Talk:Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies

Misleading section heading
Is it not odd to have the subheading "Successfully appointed nominees" under the heading "List of failed, stalled or filibustered appellate nominees". None of the examples listed were 'failed, stalled or filibustered'. Lin4671again (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The subheadings don't make sense to me either. I'm going to see if I can come up with something better. Marquardtika (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Adding to list
I recently added three delayed nominees to the list. Two are for appellate courts who are very controversial. One is for an Article 1 court who has been delayed though not controversial. Someone removed those entries, even though they were accurate and had links proving their accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:AD0B:B100:ADEF:5D3F:FADE:CBC4 (talk) 00:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Potential nominees/appointees to add
This article probably should include Justin R. Walker, Lee Rudofsky, and Sarah Pitlyk, who are either confirmed or pending district court nominees. They appear/appeared relatively controversial and were confirmed by narrow margins. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Mitch McConnell's increased politicization of courts rush, add?
Mitch McConnell has been privately contacting sitting federal judges and urging them to retire so they can be replaced while the Republicans still hold the Senate and the White House. McConnell and other Senate Republicans have contacted an unknown number of Republican-nominated judges who are eligible to retire and reminding them that if they don’t retire soon they may have to wait another eight years before they can leave under another Republican administration. More than 90 Republican-nominated judges are either currently eligible or will become eligible this year to enter “senior status,” which allows their spots on the bench to be filled, even though they’ll still be allowed to hear cases, hire clerks, and receive full pay. X1\ (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * McConnell Has a Request for Veteran Federal Judges: Please Quit March 16, 2020 NYTimes.com
 * https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/03/mitch-mcconnell-pressures-judges-to-retire-trump
 * https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/487982-mcconnell-urging-gop-appointed-judges-to-retire-this-year-report
 * https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2020/03/16/mitch-mcconnell-urging-judges-retire-ahead-2020-election/5060303002
 * https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a31677614/mitch-mcconnell-old-republican-judges-retire
 * https://washingtonmonthly.com/2020/03/17/mitch-mcconnell-is-running-scared
 * https://www.rawstory.com/2020/03/panicked-mitch-mcconnell-begging-federal-judges-to-retire-before-election-as-trumps-2020-prospects-dim
 * https://www.thedailybeast.com/mcconnell-encourages-veteran-federal-judges-to-vacate-seats-nyt-reports

Cory T. Wilson
I noticed that an earlier edit removed Cory Wilson's district court nomination. Is it appropriate to delete that mention, or should it be restored? While that nomination was dropped in favor of the circuit court nomination, I think it also was true that the district court nomination saw some controversy/criticism from his opponents on its own terms. I lean in favor of restoring it but am open to the opinions of others.

Unrelated, based on media coverage and Senate vote margins of certain nominees, it might be worth considering whether some other nominees/judges should be added to the list, though that might also depend on how we define "controversies." --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 00:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * This page has always confused me because I don't understand how we are defining "controversy." It seems pretty subjective. Marquardtika (talk) 03:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree -- it seems very subjective and almost arbitrary. I can think of a few that could fit in the article in its current state, who aren't already listed (Mark J. Bennett, Walker's district court nomination, etc.), and some of these seem more "controversial" than a few mentioned right now. Creating some sort of criteria of what constitutes a "controversy" would be helpful -- I'm not sure simply encountering opposition from Democrats would/should cut it. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Yep. Because judicial nominations have increasingly become partisan battlegrounds, in a real sense you could say every Trump nominee is controversial because some Democrats disagree with every nomination. Just as, I'm sure, if Biden wins the GOP will react in the same way. So the question is "controversial--according to whom?" Marquardtika (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Daniel Z. Epstein
The section doesn't seem to mention any controversies regarding his nomination, so should it be included?73.110.217.186 (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Should the nomination of Raúl M. Arias-Marxuach be incluided because it happened during the lame-duck period
Hi,. I noticed you reverted my edit retaining the nomination of Raúl M. Arias-Marxuach, because it wasn't controversial. However, a Google search reveals that there was some controversy, because the nomination occurred during the lame duck period. If the mention of Arias-Marxuach included a reference to this specific controversy, I think it would fit in the article, but I'd like to establish consensus before I edit. What do you think? BobEret (he/him) (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * As the original author of the section pertaining to Arias-Marxuach's nomination, I'd first like to apologize for not having included any reference to its controversies, as I had not taken the explicit distinction between failed "controversial" nominees & general failed nominations into account. In any event, though, I'd also like to help establish any consensus if at all possible, & to that effect, I have an additional potentially controversial aspect of the nomination to offer in that the Trump administration is said to have wanted the Biden administration to "extend the courtesy of re-nominating the judge, given his excellent qualifications and history of bi-partisan support" . Perhaps the inclusion of a reference to this additional arguably controversial aspect of the nomination would also serve to bolster the applicability of its proposed inclusion in this article? Given that this nomination evidently drew multiple controversies beyond merely not having been acted upon before Trump left office, I see no reason why it shouldn't ultimately still be included at the end of the day, but to be clear, although I'd support the article's proposed inclusion of the nomination were these controversial lame-duck & unrequited re-nomination aspects to be referenced, I'll obviously respect & support the decision of any consensus that can ultimately be reached, be it in favor of or in opposition to the proposed inclusion. Brucejoel99 (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * @'ing 2601:241:300:B610:5CC5:9DCC:991A:8B45 (talk)? - Brucejoel99 (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * It's now been more than a week since this discussion began, & the only proposed consensus - such as it is one - is what was offered by myself & BobEret (he/him) (talk) in favor of including a section on Arias-Marxuach's failed CA1 nomination with specific references to its controversies. As such, it feels appropriate to proceed with doing so, & so I will, but if any issues arise in regards to said restoration, then this discussion can obviously be returned to if necessary. Brucejoel99 (talk) 00:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)