administration, but the core of the resistance are people.
Carroll sued Trump in civil court, and a jury found him guilty of sexually abusing her. Judge Lewis Kaplan wrote, “Trump did in fact ‘rape’ Ms. Carroll as that term commonly is used and understood.” She was awarded a $5 million settlement from Trump. After the verdict, he called her a liar. She then sued for defamation, and won an additional jury award of $83.3 million.
Carroll cut an elegant figure, walking along Telluride’s main avenue with the sweeping Continental Divide as a backdrop. Her film premiered to rave reviews, and, should there remain a film distributor in this country not cowed by threats of lawsuits from Trump, it should be available for viewing by a wide audience. The film highlights the story of one courageous woman refusing to be defined as a victim of Donald Trump, providing inspiration, no doubt, to the hundreds of survivors of Trump’s old friend, the now-dead sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein. Many of them spoke this week outside the US Capitol, demanding the full release of the Epstein files. The Trump administration, which controls the files, is resisting.
Behind each lawsuit are impacted people, whether immigrant children pulled from their beds in the middle of the night and thrown on planes, or people standing up in the streets of LA confronting illegally deployed troops, whether sexual abuse survivors banding together, or federal workers fired en masse.
The courts are playing a central role in opposing the lawless Trump administration, but the core of the resistance are people–people at every level organized in opposition, defending democracy.
Keep ReadingShow Less
By Keeping Climate Funds on Ice, the DC Circuit Is Complicit in Trump’s Overreach
By refusing to act, the DC Circuit has turned oversight into obstruction, procedure into punishment, as it helps the executive hollow out Congress’ most basic power.
Sep 03, 2025
On September 2 the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ruled that $16 billion in climate grants will remain frozen. The case, Climate United Fund v. Citibank and Environmental Protection Agency, grew out of the Trump administration’s February decision to halt the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. The order was only a few lines long, a clerk’s note that the mandate would be withheld until rehearing petitions were resolved. In appellate procedure, withholding the mandate means the decision below is not yet enforceable. The court could have allowed the money to move while review continued. It chose not to.
This is not paperwork. This is power. Power in this case means leaving billions locked in a Citibank vault while families ration air conditioning, patch storm-wrecked homes, and haul water across dry land.
The money is real. Congress appropriated it. Treasury obligated it. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) awarded it. Projects were ready. Tribal governments had contractors lined up to install solar pumps. Rural co-ops had bids in hand to replace cracked water lines. Community lenders had retrofits prepared for families who spend half their paychecks on electricity. Yet the funds remain frozen, generating interest for a bank that once needed a taxpayer bailout and still bankrolls oil expansion.
Judges call this a pause. A pause in Washington is a crisis everywhere else.
Maria Ortega in Phoenix knows it. She is 76, widowed, living on a fixed income in a house that traps the heat. Phoenix endured its fourth hottest summer on record, with 12 days at or above 110°F this July. Maria shut off her air conditioning most afternoons to avoid a $287 bill, half her Social Security check. The thermostat read 98°F. She sipped water slowly, blinds drawn, a box fan pushing hot air. At night she ran the AC for three hours so she could sleep. She asked a question no one should face: Is surviving this month worth going hungry next month?
Daniel Robinson outside New Orleans knows it too. Another September storm peeled shingles from his roof. He was 19 when Katrina came. He rebuilt, married, worked double shifts. He was told resilience would come. But this fall he found himself again hammering blue tarps while his kids carried buckets. Federal funds exist for stronger roofs and elevated homes. They were approved, obligated, ready. But they remain locked in limbo.
And Sarah Begay on the Navajo Nation knows it as well. She drives every other day to a community well, filling barrels for her livestock. The dirt tanks her father used have been dry for years. Gas prices climb, the miles wear down her pickup. She was told federal money was coming for solar pumps. Instead she is told to wait.
Three people, three regions, one reality: Delay is not neutral. It kills.
Maria is not waiting for abstractions. She is waiting for a power bill she can pay.
Judges insist they are bound by law, not outcomes. But law already spoke. Congress passed the appropriation. Treasury obligated it. EPA awarded it. The Constitution gives Congress the purse for a reason. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 codified that a president cannot cancel or withhold funds Congress has approved. President Richard Nixon tried, and Congress stopped him. What this administration has done—freezing appropriations indefinitely under the language of review—is a backdoor impoundment. And by withholding the mandate, the DC Circuit has not merely tolerated this maneuver. It has validated it.
This is the judiciary’s quiet habit: Retreat into formalism while people pay the price. Courts claim neutrality but exercise discretion constantly—choosing when to grant stays, when to expedite review, when to let money flow. To call delay neutral is a fiction. Delay is a ruling in all but name. The choice to freeze funds is as consequential as striking them down.
The consequences reach far beyond climate. If this precedent stands, any appropriation can be stalled. Veterans’ healthcare, housing aid, disaster relief—all can be frozen at a president’s discretion so long as courts are willing to play along. Congress will hold the purse only on paper. In practice, presidents will wield the choke chain, and judges will provide cover.
Every day of delay bleeds value. A retrofit not installed means another summer of unbearable bills. A pump not delivered means another year of hauling water. A roof not secured means another tarp, another moldy wall, another child growing up in a house that never dries. A dollar spent today prevents five dollars in damage tomorrow. A dollar withheld compounds harm. The storm does not wait for petitions. The fire does not wait for oral arguments. The flood does not wait for a court’s sense of timing.
Judicial restraint here is not harmless. It is complicity. By refusing to act, the DC Circuit has turned oversight into obstruction, procedure into punishment. It has helped the executive hollow out Congress’ most basic power. It has reduced law to theater while real life burns.
Maria is not waiting for abstractions. She is waiting for a power bill she can pay. Daniel is not waiting for legal formalities. He is waiting for a roof that will hold. Sarah is not waiting for judicial review. She is waiting for water that flows.
The storm will not wait. The fire will not wait. The flood will not wait. Politicians will still gather in front of cameras to praise oversight and congratulate themselves on restraint. Judges will polish their dockets and write opinions about consistency.
But history will record something else. The money was there. The need was there. The chance was there. And power chose not to use it. That is not oversight. That is abdication. It is not neutrality. It is complicity. And it is a verdict that will damn the judiciary as much as the executive.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Unfit and Unqualified': Senate GOP Confirm Pro-Trump 'Attack Dog' Jeanine Pirro as US Attorney
"By confirming Pirro," said one critic, "Senate Republicans made one thing clear: they care more about pleasing Donald Trump than honoring their constitutional duty to advise and consent on presidential nominations."
Aug 03, 2025
The far-right former Fox News commentator Jeanine Pirro was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on Saturday night in a strictly party-line vote to become the next U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, a position progressive critics and Democratic opponents warn she is deeply unqualified to hold.
Pirro, who has been serving as the acting U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C. since May, has a long history of spewing far-right conspiracy theories on air and throwing facts to the wind when it comes to lining up behind President Donald Trump. Pirro was a prominent figure when Dominion Voting Systems sued Fox News for defamation over the outlet's coverage of the 2020 election and she was a vocal proponent of Trump's "Big Lie" that the voting was rigged against him.
Christina Harvey, executive director of the pro-democracy group Stand Up America, condemned Pirro's confirmation.
"Republicans have handed the keys to our nation's capital to a Trump loyalist with zero credibility and a track record of unhinged extremism," warned Harvey. "Keanine Pirro isn't a serious prosecutor—she's a partisan attack dog who's made a name for herself by promoting conspiracy theories and threatening to criminally investigate January 6 prosecutors in the office she was just confirmed to oversee. A Fox News producer once called her a 'reckless maniac.'"
"By confirming Pirro," added Harvey, "Senate Republicans made one thing clear: they care more about pleasing Donald Trump than honoring their constitutional duty to advise and consent on presidential nominations. Qualifications, independence, integrity—none of it matters. Just blind loyalty."
The vote in the Senate was 50-45, with every Republican voting for Pirro and every member of the Democratic caucus voting against. Five senators did not cast a vote.
Congressional Democrats voiced their contempt for Pirro both leading up to the vote and following it.
"Pirro should never be a permanent U.S. Attorney," declared Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, just after the vote was finalized. "She endorsed the firing of January 6 prosecutors. She recklessly spread the Big Lie to the point her *own producers* had to tell her to cool it. Ultimately, she’s a rubber stamp for Donald Trump."
Ahead of the vote, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) explained his opposition to her confirmation, saying Pirro was "deeply unfit and unqualified" and describing her as "a loyal acolyte and sycophant" of Trump.
"She is not objective, she is not independent," said Blumenthal. "Instead she has made her mark spreading damaging, offensive conspiracy theories."
Jeanine Pirro is deeply unqualified & unfit to be the United States Attorney for DC. She is simply a loyal acolyte & sycophant of the President. She is not objective, she is not independent. Instead she has made her mark spreading damaging, offensive conspiracy theories. pic.twitter.com/H8cmQ6ZzvD
— Richard Blumenthal (@SenBlumenthal) August 2, 2025
Last week, Rep. Jeremy Raskin (D-Md.), ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to Senate leadership urging against Pirro's confirmation, calling her a threat to the government's independent judiciary and unfit to run the U.S. Attorney's office in D.C., the largest of its kind in the nation.
"Over the past decade, Ms. Pirro has consistently demonstrated that her loyalty lies with Donald Trump the person, not with the Constitution or the rule of law," said Raskin in a letter addressed to Republican Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Democratic Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.
"Her blind loyalty to Donald Trump at the exclusion of other principles, her embarrassing support of the 'big lie' that the 2020 election was rigged in the face of all evidence to the contrary and 60 federal and state court decisions rejecting such claims, her unswerving defense of convicted January 6th rioters, and her incendiary rhetoric that urges President Trump to seek retribution against his alleged enemies," continued Raskin, "all make it clear that she lacks the intellectual honesty, personal principles, temperament, integrity, and fundamental constitutional fidelity required to lead this important office."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Cowardice': Senate GOP Brushes Whistleblowers Aside to Confirm Trump Loyalist Emil Bove
"Bove, facing a wave of damning allegations that the overwhelming majority of Republican senators refused to take seriously, has been confirmed for one reason only: obedience to Trump."
Jul 30, 2025
Nearly every Senate Republican on Tuesday voted in favor of confirming Trump loyalist Emil Bove to a lifetime federal court seat, brushing aside whistleblowers who alleged that the Justice Department official expressed support for defying court orders and lied during his sworn judiciary committee testimony.
The final Senate vote on Bove's confirmation to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit was 50-49, with every member of the Democratic caucus voting no. Just two Republicans—Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska—opposed Bove's confirmation.
Maggie Jo Buchanan, interim executive director of the advocacy group Demand Justice, said the vote "represents some of the worst aspects of far too many elected to office in Washington—cowardice and political expediency over duty to constituents."
"The American people want and deserve judges who are independent and fair, not ones who have done nothing to hide their political loyalties," she added. "Bove, facing a wave of damning allegations that the overwhelming majority of Republican senators refused to take seriously, has been confirmed for one reason only: obedience to Trump."
Tuesday's vote came hours after The Washington Post reported that a third whistleblower had shared evidence with senators suggesting that Bove "misled lawmakers about his handling of the dismissal of public corruption charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams."
Democratic senators demanded an investigation into the allegations before the final vote to confirm Bove, but Republicans rushed ahead with the vote anyway.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said in a statement following Tuesday's vote that "this sham, hide-the-ball confirmation process is a new low for subservient Senate Republicans."
"Even as the lawless Emil Bove appears to have misled the committee about multiple, credible, backstopped allegations of misconduct, this body has sunk to simply being a partisan rubber stamp for President Trump," said Whitehouse. "Republicans have ignored whistleblower after whistleblower who bravely came forward to corroborate evidence of Bove's misconduct."
"Bove's confirmation sets the stage for the president and his allies to seek out favorable rulings, no matter how unconstitutional their actions may be."
Whistleblower Aid, a group representing one of the Bove whistleblowers, said prior to Tuesday's vote that Trump's Justice Department claimed to have lost a complaint "documenting Emil Bove's contempt for the rule of law" before finding it again on Monday.
The group noted that the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General "received an online copy of the complaint from Whistleblower Aid on May 2 and signed in a couriered copy three days later." The complaint, according to Whistleblower Aid, "provided documentary evidence that Bove and other senior DOJ officials instructed department lawyers to violate a court order relating to the Trump administration's immigration deportation policies."
"They also directed DOJ lawyers to commit perjury in federal court to cover up the violation, the evidence shows," according to the group. "Yet the office now says the documents were lost and refound only after Whistleblower Aid presented proof of submission and receipt. Evidence relevant to the Senate's final vote on the Bove nomination has thus sat unacknowledged for almost three months, foreclosing the possibility of any meaningful investigation into a lifetime judicial appointment."
Last month, The New York Times reported that one whistleblower—a DOJ lawyer who has since been fired—alleged that Bove said earlier this year that the Justice Department "would need to consider telling the courts 'fuck you'" if they ruled against the Trump administration's attempts to deport immigrants without due process.
Caroline Ciccone, president of the watchdog group Accountable.US, said Tuesday that Bove's confirmation "should send a chill down the spine of every American."
"Bove has shown total loyalty to Trump above the American people; refused to commit to recusing himself on cases involving the president; and is the subject of multiple whistleblower complaints," said Ciccone. "His extreme ideological record and ethical lapses have raised grave concerns about his integrity, but that didn't stop Republican senators from ramming his confirmation through, falling in line with Trump's scheme of hand-selecting judges who vow personal loyalty over the rule of law."
"Bove's confirmation sets the stage for the president and his allies to seek out favorable rulings, no matter how unconstitutional their actions may be," she warned. "And that is a threat to fundamental freedoms everywhere."
Keep ReadingShow Less
DOJ Targets Federal Judge for Warning Trump Could Spark 'Constitutional Crisis'
Judge James Boasberg reportedly raised concerns that the Trump administration "would disregard rulings of federal courts," something the White House has done repeatedly.
Jul 29, 2025
The Trump Justice Department on Monday filed a misconduct complaint against a federal judge for warning in early March that the president could spark a "constitutional crisis" by defying court orders—a concern that was swiftly validated.
The complaint against James Boasberg, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, was announced by Attorney General Pam Bondi, who alleged on social media that Boasberg made "improper public comments" about President Donald Trump and his administration.
During a March gathering of the Judicial Conference—the federal judiciary's policymaking body—Boasberg reportedly raised colleagues' fears that "the administration would disregard rulings of federal courts leading to a constitutional crisis."
John Roberts, the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, "expressed hope that would not happen and in turn no constitutional crisis would materialize," according to a memo obtained by The Federalist, a right-wing publication.
Days after the Judicial Conference gathering, the Trump administration ignored Boasberg's order to turn around deportation flights, prompting an ACLU attorney to warn, "I think we're getting very close" to a constitutional crisis.
Boasberg, an Obama appointee, later said there was probable cause to hold the Trump administration in contempt of court, concluding that the evidence demonstrated "a willful disregard" for the judge's order.
Boasberg's rulings against the Trump administration in the high-profile deportation case stemming from the president's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act have made the judge a target of the White House and its allies. Trump and some congressional Republicans have demanded that Boasberg be impeached.
Politico reported Monday that the Justice Department's complaint against Boasberg was signed by Chad Mizelle, Bondi's chief of staff.
"Mizelle argued that Boasberg's views expressed at the conference violated the 'presumption of regularity' that courts typically afford to the executive branch," Politico noted. "And the Bondi aide said that the administration has followed all court orders, though several lower courts have found that the administration defied their commands."
A Washington Post analysis published last week estimated that Trump officials have been accused of violating court orders in "a third of the more than 160 lawsuits against the administration."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Advocates Decry Senate Confirmation of 'Anti-Abortion Extremist' to Lifetime Federal Court Seat
"Divine's confirmation makes clear that Trump lied to voters when he said he would 'leave it to the states,' and he is actively working to eliminate abortion access nationwide," said a prominent reproductive rights advocate.
Jul 22, 2025
Several advocacy groups expressed outrage on Tuesday after the United States Senate voted to confirm Missouri Solicitor General Joshua Divine to be a United States District Judge for the Eastern and Western Districts of Missouri.
Divine, who was confirmed by a vote of 51 in favor to 46 against, is one of several judicial nominees of U.S. President Donald Trump who has been singled out by advocates for what they describe as his extreme record on a number of issues ranging from reproductive freedoms to LGBTQ rights to relief for student loan borrowers.
Every member of the Senate Democratic caucus voted against Divine’s confirmation with the exception of Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), who voted in favor. All Republicans voting in the Senate on Tuesday supported Divine’s confirmation, while three GOP senators—John Kennedy of Louisiana, Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma, and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky—did not vote.
Mini Timmaraju, president and CEO of abortion rights advocacy organization Reproductive Freedom for All, argued that Divine's nomination and confirmation were a sign that Trump and the GOP would not be content to leave abortion rights up to individual states.
"Divine's confirmation makes clear that Trump lied to voters when he said he would 'leave it to the states,' and he is actively working to eliminate abortion access nationwide," she said. "Federal courts are a critical line of defense to preserve reproductive healthcare, and these appointments are a dangerous sign of what's to come."
Winston Berkman-Breen, legal director of the Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC), accused Divine of building a political career on the backs of student loan borrowers who were in dire need of relief from the massive debts they incurred while pursuing an education.
"Time and time again in his lawsuits challenging legal student loan payment and relief programs, Divine took extreme positions at odds with traditional judicial interpretations related to injury, standing, and venue," he said. "Because of Divine, millions of student loan borrowers remain buried in crushing debt. Divine's actions exceeded the bounds of zealous advocacy and were a direct affront to judicial procedure. Americans deserve a judge who will review the facts of the case before them and apply the law under the Constitution and as passed by Congress—not an ideologue who will manipulate those laws to obtain the outcome he prefers."
Lena Zwarensteyn, senior director of the fair courts program and an advisor at The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, didn't focus on any specific issue and instead took an all-of-the-above approach to condemning what she described as Divine's unfitness for the federal bench.
"The Senate's confirmation of Joshua Divine to the federal bench in Missouri... installs into a lifetime judgeship an individual who does not possess the requisite experience to be a federal judge and who has time and time again demonstrated significant hostility to our civil and human rights," she argued. "His limited legal career—which includes a record of intense opposition to reproductive rights, LGBTQ equality, student loan borrowers, and more—is disqualifying. Our courts, our communities, and our democracy deserve better. Senators must ensure that judicial nominees are fair-minded, actually qualified for the job, and faithful to the rule of law and Constitution rather than to an anti-civil rights agenda."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dozens of Former Judges Join Call for Senate to Reject Bove's Judicial Nomination
"Mr. Bove's egregious record of mistreating law enforcement officers, abusing power, and disregarding the law itself disqualifies him for this position."
Jul 15, 2025
With two days to go until the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee is set to vote on advancing the judicial nomination of President Donald Trump's former personal attorney, Emil Bove, more than 75 former federal and state judges wrote to lawmakers to demand they reject the "deeply inappropriate" appointment.
Confirming Bove to a lifetime seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit would not only "compromise the integrity of the courts" and "set a dangerous precedent" that "personal fealty rather than constitutional duty" can secure judicial power, said the judges, but would also elevate someone who has allegedly "plotted to violate court orders," according to a recent whistleblower report.
The judges noted that the whistleblower, former Department of Justice lawyer Erez Reuveni, has offered to testify under oath and has provided the committee with "compelling evidence" that Bove told DOJ staffers to "ignore" any court orders that challenged Trump's mass deportation operation—yet the Republican-controlled panel has not invited Reuveni to speak to lawmakers.
On Tuesday, committee Chair Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) rejected a request to hold additional hearings on Bove's nomination before voting, saying they were "unnecessary."
"The Senate has a duty to hear that testimony," said the former judges, including Republican-nominated former circuit judges J. Michael Luttig, Timothy Lewis, and Paul Michel.
The judges wrote that "Mr. Bove's egregious record of mistreating law enforcement officers, abusing power, and disregarding the law itself disqualifies him for this position."
The letter is only the latest push to stop senators from confirming Bove, currently the principal associate deputy attorney general at the DOJ. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of more than 240 civil society organizations, wrote to senators last month, saying Bove does not meet the "basic requirements" to be a federal judge, including being "fair-minded, well-qualified, and committed to civil and human rights."
Like the Leadership Conference, the judges on Tuesday pointed to Bove's views on and conduct regarding the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, which the DOJ official "refuses to condemn." Bove also investigated and fired dozens of FBI agents who had been involved in probing the attacks, which were aimed at stopping lawmakers from certifying Trump's 2020 election loss.
"It is disqualifying alone that Mr. Bove targeted or terminated Federal Bureau of Investigation personnel and career DOJ prosecutors for honorably investigating violent criminals who assaulted police officers and intended to murder members of Congress and our nation's vice president on January 6, 2021," wrote the judges.
They also pointed to Bove's role in dropping corruption charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams, which prompted the resignation of several disgusted staff attorneys, and his record of belittling and abusing staffers when he was a federal prosecutor in New York's Southern District—a pattern that made him the subject of an email from defense attorneys who expressed concern about Bove's "power plays" and "professionalism."
"Mr. Bove's egregious record of mistreating law enforcement officers, abusing power, and disregarding the law itself disqualifies him for this position," wrote the lawyers.
Gregg Nunziata, executive director at the Society for the Rule of Law, said the "remarkable" letter demonstrated how "the case against Mr. Bove's confirmation" is "about fundamental unfitness for the judicial role."
The Senate committee is set to vote on Bove's nomination on Thursday, and Republicans on the panel are expected to approve the appointment—even though Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) previously said he would not support nominations of people who refused to condemn the January 6 attacks. After the committee vote, Bove would need to be confirmed by the full chamber.
On a questionnaire given to him by the Senate as part of his confirmation process, Bove said "the characterization of the events on January 6 is a matter of significant political debate," and declined to comment on his views.
On the same document, Bove did not rule out Trump's potential run for a third term—which would violate the U.S. Constitution's 22nd Amendment.
While the judges outlined Bove's unfitness for the lifetime appeals court seat, journalist Lydia Polgreen noted that as the committee moved toward a likely confirmation, condemnation should also be aimed at members of the Democratic Party who "caved to anti-Muslim smears" last year and failed to confirm veteran lawyer Adeel Mangi for the seat on the 3rd Circuit—leaving the spot open for Trump's former personal attorney.
As Common Dreams reported last year, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned whether Mangi condemned the September 11, 2001 attacks and the Hamas-led attacks on southern Israel in October 2023. They also accused Mangi of antisemitism due to his membership on the advisory board for the Rutgers Center for Security, Race, and Rights, which hosted speakers who—like more than half of U.S. adults currently—were critical of Israel.
The "monthslong onslaught of baseless, disgusting attacks on Mangi," as HuffPost reporter Jennifer Bendery called them, were successful, and convinced Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) to vote against the "highly qualified, widely endorsed, successful litigator."
"The history of trying to fill this powerful court seat," said Bendery, "is just as infuriating as where it could be headed."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More Stories
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy