Trump Judicial Nominee Unsure Whether Constitution Applies to Trump
Issues
This week, President Trump’s standards for federal judicial nominees sank to a new low for our democracy, with one nominee suggesting that constitutional amendments are optional.
Throughout this term, we’ve seen Trump pick loyalist after loyalist for his judges, including his own personal lawyers and others who have demonstrated a willingness to greenlight his executive overreach and rubber-stamp his authoritarian agenda.
John Marck, nominated for the Southern District of Texas, took this loyalty pledge to a new low in his Senate Judiciary hearing when he claimed that there’s a world in which the Constitution could allow Trump to run for a third term.
When asked this very question by Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) — whether President Trump could run for a third term — John Marck stunningly responded with uncertainty and silence.
He initially didn’t know what the 22nd Amendment to the United States Constitution was. Marck shrugged his shoulders casually, implying he wasn’t sure because his career has been in criminal defense and he “hasn’t been able to use that one, specifically.”
Coons then generously opened up to the entire panel to chime in about the 22nd Amendment.
After another nominee on the panel finally established that the amendment prevents any individual from running for president more than twice, Coons asked again, “Is President Trump eligible to run again in 2028?”
Marck responded, “Senator, without considering all the facts and looking at everything depending on what the situation is, this…strikes me as more of a hypothetical.”
Coons: “Is he eligible to run a third term? Under our constitution?”
Marck: “I would have to review the wording of it…”
John Marck refused to answer Senator Coons's question of whether President Trump is eligible to run for president in 2028.This isn’t a trick question – it's in the Constitution. If you can’t say a president can’t serve a third term, you shouldn’t be a federal judge. 🚩 @coons.senate.gov
This questioning of basic principles of our democracy and our Constitution is both horrifying and completely on point as a greater metaphor for the many continued blows to our democracy under the Trump administration.
Trump’s countless illegal executive orders, attempts to dismantle agencies, misuse of government power, sanctions of violence against citizens and immigrants alike, and judicial nominees who are either too unqualified or too loyal (or both) to answer accurately about constitutional limits on presidential term limits are surely the beginning of the end of a free and fair democracy.
Time and again, our federal judiciary continues to be the last wave of protection upholding the rule of law and the Constitution. Now Trump and Senate Republicans are putting judges into power who care more about accommodating Trump than honoring the plain text of the Constitution.
One would think that there would be at least a few Senate Republicans who recognize that someone this unqualified (or feigning to be this unqualified out of loyalty to Trump) would be unsuited for a lifetime on the federal bench. Even they need a democracy to still exist in order to govern — to the extent they’re interested in doing so.
Christine Chen Zinner is the Federal Research and Advocacy Director at Alliance for Justice.