The latest round of Senate Judiciary hearings has left many observers concerned, as several of Donald Trump’s recent judicial nominees struggled to answer fundamental questions about the United States Constitution.
The most jarring moment occurred when Democratic Senator Chris Coons asked nominees if the Constitution allowed Trump to run for a third term. None of the candidates provided an answer.
During the exchange, uploaded to YouTube and X by Senator Coons, he questioned Texas nominee John Marck regarding the 22nd Amendment. When asked what the amendment provides, Marck initially claimed his career in criminal prosecution meant he had not had the opportunity to use that specific amendment.
After Coons clarified that the amendment mandates that “no person shall be elected to the office of president more than twice,” he asked if Trump was eligible to run again in 2028. Marck responded by saying, “Senator, with it, without considering all the facts and looking at everything, depending on what the situation is, this to me strikes as more of a hypothetical of something that could be.”
After this insane attempt to sidestep, there was just silence
When Coons pressed further, noting that it wasn’t a hypothetical, Marck acknowledged that Trump had been certified as president twice. However, when asked directly if Trump was eligible for a third term, Marck stated, “I would have to review the—” before being cut off.
Coons concluded the exchange by pointing out that the language of the amendment makes it clear that a third term is not permitted. Then he had a question for the nominees: “Anybody else brave enough to say that the Constitution of the United States prevents President Trump from seeking a third term?” There was no response.
Sen. @ChrisCoonsforDE: Is Trump eligible to run for a 3rd term under our Constitution?
— Headquarters (@HQNewsNow) May 4, 2026
Trump Judge nominee: Um… I would have to… to review the- the actual wording–
Coons: The language of the 22nd Amendment makes it clear that no, he is not eligible to run for a 3rd term.… pic.twitter.com/4FvfWsuqxj
This lack of impartiality was clear with the current slate of nominees. According to Houston Public Media, both John Marck and nominee Arthur Jones declined under oath to state whether Joe Biden won the 2020 election or if the U.S. Capitol was attacked on January 6, 2021. Both men only claimed that Biden had been certified as the winner.
Regarding the Capitol attack, they argued that the event was a matter of political controversy. If they responded, they would violate Canon 5 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.
GOP Senator Panics Republicans by saying what everyone is thinking. Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley got himself into hot water with his GOP colleagues after he was caught on a hot mic questioning his staff why President Donald Trump's judicial nominees don't just… pic.twitter.com/TtIlwbduIi
— Kimiyah(@boujiebaddie) May 1, 2026
Carl Tobias, the Williams Chair in Law at the University of Richmond School of Law, described the proceedings as one of the most deflating situations he has seen in a while. Tobias noted that the process is deteriorating and that partisanship, polarization, and politicization are rampant. He also suggested that the candidates might be withdrawn by Trump if they were to say something else.
Senator Richard Blumenthal was particularly sharp in his rebuke, stating he was amazed and appalled that nominees for lifetime appointments were unwilling to respond to issues of fact. Blumenthal argued that the nominees seemed rehearsed to provide stock answers, which he felt reflected poorly on their honesty and fitness for the federal bench.
The concerns regarding these nominees extend beyond their refusal to answer political questions. Reuters reported that Katie Lane, a lawyer at the Republican National Committee, became the first nominee in Trump’s second term to be labeled not qualified by the American Bar Association. The ABA concluded that while Lane was a talented lawyer, she had less than nine years of experience as a practicing lawyer, falling short of the typical 12-year benchmark.
I obtained a copy of the letter the ABA sent Senate Judiciary Cmt leadership explaining why they rated Katie Lane, nominee for the District of Montana, as "not qualified"
— Courtney Bublé (@courtneybuble) April 30, 2026
She advanced to the full Senate today along party lines.
Full story below. pic.twitter.com/AEWXAVkibp
Despite this, Senator Chuck Grassley defended the choice, accusing the ABA of bias and suggesting that Lane should wear the rating as a badge of honor. In fact, the ABA has a long history with Trump, filled with lawsuits and accusations of murder. Senator Dick Durbin also opposed the nomination, questioning how the White House could not find an attorney in Montana with actual courtroom experience for a lifetime appointment.
Sen. DURBIN: You joined a group calling for ATF to be ‘abolished’ and all gun laws ‘unconstitutional.’
— Senate Judiciary Democrats
Trump nominee: *persistent stumbling*
Durbin: Do you think all gun laws are unconstitutional?
Nominee: That’s a political question.
Durbin: You’re ducking. pic.twitter.com/xY9FYSeBlo(@JudiciaryDems) April 30, 2026
Furthermore, Jeffrey Kuntz faced scrutiny during his hearing for a ruling he issued in Trump’s favor shortly after courting the nomination. Per Reuters, Kuntz was part of a three-judge panel that upheld a decision to allow a defamation lawsuit brought by Trump against the Pulitzer Prize Board to move forward.
Kuntz defended his decision not to recuse himself by stating he had no interest in the litigation. Coons, however, questioned how the ethics rules would not require a recusal when a party’s interest could reasonably be seen to cloud a judge’s judgment. Kuntz maintained that he had not heard from the White House until after the opinion was final.
But then Trump absolutely does not want judges who will think for themselves and decide cases on their merits. He wants obedient servants who will rubberstamp as legal whatever insane thing he attempts, up to and including trying for a totally unconstitutional third term.
