By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Sen. Chuck Grassley has been defending President Trump’s judicial nominees who refuse to state that Joe Biden won the 2020 election, arguing that Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also declined to discuss election results during her confirmation process. However, this comparison is misleading, as Jackson, a sitting judge, was bound by a judicial code of conduct to avoid political debate, a constraint not legally imposed on nominees who are not yet serving judges. Democrats criticize this tactic, arguing that Trump’s nominees are avoiding a basic truth to placate the former president and that their evasiveness will be a lasting mark on their careers.
Read the original article here
The Republican Party, in its effort to shield Donald Trump’s judicial nominees from acknowledging the reality of the 2020 election, has embarked on a convoluted and frankly, rather embarrassing, rhetorical journey. It’s a performance that involves dodging, deflecting, and now, a rather strained attempt to draw parallels with a Supreme Court Justice’s nomination process, all to avoid a seemingly simple question: who won the 2020 presidential election?
For months, a significant number of Trump’s picks for lifetime federal judgeships have sidestepped this fundamental query. Instead of offering a straightforward “Joe Biden” and moving on, they’ve presented a parade of bizarre and convoluted answers. These nominees, eager to secure powerful court positions, have gone to great lengths to avoid stating the undeniable fact that the former president, who appointed them, lost that election. This avoidance is particularly notable given the events that followed, including the January 6th Capitol insurrection, an attempt to overturn the election results by force.
This entire episode has proven to be an awkward spectacle, leaving these nominees with a documented record of hesitation to state a basic truth. It raises questions about their willingness to prioritize the Constitution over the whims of a particular president, especially one who famously displays a thin skin. The career ambition appears to have trumped the courage to simply state the facts.
Attempts to justify this collective silence have been, to put it mildly, unconvincing. For instance, criticisms have been leveled against Democrats for asking nominees about the 2020 election results, with the argument that these nominees were not involved in counting ballots. Yet, this very line of reasoning seems to undermine the broader GOP narrative.
The insistence that it’s perfectly normal for these nominees to refer to Joe Biden as the “certified” president, rather than the “winner,” is also rather peculiar. This distinction, while technically true in the certification process, feels like a semantic game to sidestep the more direct question of electoral victory. It’s a notable shift from earlier positions, as some have previously emphasized the Electoral College’s definitive role in determining a president.
A more recent and particularly strained defense has emerged: the invocation of Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s nomination process. This appears to be a coordinated effort, with nominees now citing Jackson’s own reticence to discuss the election during her confirmation hearings as a precedent for their own evasiveness. This tactic, however, doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.
The comparison to Justice Jackson is fundamentally flawed. Jackson was a sitting judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit when she was nominated to the Supreme Court. As such, she was bound by the strict Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges, which mandates upholding judicial independence and avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. This code requires judges to remain neutral and refrain from commenting on political matters or potential future rulings.
The current nominees, such as Benjamin Flowers and Matthew Schwartz, are not sitting judges. Schwartz, in fact, was Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, which in itself presents a conflict of interest. Flowers, a former Ohio solicitor general, was in private practice. While federal judges are legally obligated to adhere to the judicial code, nominees are not under the same strict mandate. The code serves as guidance for them, but it doesn’t carry the same legal weight as it does for sitting judges. Therefore, invoking Jackson’s situation as a shield for their own silence is disingenuous at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.
This persistent Republican effort to shield their nominees from acknowledging the 2020 election outcome speaks volumes. It suggests a deep-seated discomfort and a clear understanding that Democrats are probing a sensitive and problematic area for these candidates. The carefully rehearsed, word-for-word answers are not designed to sound credible in an objective sense, but rather to avoid offending Trump and his most ardent supporters.
The embarrassment is palpable, and the creation of a composite video of these nominee’s evasive responses will likely serve as a stark reminder of their reluctance to tell the truth. This isn’t merely about pleasing Donald Trump; it appears to be a calculated strategy, a plan to subvert the very notion of electoral integrity and rewrite history in real-time. It’s a concerning symptom of a political landscape where loyalty tests seem to have replaced a commitment to factual accuracy and constitutional principles. The inability of these nominees to answer a basic, factual question about a past election reveals more about the nature of these nominations than any carefully crafted legal argument ever could.