With help from Senate Democrats, two Trump nominees could become lifetime judges this week

Nominees from Michigan and Pennsylvania moved forward thanks to their Democratic home-state senators.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune on Monday afternoon filed cloture on the nominations of Michael Martin for the Eastern District of Michigan, Antonio Pozos for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and Daniel Traynor for a North Dakota seat on the Eighth Circuit. Full Senate consideration of these nominations could begin as soon as Wednesday.

During Trump’s second term, Martin and Pozos are the first district court nominees from states with at least one Democratic senator. Senators Gary Peters and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan and Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania all returned their blue slips and allowed the nominations to move forward.

The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced both nominations last Thursday with bipartisan support, and they will almost certainly be confirmed this week with the support of multiple Senate Democrats. At last week’s markup, Democratic Senators Dick Durbin, Sheldon Whitehouse, and Mazie Hirono voted to advance Martin’s nomination, while only Senator Durbin supported Pozos’ nomination.

A spokesperson for Senator Fetterman reportedly said last month that he would decide whether to vote ‘yes’ on Pozos’ confirmation “when the time comes.” Senators Peters and Slotkin made an official announcement about their support for Martin, claiming that he would be an independent judge if confirmed.

Senator Peters, who is retiring, said Martin “has the experience and integrity necessary to serve on the federal bench.” He claimed that Martin “made it clear that he will exercise independent, forward thinking judgment” and that “he has the temperament and character necessary to impartially serve Michiganders and the American people.”

Senator Slotkin has opposed the confirmation of every Trump 2.0 judicial nominee to date and is not up for reelection until 2030. Still, she has helped to facilitate the Senate’s consideration of a Trump judicial nominee in her state — and she appears poised to vote in support of Martin’s confirmation.

“I take this responsibility very seriously,” Senator Slotkin said. “I met with Mr. Martin, a 20-year career prosecutor who has worked through both Democratic and Republican Administrations and asked him direct questions that speak directly to whether he will uphold our democratic process, regardless of external pressure. From making clear Joe Biden won the 2020 election, to the attack on the Capitol on January 6th, to being clear that President Trump can’t run for a third term, these answers were important factors for me, and fundamentally different from President Trump’s judicial nominees to date. I look forward to Mr. Martin conveying the same during his confirmation hearing, and to his service on the federal bench if confirmed.”

At Martin’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in June, Senator Richard Blumenthal asked him about the 2020 election and the January 6 attack on the Capitol. While Senator Slotkin seemed confident that Martin would say, without qualification, that “Joe Biden won the 2020 election,” his responses were not that straightforward.

When Martin was asked who won the 2020 election, he said that “as a matter of law, Joe Biden was the winner of the 2020 election.” When asked who got more votes, he said that “my focus as a judicial nominee is on the law, and as a matter of law, Joe Biden won the 2020 election.” When asked who got more Electoral College votes, he said that “Joe Biden received more Electoral College votes.” And when asked whether the Capitol was attacked on January 6, he said that “as part of my work as an assistant United States Attorney, I had the opportunity to look at pictures and videos from that day, and what I saw in those was that officers, law enforcement officers, were attacked, and the building was damaged and vandalized.”

Martin’s responses, at first, sound slightly better than saying “Joe Biden was certified as the winner.” But he was actually saying the same thing. He would not say that President Biden received more popular votes than Trump, just that “as a matter of law” he won the election and received more Electoral College votes. This mirrors what other judicial nominees have said.

In written questions for the record, Senator Chris Coons asked Martin what he meant during the hearing when he stated that Biden won “as a matter of law.” Martin only responded that “It means pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Constitution.” He used the phrase “as a matter of law” seven times in his responses to written questions for the record. Senator Coons also asked him this: “If Congress certifies a candidate as being the winner of a presidential election, does that mean that the candidate won the election? If not, what does it mean?” Martin responded that “It means that the candidate received a majority of the electoral college votes and therefore became the President.”

Martin also did not say during his hearing that “Yes, the Capitol was attacked on January 6.” He said that law enforcement officers were attacked and that the building was “damaged and vandalized.” Saying that the U.S. Capitol happened to be damaged that day is not the same as truthfully stating that insurrectionists attacked the building — and our democracy — in an attempt to stop the counting of votes.

When I asked what Senators Slotkin and Peters thought of Martin’s performance at the hearing and whether they were satisfied with his responses, a spokesperson for Senator Slotkin told me that “As of now, we do not have anything to add.” Senator Peters’ office offered this response from the senator: “Mr. Martin reiterated in our meetings, as well as at today’s hearing, that Joe Biden won the 2020 election, reassuring me that he will exercise independent judgment.”

Pozos answered questions in similar ways during the hearing, refusing to say that Biden received more popular votes and repeating that he won “as a matter of law.” He also would not say whether the Capitol was attacked on January 6. In response to written questions, he said that “Under the process specified by the Constitution and federal law, Congress certified Joseph R. Biden as the winner of the 2020 election, and he served as the 46th President of the United States. Accordingly, as a matter of law, he was elected to the office of the President in 2020.”

When asked in writing about January 6, Pozos dodged again. “As I stated in my testimony, I understand from public reporting that trespass and violence occurred at the Capitol, and I denounce violence against law enforcement and participants in the political process,” Pozos wrote. “As a judicial nominee, however, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on matters of political controversy, and which are or may be the subject of pending litigation.”

Senator Blumenthal was not happy with how Martin, Pozos, and other nominees responded to his questions during the hearing, calling it a “new script” to avoid directly responding. He said that Trump “declines to accept the truth that he lost the 2020 election. You are protecting the lie by failing to acknowledge the truth, and it all goes to your independence. If you’re unwilling to show us that you’re independent of the president at this early stage of your service, you disqualify yourself as judicial nominees.”

Josh Orton, president of Demand Justice, called out the “new script” in a statement following the hearing last month. He said the White House “knows that peddling the Big Lie is a political loser. So it’s now directing its judicial nominees to use bizarre qualifiers like ‘by law’ Joe Biden won the 2020 election.”

“If a judicial nominee can’t say those facts — outright — they can’t be independent from Trump,” Orton said. “They should not have blue-slips returned on their behalf by Senate Democrats for their nominations. And they should absolutely not be given lifetime seats on the federal judiciary.”

Orton also called out Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee who supported the nominations of Martin and Pozos, saying that “Democratic senators need to wake up and join reality: there is an authoritarian in the White House who’s attacking our elections, and voting to approve his judges is a grave mistake.”

Rachel Rossi, president of Alliance for Justice, warned last month that “Senators must remain vigilant to block loyalist judicial nominees who seek to quietly sneak through the confirmation process. Martin only revised the script used by nominees before him, providing updated but similar canned answers on democracy.”

---

I will have more to say about this — and about Daniel Traynor’s nomination — later this week.