Demand Justice Targets Democrats Over Judicial Nominees

The progressive advocacy group thinks voting for any Trump judicial nominees is inexcusable.

The New York Times reports that Demand Justice, a progressive activist group that has previously called for Democrats to expand the size of the Supreme Court, will be running ads against Democratic Senators who have voted in favor of some Trump judicial nominees.

The ads, part of an initial $1 million campaign which will begin to air on television and appear online on Wednesday, make the case that none of Mr. Trump's judicial appointments deserve bipartisan support because they are putting loyalty to the president above the Constitution.

The evidence that Demand Justice cites for that claim is that none of Mr. Trump's appointments to lifetime court seats have said in written answers to the Senate that Mr. Trump lost the 2020 election or that the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, amounted to an insurrection.

The three senators being targeted with the initial ad campaign are John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire and Angus King of Maine, who is an independent but caucuses with Democrats. Notably, none of three are up for re-election in 2026. All are moderates and among the group who voted to end the government shutdown last month. . . .

Mr. Fetterman has voted to confirm one judge, Ms. Hassan has voted for three and Mr. King has voted for four, the group said.

According to the story, another progressive advocacy group (MoveOn) will also begin pressing Senate Democrats to vote against all of President Trump's judicial nominees.

The apparent aim of these campaigns is not to prevent the confirmation of any judges (as judicial nominees can be--and largely have been--confirmed on party-line votes), nor is it to punish Democratic Senators facing re-election. It is apparently designed merely to ensure that Democrats adopt party-line opposition to Trump's nominees.

Comments

[Krayt]

This isn't that different from Tea Party stuff from a few years ago, an insurrection not against Democrats, but against Republicans for going along with the Democrats too much over the decades, talk a good game but precious little is actually done.

[ScottK]

Awesome!! Take that, Leonard!!

[ReaderY]

Who do they want elected in their stead? Republicans? They seem to be acting as if that’s what they want.

Vicious infighting with “my way or the highway” tactics and a “narrow tent” true-believers-only philosophy strikes me as a rather bad idea for an opposition party at this point. These folks risk not only their targets but themselves getting thrown out by the electorate.

[y81]

Interesting. Does Adler agree that Trump lost the 2020 election? Does Blackman?

For that matter, does Bernstein agree that the Rosenbergs were guilty? If so, is he capable of conceding that point without immediately denouncing Kaufman for the way he handled the case?

[MollyGodiva]

Trump judges are incompetent hacks. Of course Ds should not vote for them.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Seems like a situation without much import. It is absolutely right to vote against any nominee who will not concede a certified victor won an election. To do otherwise would condone taking the oath of office with fingers crossed behind the back. And the notion seems unlikely that any Trump judicial nominee will turn up showing a record of outstanding judicial temperament, and a non-partisan approach to deciding cases. In the unlikely event that happens, no one will object to any Senator who votes to confirm, except Trump cultists. Even Demand Justice Senators would vote to confirm, to promote justice.

[wvattorney13]

The nominees aren't saying that Trump WON the 2020 election or that Jan 6 was NOT an insurrection either. They are just refusing to play the 20 questions game, which is proper for any judicial nominee, and this group is trying to make something out of it that isn't there.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Also proper, and long overdue: voting not to confirm judicial nominees who refuse to answer questions about the past. Any judicial nominee who remains unwilling to answer questions about stuff that already happened ought to be shown the door. And I mean shown the door immediately, with the hearing terminated, and the nomination rejected.

To make that standard procedure for advice and consent would instantly improve by leaps and bounds the qualify of all nominees offered for the Senate's consideration, and not just for the judiciary.

I would be entirely content to see that endorsed as a Senate rule, and as a bi-partisan standard. I expect the American people would be amazed at the improvements in government doing that would create.

Senate candidates should right now begin campaigning on a proposal to thus revise the Senate confirmation process. I can't think of any way to better put corrupt incumbent Senators of either party on the hot seat, embarrass them before their constituents, and get them out of office.

How about you, wvattorney13? Do you support oath breaking in office, or oppose it?

[Brett Bellmore]

I think it's possible Jan 6th cleared the bar for an insurrection, I'd merely point out that it wasn't Trump's insurrection, it was the Proud Boys'. As demonstrated in court.

[thesafesurfer]

The Democrats ranted and raved about the "Jan 6th insurrection" during the 2022 election cycle and the GOP took control of the House of Representatives.
The Democrats followed up by ranting and raving about the "Jan 6th insurrection" during the 2024 election cycle and the GOP won the White House and control of the Senate.

Hopefully the "Jan 6th insurrection" will be a centerpiece of the Democrats 2026 campaign!

[Social Justice is neither]

If that crosses the bar then do does the assault on the white house, the assault on Congress over Kavanaugh, the seizure of territory with CHAZ if not all BLM riots as well as the ongoing resistance against ICE by Democrats and their political leadership. This is the problem with putting the bar on the floor.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"play the 20 questions game"

The advice and consent process is outlined in the Constitution and may involve asking questions.

There are certain questions inappropriate to answer. But other questions, twenty or whatever, are okay.

The question, natch, then turns on whether these specific questions are appropriate to answer. The "insurrection" part does seem like an open legal question, for instance.

I'm not sure, however, if everything they flag is similiar.

https://demandjustice.org/judicialreport/

[John F. Carr]

Attack ads against politicians who aren't running in the next year seems like a poor use of the group's funds. Not that I mind if far left groups waste their money.

[thesafesurfer]

Advertisements showing the innocent Americans maimed and slaughtered as a direct result of judicial actions by Democrat appointed judges should provide an excellent counterpoint during the campaign season.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Ideological groups, on both sides, are going to have a take-no-prisoners approach to judicial nominees.

I provided a link to their website discussing the matter in more detail in a separate comment.

The author of this entry twice flagged discussions by conservative legal analysts concerned that the Administration committed illegal killings. To be blunt, a form of murder or "war crime" (without war), etc. Something serious should be done in response.

Other contributors flagged other major red flags of this Administration. It is appropriate, in my opinion, not to support this Administration. At least until certain things are done.

The Democrats have a responsibility to hold firm in that respect. Judicial nominees are one way to do this, at least, until certain things (such as a full investigation of the incidents of alleged WAR CRIMES occur + suitable actions, such as removal of Pete Hegseth) occur.

Democrats alone cannot stop these nominations. If a few Republicans are willing to join them, the nominations can be held up. There are ways for the Senate to check and balance this Administration. That might sometimes have some pain, for instance, holding up some nominees that you might like.

I commented on the specific thing referenced in the article separately. I think generally the ads are helpful to discuss their concerns. Opponents of this Administration, for instance, might explain why some or all of their reasoning here is wrong. Or not.

[vaadu]

For starters, if they can't or won't define what a 'woman' is, they don't belong in the judiciary.