Nomination of Daniel Mack Traynor (Executive Session)

The Senate considered the nomination of Daniel Mack Traynor during an executive session. Senator Durbin spoke against the nomination, saying that before his confirmation to the district court Judge Traynor showed himself to be a partisan, and that in more than six years on the bench he has not acted as a neutral arbiter, ruling in favor of Donald Trump and bringing political bias into the courtroom. Durbin urged senators to vote against the nomination. No other substantive statements appear in the sampled discussion.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

1 statement

Richard J. Durbin, IL

Democrat

Linked statement

“I want the Senate to vote against Daniel Traynor's nomination. He is not a fair judge. He always rules in favor of Donald Trump, and he brings his own political bias into the courtroom.”
Official Congressional Record

Mr President, prior to his confirmation to the district court, Judge Daniel Traynor showed his true colors as a MAGA partisan. After he was confirmed, he had a chance to show that he could be a neutral arbiter on the bench. Yet after more than 6 years as a jurist, Judge Traynor has confirmed what Democrats warned about, that he would be a rubberstamp for President Trump. As just one example, Judge Traynor has ruled in favor of the Trump administration in all 28 cases on his docket involving challenges from immigrants who have been detained by ICE under the administration’s illegal mandatory detention policy. That includes seven habeas corpus petitions Judge Traynor volunteered to preside over in the District of Minnesota following Operation Metro Surge. Judge Traynor is an outlier. Of the more than 17,800 cases in which Federal district judges have ruled on ICE’s mandatory detention policy, at least 15,500 were rulings against the Trump administration, including the vast majority of rulings by Trump-appointed judges. Judge Traynor’s partisanship was also made apparent when he served as a contributing author and signatory of a May 2024 letter from Federal judges to the Columbia University president. The signatories vowed not to hire anyone who attended Columbia University beginning that year. But Judge Traynor denied a recusal motion in a case brought by Columbia Law School’s Initiative for a Just Society, implausibly claiming he wasn’t biased against Columbia. While he was comfortable taking a position on this controversial political question, Judge Traynor refused to answer questions at his hearing on who won the 2020 election, calling that well-settled fact a matter of ``political controversy.’’ It is very clear that Judge Traynor seeks to remain in the good graces of President Trump, at the cost of his integrity and independence. I urge my colleagues to oppose this nomination.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from issue 121

  1. House of Representatives Removing Barriers to Work for Disabled Americans Act 8 statements
  2. Senate Legislative Session 6 statements
  3. Senate Directing the Removal of United States Armed Forces from Hostilities Within or Against the Islamic Republic of Iran That Have Not Been Authorized by Congress--Motion to Discharge 6 statements
  4. Senate Nomination of Daniel Mack Traynor (Executive Session) 1 statement
  5. Senate Vote on Pozos Nomination (Executive Calendar) 2 statements