Nomination Notes: Michigan senators dramatically lower the bar for lifetime judicial nominees
This excerpt is from a piece that originally ran on June 11, 2026.
Rachel Rossi, president of Alliance for Justice, warned that “Senators must remain vigilant to block loyalist judicial nominees who seek to quietly sneak through the confirmation process. Martin only revised the script used by nominees before him, providing updated but similar canned answers on democracy.” Alliance for Justice also sent a letter to senators highlighting several troubling parts of Martin’s record, which they said raise “dire concerns about Martin’s ability to serve as an independent judge for a lifetime appointment, free from harmful biases, and committed to fairness and equal justice for all, and not just Trump.”
But I want to return to what Senator Peters said: “Mr. Martin reiterated in our meetings, as well as at today’s hearing, that Joe Biden won the 2020 election, reassuring me that he will exercise independent judgment.” Setting aside what Martin actually stated at yesterday’s hearing, this is a deeply disturbing standard to set for individuals who have been nominated to lifetime federal judgeships. Senator Peters’ belief that affirming a simple truth is enough to demonstrate independence (from Trump) establishes a very low bar for who he would likely support. And given that other nominees at yesterday’s hearing answered the same way as Martin, does that mean he’ll support them, too?
“The nominee admitted Joe Biden won in 2020, so I’m absolutely convinced they’ll be a fair and independent judge” cannot be the new standard for defining acceptable judicial nominees — especially when that’s not what the nominee said.