Who are Trump's Judicial Nominees?
77% are men
82% are white
A record number are rated “not qualified” by the American Bar Association (ABA)
Meet just a handful of them. Some have already been confirmed by the Senate, others have had their nominations withdrawn, and some are awaiting Senate confirmation — which means we can still put pressure on our senators to block them from the bench.
These judges and nominees could rule on legal cases that could fundamentally restrict our right to access safe, legal abortion and affordable health care for decades.
Argued against marriage equality and opposes legislation to prevent LGBTQ discrimination
Wants to make it easier to deny people access to reproductive health under the guise of “religious liberty”
Called for “defunding” Planned Parenthood
As a congressional candidate in 2012, he openly bragged about marching in an anti-abortion protest
Rated not qualified
Boasts about his support from anti-reproductive health groups
Packing the courts with extreme opponents of abortion, birth control, LGBTQ rights, and immigrant rights is a clear attempt to whittle away at our rights.
Trump promised, as a candidate, to appoint judges who would seek to overturn Roe v. Wade. His judicial nominees may erode or reverse advances in health care access, including abortion — with disproportionate harm to women of color, people with low incomes, women in rural areas, and immigrants.
Conservatives enjoyed two years of unchecked rule in Washington under President Trump, but knew that their grip on Congress and the White House might slip.
Ideologues hope to lock in their power through the courts — giving extremists decades in which to use the judiciary to undermine access to safe and legal abortion, access to health care, the right to vote, environmental and consumer protections, and more.
To place Trump nominees into lifetime positions on the federal courts, politicians in the Senate have cut corner after corner. Over decades, for instance, the nonpartisan ABA has counseled senators on the qualifications of judicial nominees — but conservatives in the Senate have ended that tradition. Trump nominees have proceeded to Senate confirmation hearings before the ABA could complete the review process — and senators have even voted to confirm nominees that the ABA evaluated as “not qualified.”
Nina Totenberg, a journalist who has covered the federal courts for decades, calls senators’ rush to confirm Trump nominees unprecedented:
Gone, for all practical purposes, is the tradition that prevented action on a judicial nominee who was not approved by his or her home state senators. Gone is the practice of not holding a confirmation hearing until the American Bar Association has completed its professional evaluation of the nominee. Gone is the general practice of not piling up multiple nominees in one hearing. And now, for the first time, the Senate Judiciary Committee is holding confirmation hearings during a Senate recess, over the objections of the minority party.
Trump's plan to pack the courts depends upon crucial votes by our senators. A handful of senators can make the difference between confirmation and rejection of Trump’s harmful nominees — impacting our rights and freedoms for years to come.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Me.) joined a party line vote to confirm Grasz. This was despite Grasz being an anti-abortion, anti-LGBTQ judge rated “not qualified” by the ABA.
Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) voted with their party to give Kyle Duncan a lifetime position on a circuit court of appeals. Duncan's opposed to abortion, birth control, marriage equality, and adoption rights for same-sex couples.
Senators Collins, Gardner, and Tillis voted to confirm Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. In doing so, they ignored grave concerns, including multiple allegations of sexual violence.