Dem
47
GOP
53
There have been a number of judicial nominees put forward by Donald Trump (and a few by the Georges Bush) who were in the running for "most godawful judicial nominee in the last century." This is not just our subjective judgment; these nominees' godawfulness is affirmed by their fellow legal professionals, who have undertaken a number of campaigns, backed by letters signed by some high number of distinguished people, to encourage the Senate to give the thumbs down. While Democratic presidents are plenty good at coming up with partisan nominees, those presidents do make sure that their nominees are still well-qualified and are not ethically compromised.
The latest competitor for the title of "most godawful judicial nominee in the last century," who has a real argument as rightful claimant to the crown, is Emil Bove, who was tapped by Trump for a seat on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. By all indications, Bove is qualified, with a J.D. from Georgetown and 20 years in the legal profession (though no service as a judge). However, he is as ethically compromised as any judicial nominee since, perhaps, Abe Fortas. It is bad enough that Bove has worked, for many years, for Donald Trump, since Bove could end up hearing cases in which the President is either a plaintiff or a defendant. It is far worse that, before and during his service in the Trump v2.0 White House, Bove has engaged in all sorts of behavior that, at best, should get him disbarred and, at worst, should land him in prison.
Since Trump sent Bove's nomination to the Senate, there has been no shortage of people trying to warn the senators that he's a very bad candidate. For example, 80 former federal and state judges signed a letter warning about "Mr. Bove's egregious record of mistreating law enforcement officers, abusing power, and disregarding the law." This was seconded (81sted?) in a letter signed by 900 former Justice Department attorneys. There are also at least three whistleblowers who came forward with specific information about misconduct by the nominee.
In a development that should be a surprise to absolutely nobody, the Senate confirmed Bove yesterday. The vote was 50-49, with Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) crossing the aisle to vote with the Democrats. Once again, by amazing coincidence, Collins managed to rebel against her party without her vote actually mattering. Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-TN) is the one member who did not cast a vote; if he had, it presumably would have been to confirm. So, President of the Senate J.D. Vance was never in danger of having to cancel his golf plans.
And so, a godawful judge will receive his commission and will take his seat. We know we will get this question, so we'll just answer it now: There is no precedent for impeaching and removing a judge, except for crimes committed while on the bench. It's not impossible, mind you, just that there's no history of it. It is also improbable that, even if the Democrats regain the Senate, 15 or so Republicans would cross the aisle to support such an effort. The good news is that appeals court decisions are handled by a panel of three judges, except when they are heard by the entire circuit en banc. So, there's actually somewhat less room for one rogue judge to make mischief, in contrast to district court judges like Trevor McFadden, Reed O'Connor and Matthew Kacsmaryk. Silver linings!
The downside is that Bove might be Trump's nominee to replace Justice Samuel Alito if he retires next June, which seems very likely. Otherwise he would be taking a risk that the Democrats could capture the Senate in Nov. 2026 and no more Trump judicial nominees would be confirmed. (Z)