How Trump is Reshaping the Federal Judiciary

APPLE PODCASTS

GOOGLE PLAY

STITCHER

SPOTIFY

The Trump administration is reshaping our judicial landscape. During his time in office, Trump has sent 157 judicial nominees to the Senate. Of those, about a quarter of them have documented anti-choice records, which is bad news for reproductive and sexual health and rights. To help explain the sometimes daunting task of understanding the judiciary system under Trump, Kate Ryan from NARAL Pro-Choice America sits down with us!

The federal court system is made up of the district court, the circuit court, and the Supreme Court. These courts handle cases that are related to federal statute or the U.S. constitution. There are 94 district courts and over 670 district court judges, as well as 13 circuit courts of appeals and 180 circuit court judges.

The Supreme Court has changed drastically since Trump took office. Prior to the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy, often seen as a “swing-vote,” there were four liberal-leaning justices and four conservative-leaning justices. Now that Justice Brett Kavanaugh has taken the seat left by Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court is considered conservative. This is a direct threat to Roe v. Wade.

76 lower court judges have been confirmed so far, with 76 more pending in the Senate. There are still 60 vacancies that haven’t been filled.

In regards to the circuit court, 1 in 6 circuit court judges are Trump appointees. More than 50% of these circuit court judges are confirmed anti-choice. Most of these appointees are young, white men with hostile records toward reproductive rights, civil rights, science, and immigration rights.

On the bright side, five Trump judicial nominees have been defeated thus far, including known vote suppressors and those who have previously cited racist ideology.

Links from this episode

NARAL Pro-Choice America
NARAL Pro-Choice America on Facebook
NARAL Pro-Choice America on Twitter
NARAL Pro-Choice America’s list of anti-choice nominees

Transcript

Jennie: Welcome to rePROs Fight Back a podcast on all things repro. I'm your host Jennie Wetter. In each episode, I'll be taking you to the front lines of the escalating fight over our sexual and reproductive health and rights at home and abroad. Each episode, I will be speaking with leaders who are fighting to protect our reproductive health and rights to ensure that no one's reproductive health depends on where they live. It's time for repros to fight back.

Read More

Jennie: Welcome to rePROs Fight Back. This week marks a really exciting moment. We have been doing this podcast for one year already. I cannot believe we've already been doing this for a year. It has flown by so fast. Um, I've had so much fun doing it and talking to amazing people and getting to bring so many amazing issues to the listeners. Um, so I want to thank the people who have really helped me do this. One, thank you to everybody at Population Institute for supporting this podcast and making sure that it happens. Two, thank you to Megan McWilliams. She has been our amazing editor and has made us sound wonderful. And three, extra big thank you to Rachel Marchand. She has been responsible for managing our website and all of the social media for the podcast and makes sure that all of this great stuff gets out into the world. And also just a huge thank you to the listeners. I'm so grateful that you have been listening and I've been enjoying learning more about these issues and finding ways that you can fight back. So with that we'll move on to another year and hopefully a lot more great topics and a lot more ways that you can get involved and fight back on all the things that are happening with the Trump/Pence administration. So with that, today we're going to talk about something we haven't spent a lot of time on so far, and that is the federal judiciary. The Trump administration is reshaping our judicial landscape, um, and helping me explain that what the Trump administration has been doing to reshape the judiciary, I'm really excited to have with me today, Kate Ryan from NARAL Pro-Choice America. So thank you.

Jennie: Hi Kate. Thanks so much for being here today.

Kate: Hey Jennie. Thank you for having me.

Jennie: So we're going to talk about the way the Trump administration is reshaping the federal courts. So I figured before we get to like what exactly is happening that people might not have a lot of information about the basic federal court system in general. So maybe you want to start and do some quick background on that.

Kate: Sure. I'd be happy to. There is no reason for most people to have those details. So basically the way the federal judiciary works: a federal court structure has three levels. The district courts, which are basically the trial courts, that's where the majority of cases occur. The circuit courts, which are the courts of appeals. So that's the first level of appeal. Basically if a party disagrees with the ruling at the district court, they can appeal it to the circuit courts. And then the final level of appeal is Supreme Court, obviously, which people are familiar with. Um, and then the jurisdiction is limited to cases, uh, challenging or cases that are brought on the basis of the US Constitution or federal statutes. So, not every law or lawsuit, um, would come up the federal court system, but it shouldn't send the signal that just because it's the federal court, a state law couldn't end up at the Supreme Court. So for example, a state law that would, that is passed in violation of Roe would still fall under federal jurisdiction because it would be a violation of the Constitution.

Jennie: Gotcha.

Kate: Uh, and just for numbers, because before I started working in a court system, I certainly didn't have a sense of, yeah, nope. There are 94 district courts and over 670 district court judges and 13 circuit courts of appeals and they're almost 180 circuit court judges. And to be clear, not every judge on a, let's say the Fifth Circuit Court of appeals sits for every case they sort of rotate to handle caseload. But they're the numbers.

Jennie: Yeah, I definitely didn't have an idea of the district court level. Like I'm more familiar with like the appeals court level. But like once you get lower...

Kate: Most cases stay at those levels. A small percentage get up to the Supreme Court. And not that much larger percentage gets up to the circuit courts. Most cases are handled at the district court level, so don't get a whole lot of press usually.

Jennie: Yeah, exactly. For, uh, how Trump is reshaping the course, I figured we would start with the one that everybody is probably the most familiar with. So why don't we talk a little bit about how the Supreme Court has changed?

Kate: Yeah. So it's been a brutal year after the Supreme Court, fight around Brett Kavanaugh's nomination and subsequent confirmation. I'm not going to dive all the way into Kavenaugh cause that could be its own right episode. Uh, but I will talk a little bit about what was at stake with the Kavenaugh fight and what continues to be at stake. Essentially, the issue with the Supreme Court is that prior to the retirement of Justice Kennedy, it had been widely considered that there were four conservative justices for more liberal leaning ones. And then, uh, Justice Kennedy was seen as a quote unquote swing vote. He wasn't necessarily a swing vote, but he was slightly more moderate. So he sometimes went either way, um, with his retirement and with the confirmation of Brett Kavanagh to that seat, uh, there is now considered to be a conservative majority, so a five voting block, um, in favor of conservative ideology, which of course for reproductive freedom means there is now a direct threat to Roe. Um, and this just to be clear is and has always been the plan, uh, from the anti-choice movement. The story, uh, that I became familiar with working when I was doing work kind of in this space, uh, that resonates with me is that essentially after the Supreme Court recognize the constitutional right to abortion in Roe, you know, anti-choice groups and politicians were trying to overturn it. So there were repeated attempts to pass a federal law banning abortion that were unsuccessful. Uh, so essentially they ended up settling on sort of a two part strategy. And this sort of sounds like a conspiracy except there are citations because it wasn't meant to be a secret. Pat Buchanan, who was the comms director for then President Reagan publicly acknowledged sort of one part of the strategy which would be to seek out anti-choice Supreme Court nominees. He, I'm paraphrasing a little bit of this quote, but basically what he said is our conservative appointment strategy could do more to advance the social agenda, school prayer, anti pornography, anti busing, right to life and quotas in employment than anything Congress accomplished in 20 years. So basically they knew we need a five vote conservative majority on a court to get done what we want to get done and of course appointment or you know, nominating him and getting confirmed lower court judges, so the district and circuit courts, were creating essentially a farm team for this, you know, perfect Supreme Court that they were envisioning. And then the second part of the strategy was considered to be chipping away at abortion rates wherever possible state level. Um, and it's actually pretty well described in an internal DOJ memo in Reagan's DOJ. And essentially it says, no one seriously believes that the court's about to overturn Roe v Wade. So the key question is how to advance the goals of bringing about the eventual overruling of Roe v Wade, and in the meantime of mitigating its effects. So essentially trying to chip away at the rights in the meantime and eventually get a case before, uh, the Supreme Court. One of the young lawyers who wrote this memo secret and awesome surprise, uh, it's now justice Samuel Alito. So he's living his young lawyer, lead young anti-choice, literally goal. I mean, this is this, the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh was the achievement of this one part of this goal. And obviously we'd been seeing the incremental chipping away of abortion rights, the second part of that strategy for decades. Uh, so in terms of what Trump has done to the Supreme Court, you know, we're now waiting for cases that could be used to gut or overturn Roe.

Jennie: And there's quite a few of them in the pipeline.

Kate: Yeah. So I'm gonna, I think I'll leave it the supreme court there, uh, for now. But that's, I think it's important history for folks that I certainly didn't know about until I started working in this space.

Jennie: Yeah. I wasn't as familiar. I mean, I knew that was clearly what was happening, but like less about like the actual documents that like this is what we're going to do. Yeah. It was real clear. I mean, we all knew that when Kennedy retired, like everything changed. I was out of the country and so I, yeah, I was at Girls, Not Brides andI woke up and was like what just happened and like. Like the bottom dropped out. Yeah.

Kate: There had been, you know, there had been a lot of rumors as there always are at the end of the Supreme Court term that somebody might retire and there were rumors. Kennedy, Kennedy might retire. And one of my coworkers who I work on nominations issues with, I was in a coworker's office and she kind of ran by, I was like, oh, there you are. Kennedy retired. And My response was actually, oh, you're hilarious. I really thought she was kidding. She was not kidding, but it was hard for me to even comprehend that what she was telling me was, was real.

Jennie: It just changed everything. Yeah. Okay. So let's leave that nightmare behind.

Kate: Happily

Jennie: And move on to, uh, the circuit courts, right?

Kate: Yeah. Yeah. So the courts of appeals. So actually before I jump into that, I'll just say, so Trump has sent 157 judicial nominees to the Senate. Of those about a quarter have documented anti-choice records. It doesn't mean that there aren't more that are anti-choice, right? But these are nominees who have already clearly stated that they're opposed to reproductive freedom.

Jennie: Well, I think it's also worth pointing out why has Trump sent so many? Um already.

Kate: Oh, yeah. Well, so that's fair. So, uh, towards the end of the Obama Administration, um, and Mitch McConnell was the leader of the Senate. Well, you know, when he became the leader of the Senate, he essentially, they stopped confirming nominees. So when Trump took office, there were over a hundred federal judicial vacancies sitting there waiting for Trump to fill them. So that's part of it. Um, and then as he's moved through the past two years, of course judges continued to retire. So 76 lower court judges have been confirmed so far, and 76 more nominees are pending in the Senate, and there are actually still 60 vacancies that haven't even been filled in terms of nominees. So what can happen in the next two years is a lot of people. And in terms of kind of breaking it down a little bit on the circuit court, uh, aside, 29 judges have been confirmed, which means that one in six circuit court judges are currently Trump appointees. So in terms of him remaking the courts in his image, he's, he's getting there, uh, and obviously that ratio will rise and of these 29, 15 are solidly anti-choice, so more than 50% of his circuit court judges are definitely anti choice. And there have already been instances of judges that didn't have, nominees, I should say, that didn't have documented anti-choice records when they were going through the confirmation process, but since being confirmed have made it clear, made anti-choice kind of rulings in there, uh, the scope of their work since. More really if we kind of do kind of a a look back at sort of where folks are, we actually haven't done that, but it'd be an interesting thing to look at of who didn't have demonstrated positions, but now we know that they in fact were, um. It's not surprising given times tests, courts and wanting judges that would overturn roe. Um, but then at the district court level, they're about 47 judges. Well there are 47 judges that have been confirmed, uh, part of the reason why that number is sort of small as it compares to the circuit courts, is that Mitch McConnell, they're more important, essentially, uh, many consider them to give more important. So they've been prioritizing the circuit court nominee is and then seemingly uncontroversial district court nominees, so there are a whole bunch of district court nominees that are more controversial, sort of waiting, uh, that McConnell certainly intends to ram through. No question.

Jennie: Yeah, I think it was just good to like pause on the like why there were so many, because so many people were familiar with the whole thing, the Supreme Courts seat open, but didn't know that there were so many lower court seats that were also held open um, for the new administration.

Kate: No, that's a really good point because it is sort of, we were familiar with that one but there were actually over a hundred others.

Jennie: Yeah.

Kate: And I think it's probably really important to know before kind of jumping into some examples of, of Trump's nominees that his nominees have been overwhelmingly white and male. Uh, and they've been both younger and meaner, frankly, uh, than any nominees we've seen in recent history based on the types of things they've said. And I want to be really clear when I note to the demographics that we don't want to see a nod to diversity on the bench. It's not to say that there haven't, you know, there have been anti-choice women confirmed and Clarence Thomas exists. Um, but we want to actually see nominees who reflect our diverse country and who value equality under the law and will uphold our fundamental Constitutional rights and part of what we want it we need and want to see our judges that are not overwhelmingly young white men, which is what we're dealing with right now. And he has, Trump has repeatedly nominated individuals that have demonstrated records of hostility towards repro rights, towards LGBTQ rights, towards civil rights, immigration rights. It's not, these, you know, if they're bad on repro, they're often bad on multiple other things. Um, you know...

Jennie: Cause they're all often they're connected, right.

Kate: Exactly. Enviro, labor rates, consumer protections, I mean, you name it, like having all them, most of them are bad on many if not all of those things and have demonstrated records on at least several. Um, and so we're sort of seeing these nominees who are so ideologically driven, um, which is one area of concern, certainly. And then another area that has gotten quite a lot of press is that this is not something you typically see from a president, but he has nominated, maybe not surprising from this president, multiple individuals who have been rated by the nonpartisan kind of independent American Bar Association as not qualified. Just because a nominee gets well-qualified, doesn't mean we would support them, right? Certainly. But essentially what they're saying is...

Jennie: Bare minimum.

Kate: It's saying you are in fact a lawyer who shows up and does your job. Uh, but there are folks who have received not qualified because of ethics violations and over billing practices or work ethic is one of my personal favorites. It was a judge they deemed was not qualified because apparently he didn't really show up for work all the time in his current job. And yet...

Jennie: Seems like you would want someone who was, you know, gonna work.

Kate: You'd think you could find the conservative lawyer who at least showed up for work. I don't know. But apparently not. So this is, you know, these are the kind of the two pieces of what we're seeing. And so, you know, for example, there are two circuit courts, there are many circuit court nominees pending, but two, I'll lift up because they are being, they were nominated over the objection of one of the home state senators. Um, Sherrod Brown, Senator Brown, you know, his Ohio is in the sixth part of the sixth circuit. And so typically a senators would consult with the White House in selecting nominees. Um, but obviously that was not done. And so Senator Brown is really, uh, strongly opposing these two nominees. One of them, Chad Readler, nominee to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is currently at Trump's DOJ and his name is on every, basically every bad policy that Trump has moved forward. This is a guy whose name he defended the Trump administration's efforts to stop Jane Doe, the undocumented young woman from accessing abortion care. He defended, um, Trump's rules that he put forward gutting the contraceptive coverage policy. He, I believe is on brief... Let me double check my notes so you'll maybe hear my paper. I apologize... on briefs around. Yep. Defended the Trump administration's policy of separating families at the border. I mean this, this guy is obviously opposing the ACA under the Trump administration. He is all of the worst Oh yeah. I mean it's basically everything you can kind of think of. And that's really, you know, me just naming mostly repro things. But he wrote an op-ed and titled Make Death Penalty for youth available widely.

Jennie: What?

Kate: Yep. He argued quote, the execution of those commit capital offenses at 16 or 17 does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. So the, obviously I'm not an expert on the death penalty, but it's just worth noting that these...Trump is finding some of the most extreme people one could possibly find. And then the other, this like circuit nominee Eric Murphy, uh, is the solicitor general for Ohio. And so he has defended Ohio's efforts to defund Planned Parenthood. He has defended TRAP regulations which were struck down by the Supreme Court is unconstitutional in Whole Woman's Health v Hellerstedt. He has, uh, supported...He submitted a brief in support of Arizona's 20 week abortion ban. You know, these, these folks are, have an ideological agenda. And that's really where, uh, presumably why Trump won, one could make a guess that the federalist society and the Heritage Foundation are weighing in on the lower court noms, not just Kavanaugh. And you know, that's certainly part of an ideological agenda, but also your standard anti-choice groups, right. They, they know that if they can take over the courts, they can potentially achieve their ultimate goal, which is overturning Roe.

Jennie: I mean, and we've already seen with HHS and stuff that they have a lot of influence in this administration.

Kate: Right, exactly, exactly. And so there's, I would not be surprised to learn that they are significantly weighing in, on the context of lower court nominations as well. Um, you know, and then these are circuit courts, but are district court nominees who have extreme, extreme extreme records as well. Uh, Steven Clark is nominated for the, uh, Eastern District of Missouri. This is a guy who has, he's a, he run, he's a partner. He's a private lawyer. Um, but he, you know, it's hard for me to kind of wrap my mind around it. And I'm trying to think of the best way to kind of get into his record because he is really extreme. Uh, so he basically submitted a brief on behalf of several anti-choice orgs that were, are opposing the contraceptive coverage policy of the ACA, making all of these co incredible claims of things, science based things that are obviously not true. Um, so you know, it asserts the contraception causes a higher risk of heart attack and stroke and all the, you know, he just lots of anti-science stuff. So in it there's all these inaccurate, irresponsible claims. And he, Clark, did apparently consult with sort of what he deemed to be science advisors and putting the brief together. But actually, um, you know, the doctors that he worked with are kind of known antiabortion activists and in fact he's actually been shown like reprimanded by judges for using skewed statistics in his briefs and talked about, the judge actually talked about this nominee is kind of science advisor is somebody who has a disturbing apathy, apathy toward the accuracy of his testimony. And so this is who Clark...

Jennie: That's pretty harsh for a judge to say.

Kate: Like really like way down basically saying if you're telling me this is your science advisor, then we've got a problem buddy. Um, and this is just kind of one example. There is a, you know, somewhat...it's this case sounds, you know, kind of absurd, I don't know if absurd is the right word, but he also represented a woman who was trying to gain rights to several of her frozen embryos that were created with her ex husband through in vitro. The woman wanted to use them to get pregnant, but her ex husband objected. Essentially I think arguing that we're divorced cause I don't want any more children with you. Whatever your feelings about that, that the facts of that case. Clark, this, the nominees, Steven Clark and his client, he argued essentially that he really, he made the key actually says that, uh, the, the, the couple had living and have had children and he suggests that the children would have to like navigate the murky psychological waters of knowing basically that their siblings had died at the hand of their father. Siblings, he's referring to the frozen embryos. I mean, in terms of the extremeness of his positions. I mean, this guy is, and he isn't going to potentially, probably, if McConnell has his way become a federal judge, you know, and this is, this is sort of what we're seeing, you know, I'll kind of dump and drive into one more and then feel free to stop me cause some of it's just really depressing. Uh, but there's a also a district court for the eastern, uh, I'm sorry for the district Nebraska and nominee Brian Bouescher, who he's a Nebraska Attorney General. He ran for the office of Nebraska Attorney General in 2014 and this is, so, there are actually all of these videos because it was part of his campaign and he talks about supporting abortion bans, about, um, wanting to essentially ban abortion right now iff we could. Um, you know, in his filled out questionnaires for Nebraska right to life, essentially saying that he doesn't even support, um, access to abortion in cases of rape and incest. Like, you know, we're talking about the extreme of the extreme. Um, and that's kind of your almost standard, uh, Trump nominee. And part of it, it's important to note that as extremely anti-choice as they are the, the real theme of anti-science that runs through all of these folks. And most of these nominees are also bad on other issues as I mentioned. And so it's really not just, I mean, as if this wouldn't be enough, it isn't enough, but it, it, it is clear that it kind of cuts across the board. And there are other nominees, you know, who this nominee for a district in Utah who was on a brief opposing the Whole Women's Health case. He supported Proposition 8 in California and the NRA refers to him as their go to guy, you know, across the board problematic. So this is when we say that Trump's remaking the courts, um, it's real and he..I'll just apologize, I don't remember the details, but I read an article not that long ago talking about, you know, obviously it's not necessarily even how judges retire. And so in terms of Trump, maybe having more nominees to the fifth circuit, then the second circuit or what have you. So he may get to a point. So while the ratio is sort of that one in six federal judges appointed by Trump, uh, he may get to a point where you have, are flipping circuit circuits that were seen as progressive or had primarily, uh, appointees from Democratic presidents a flipping essentially. So it's not, the circuits aren't as clear cut as Supreme Court in that sense. But you know, the more and more Trump judges on a circuit court, the more we're going to have pretty serious problems for reproductive rights because of the way that these state restrictions move through the federal court system.

Jennie: Well, there's a couple of things you said that like really struck me is one is just this whole tone of anti-science. So my background is actually in environmental science. I know.

Kate: I didn't not know that.

Jennie: Yeah. Long and winding road to get to Repro. But um, yes, so science is like always near and dear to my heart. And so it's really just watching just the complete erosion of science in general throughout this administration and seeing it happening in the courts as well with the appointments. It's frustrating.

Kate: Yeah. Um, and that's sort of why I read their words because I do want to make it clear that, you know, one might think that I'm kind of paraphrasing or it sounds worse than it is, but using their own words, it's a little bit harder to make that argument.

Jennie: And like, so a lot of attention I think has been paid to the fact that there's a lot of white men that have been appointed, but also equally important is young white men.

Kate: Yeah these are all lifetime appointments.

Jennie: They'll be on the court for a long time.

Kate: Yeah. Uh, you're not wrong. There are nominees in their thirties. I mean, I actually, I don't remember who, uh, but there actually have been, uh, the American Bar Association, that organization I referred to earlier have raised qualification questions around some, the nominees who were just so young that they basically have no legal experience yet. So, and lifetime appointments, right. It's not just the Supreme Court. They are all lifetime appointments. Uh, and it's kind of, as I mentioned, it's the farm team, right? Your district court judges, the ones that tend to be the pool for the circuit court judges, which tend to be the pool for a next Supreme Court nomination. And we almost certainly have the, at least two more years of Trump. And who is to say what will happen in terms of whether or not he might get another Supreme Court vacancy to fill? Just terrifying.

Jennie: Yeah. I can't think about the court we are ready have. So the thought of there being more, like, I just, my brain stops at that point. It's like, nope.

Kate: Yeah, that's, yeah, you're not alone.

Jennie: So now we have kind of the landscape of what it looks like right now. So what does this mean going forward?

Kate: So overall I would say that it's, it's really not overstating it to say that basically all of the thing, all the progressive values that we all care about are at stake. Right? The Supreme Court before Brett Kavanaugh gutted the Voting Rights Act, the Supreme Court before Brett Kavanaugh ruled against organized Labor in Janice overturning decades long precedent. So anybody who says that they won't overturnturn Roe because its a decades long precedent, see Janice. They absolutely will. That's not a question. Uh, in my mind and, and that's going to be true, I'm afraid across the board, right? We're looking, you know, at any look at any one of Trump's terrible policies, the Muslim ban, any of the terrible things that they're doing in the environmental space, workers space, consumer protections, anything that gets up to the Supreme Court or even appellate courts that, that he's flipping and packing with more conservative judges. I don't remember the exact number, but the vast majority, and I'm not talking 50%, it's like, se..eighty? I, I should double check this are decided below the Supreme Court level. Most cases are decided at the lower courts, so as he's remaking these, these, these courts with hundreds of new young, conservative ideologues, we're going to start to, people are going to start feeling that in their daily life. Most people don't feel like they have Supreme Court kind of hits them where they live, it feels removed. But as the court is upholding terrible laws or striking down good laws, uh, people are going to start to feel it, unfortunately. And I just hope it's not too late to do anything about it. You know, and in the space of, of repro, that's sort of what I mean in terms of, and if you mentioned earlier, there are already cases in the pipeline that could challenge Roe and of course, yes, they get out right, overturn it. Um, but they could alsoessentially...

Jennie: Death from a thousand cuts.

Kate: Right and or essentially decide using Casey's undue burden standard that basically no burden counts as an undue burden. Um, basically opening up and welcoming states to pass any and all restrictions they can possibly think of. This election the midterms, we really did make some good progress at, uh, electing more progressive's to the state legislatures. Um, you know, but for a long time they've been, you know, we've had sort of these three Republican trifectas of governor, you know, assembly or House, Senate in states that are passing bad law, bad law after bad law, attacking repro, but also attacking LGBTQ rights, et Cetera. Um, you know, voting rights obviously. Um, and so as these bad laws come up before these super conservative judges, I'm, I'm genuinely afraid, um, of what might happen.

Jennie: And I think it's also important, I know both of our organizations actually do report cards on reproductive health and rights. So you can already see there are, it's not, it's already not easy to access abortion care or access to exercise your reproductive rights all across the US. There are places where it's already virtually, um, it might as well be banned, right?

Kate: Roe is not a reality for women, for many, many, many women all across the country.

Jennie: So this only seeks to just exacerbate that so much and make it so much harder. And you know, and again, that burden isn't felt equally right? Like I am privileged, I live in DC, I have money. So even if it were outlawed in DC, I could travel. Um, there's so many people where that's not their reality, to be able to travel to a clinic in the next state and then have a waiting period or something. So I have to go twice. Um, so there are real concerns about it could remain legal but just completely inaccessible.

Kate: Yeah, absolutely. I'm terrified that that's where we're, we're heading because we will no longer have the courts as a, as a board to protect reproductive freedom. Now that's not to say that everything is terrible. I know. That was really depressing. Jennie: Yeah, sorry guys.

Kate: Um, you know, but it is worth noting the wins and there have been a few, but it's still worth noting. You know, the five Trump nominees have been, I should say, judicial nominee, his executive nominees are, he goes through them real quick, but five judicial nominees have been defeated. Most recently. Uh, Thomas Farr, who is nominated, um, to a district court seat in North Carolina. And he was like, I mean, he's a known vote suppressor. He worked for Jesse Helmes when he was sending out post postcards to African American voters telling them they were ineligible to vote. He ironically and bizarrely did not have a demonstrated record on reproductive rights, but NARAL still opposed his nomination because we do have kind of allied positions around, um, around civil and voting rights, uh, among others. And in fact, I will say Senator Cory Booker really led the charge there. Um, his family is from North Carolina. Originally, I think his father. And you know, he really did a lot of work to ensure that, you know, Democrats being in the minority, that the entire Democratic Democratic caucus opposed a far, but also managed to convince some Republicans, including, uh, it really came down to, uh, Tim Scott and he, so he defeated just recently, which was amazing. And also Ryan Bounds was a defeated also with Tim Scott's opposition who was, no, he wrote a whole bunch of racist things when he was in college that weren't known, I think when he was originally nominated and it came out after the fact. Um, and then there are a couple who have been withdrawn because they weren't going to get the vote. McConnell wouldn't have the votes, you know, one, uh, this guy Matthew Peterson, who he kind of went viral, he's the one that a Republican senator, Senator Kennedy on Judiciary Committee started asking him just basic legal questions around like what different types of motions are and throwing softballs you'd think he wasn't though, because I, it was known that, that he was not a very well qualified in terms of legal experience. He had never, I think tried to case, uh, Kennedy I think was basically, I think, yeah, I mean, I can't speak for Republican Senator Kennedy, but, but it certainly seemed like, based on what he was saying publicly, that, uh, you know, basically you've gotta be kidding me Trump administration, you can't find a conservative lawyer that knows anything about the law. And so he just getting annoyed, um, and asked him a series of questions that he couldn't answer in the hearing. And the video basically went viral, uh, because it, I mean it was this man was humiliated, but at the same time, one think if you don't, you've never tried a case, perhaps you aren't qualified to serve as a federal judge. He, clearly didn't suffer from that feeling of... he was full of confidence I guess. Um, so that, and then at one of my personal favorite, and I'll just tell this because it's so ridiculous, I can't not...

Jennie: I have to admit you always have kind of the best stories about... Kate really does track all of these people were being appointed. So she definitely comes to meetings with like, okay, you will not believe what we just found.

Kate: You're right because crazy. So in the context of this one guy, he was actually working in the Trump administration. Uh, he was nominated for a district, uh, judgeship. His name is Brett Talley. So he's, and he was actually in charge. He worked on White House council about it. So he was actually one of the people who supposed to be helping nominees, sort of get their paperwork together with all the questions. And so he basically lied on his questionnaire. He, one of the things they ask is sort of a conflict of interest and do you have it in, you know, family working in the White House, things like that. And he, I guess forgot to mention that his wife was Don McGann's chief of staff.

Jennie: That's right. I forgot.

Kate: So that's adorable. But also just as a fun fact and I guess I don't, I don't know if people feel like they should disqualify you from being a federal judge, but he was a ghost hunter.

Jennie: That's right!

Kate: He is a member of the Tuscaloosa paranormal society. And personally I am, I just, I really loved it. I was a Buffy fan maybe is why I like it so much, but I definitely wish, I almost wish, not really, but see like part of me imagines that a hearing just could have been really, really something else. Like, yeah thoughts on the new Ghostbusters movie. I assume you were against it because women, um, you know, but I just feel like, you know, how many seasons of Supernatural have you watched? Be honest. Um, I just feel it, you know, it's important, I guess to take those small funny things in this otherwise a terrible situation. But he ended up being withdrawn because I think that eventually the White House found that to be embarrassing. I don't know if the ghost hunter thing was embarrassing or the Don McGahn thing.

Jennie: I'm sure, but the embarrassment like ehhh.

Kate: I mean I think it's probably just that senators felt embarrassed and thus eventually they had to withdraw his nomination. Man, that guy. But so that sort of, I do think these sort of wins are really important, you know.

Jennie: Yes, because it is so easy to get discouraged with the day to day losing so many that you forget that we can pull together and tank some of these.

Kate: Sometimes a little bit.

Jennie: Not always.

Kate: But it is, you know, I will say one of the things learned out of the Kavenaugh fight. It's sort of common common knowledge that maybe in DC that supposedly sort of Republicans or anti choicers or the religious right or whatever, care more about judges and the Supreme Courts than progressives. And so it has this sense that Republican senators feel that they really need to support all of these extremists because their base really cares. And there's this sense among, I think Democrats that they think their base doesn't really care. Um, and so it doesn't put the same pressure on Democrats to oppose, knowing in the Kavanaugh fight the way, the kind of extent to which the progressive base got engaged in that fight. Um, and midterms, I believe one of the things that came out of it was really interesting was voter saying they were taking Scotus into consideration as one of the factors in voting, which is not typical.

Jennie: Because that is very much conventional wisdom is that Republicans, Republicans care. Right. And that's why they voted for Trump is that they saw the Supreme Court. And so that's really become the ingrained story you hear over and over.

Kate: And the truth is they are, they are well aware, right? They had this, this plan was from like the 80s. They, they do care about the courts. And the truth is also that there, the conservatives have spent a lot of time and money and ensuring that their base cares and, and progressives are coming to that late. Trying to ensure that their base understands that the courts are a proxy for all of these other things we care about or votes on. These judges are proxy rather for the courts, which is where all of these things kind of come to come to a head. And so hoping that progressives really keep that up. You know, there's something, I think our field, one of our field staff is saying, you know, there's this sense that Republicans get calls from their base saying vote yes on Steven Clark, vote yes on Stephen Clark, vote yes on Steven Clark, um, over and over and over again because we might have find that our base, the progressive base, you know, we'll call and say, they'll call there senator and say vote no on a terrible person, but Republicans, you know, the sense is that the Republican base doesn't call once they call the same person calling like every day on the same nominees or because they understand that flooding the phones on a daily basis and taking two minutes out of their day to call and do that, um, really does put pressure on their senators. Um, and so it, it was an interesting thing in Kavenaugh flight really needing to, to understand and kind of think through, Oh, right. Our basis feeling, well, I just called yesterday and it's sort of like, yes, I know, and thank you, but do it again today and again tomorrow and again the next day. And that is, uh, that is a sort of a different, uh, way of engaging folks asking them to do the same thing over and over and over again every day. It's important.

Jennie: Its dispiriting living in Washington, DC as a DC resident who was among the disenfranchised, that was one of the times I just really felt the disenfranchisement. Yeah. Like I could go out and protest and you know, be in the building and in front of the Supreme Court, but like so powerless.

Kate: Yeah. And really, I mean you don't yeah.

Jennie: But yeah, side note. Um, okay, so, um, the downside, but the bright side that we have blocked some people, what can people do to fight back?

Kate: I mean, honestly it is sort of what I said. It's really needing to get engaged and call your senators and tell them to oppose these people. Um, it's really essential. I, the other side is, is supporting them. Um, and we really need to demonstrate to our champions that we care as much or more than they care about preserving the courts as, you know, an independent judiciary that will uphold our constitutional rights as opposed to completely undermine or get rid of them.

Jennie: Well, Kate, thank you so much for doing this. This was fun.

Kate: My pleasure. It was really fun for me too, that this is the first time I've ever, ever done podcast, so this is wonderful. Thank you.

Jennie: Well you did amazing. Thank you. For more information, including show notes from this episode and previous episodes, please visit our website reprosfightback.com. You can also find us on Facebook and Twitter at rePROs Fight Back. If you like our show, please help others find it by sharing it with your friends and subscribing, rating and reviewing us on iTunes. Thanks for listening.

Take Action