Senate Pulls It Off with a Crucial 49 - 46 Vote — Lawmakers Have Just Approved President Donald Trump's Judicial Nominee To 6th Circuit
Senate Pulls It Off with a Crucial 49 - 46 Vote — Lawmakers Have Just Approved President Donald Trump's Judicial Nominee To 6th Circuit
President Trump has faced repeated legal setbacks in trying to implement his agenda, thanks to left-wing federal judges appointed by Joe Biden and other Democratic presidents.
In most of those cases, the judges appear to be making decisions based on their political opposition to the president and his agenda, as many of their rulings have been overturned.
But that said, Trump has been—with the GOP-controlled Senate’s help—steadily filling judicial vacancies on federal benches throughout his second term, and the chamber confirmed another nominee largely along party-line votes on Wednesday.
The Senate on Tuesday confirmed Benjamin Flowers to a lifetime appointment on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit by a 49-46 vote, elevating the former Ohio solicitor general to the federal bench despite Democratic objections over his record and his refusal to state who won the 2020 presidential election.
Flowers, an attorney from Upper Arlington and a partner at Ashbrook Byrne Kresge Flowers LLC, will fill the vacancy left by Judge Jeffrey Sutton. President Trump nominated him to serve on the Sixth Circuit, which hears cases from Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee.
During Flowers’ May 20 confirmation hearing, Democratic senators questioned him about issues that President Donald Trump has disputed and criticized what they described as his evasive responses.
When Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., asked Flowers to identify the winner of the 2020 presidential election, Flowers replied that “legally speaking, Joe Biden was certified” before Blumenthal interrupted him.
Because Democrats have turned all hearings involving Trump nominees into political theater and circuses, Blumenthal—who lied about serving in Vietnam—claimed that Flowers’ answers sounded “rehearsed.”
“Above all, a federal judge must be independent, without fear or favor, and your fear, apparently, of Donald Trump, is so much that you practiced with the White House before you came here and rehearsed this answer, and are repeating by rote what you’ve been told to say,” Blumenthal said, calling that conduct disqualifying – as though he was ever going to support Flowers to begin with.
Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, defended Flowers against the criticism, arguing that Democrats were applying a double standard.
Grassley pointed to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s confirmation hearing, during which she said, “It would be inappropriate for me to publicly weigh in to any subject of political debate.”
In addition, speaking of disqualifying, Jackson refused on several occasions to define a woman.
Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, also cited the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, arguing that the same ethical standards apply to both judicial nominees and sitting judges.
A graduate of Ohio State University and the University of Chicago Law School, Flowers clerked for Ninth Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta before serving as a law clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia.
He later spent several years at Jones Day and, as Ohio’s 10th solicitor general, argued three cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, including the successful challenge to OSHA’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
“Flowers resembles most of Trump 2.0’s appellate nominees, whom Mike Davis, the Leader of the Article 3 Project and a Trump judicial selection consigliere, characterizes as battle-hardened,” University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias told Cleveland.com.
“However, Flowers also resembles many Trump 1.0 appellate nominees, who are ideologically conservative, active members of the Federalist Society, and practiced at large national firms,” he added.
During his tenure as Ohio's 10th Solicitor General, Flowers established significant constitutional credentials, arguing three separate cases before the U.S. Supreme Court—most notably securing the landmark legal block that dismantled the federal OSHA emergency temporary standard regarding workplace vaccine mandates.
Legal observers note that Flowers represents the primary archetype of the administration's updated appellate strategy, which favors younger, ideologically consistent lawyers possessing extensive experience handling high-threshold state-level defense challenges.
REPRODUCTIVE STATUTES AND MIDTERM ENFORCEMENT NETWORKS
Beyond national electoral issues, opposition caucuses extensively cross-examined Flowers regarding his historical defense of Ohio public health and abortion regulations. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) directed intense focus toward Flowers' representation of the state's six-week gestational limits, referencing prominent regional cases to challenge his judicial temperament.
Flowers maintained a strict professional baseline throughout the interrogation, noting that any child or victim of assault suffers profound, irreparable harm, while underscoring that his statutory duty as solicitor general was to defend current state laws as enacted by the legislature.
With the Senate majority continuing its rapid tempo to process judicial confirmations ahead of the upcoming autumn midterm campaigns, the successful seating of Benjamin Flowers cews a critical operational vacancy—ensuring that the jurisprudence governing labor, commerce, and individual liberty across four major states remains firmly anchored in a strict interpretation of the Constitution.
Nearly 150,000 California Mail Ballots Rejected In Primary
California election officials are examining why nearly 150,000 mail-in ballots were rejected during the state’s June primary, with late-arriving ballots accounting for most of the increase.
The higher rejection rate comes despite years of election law changes designed to make voting more accessible and ensure more ballots are ultimately counted.
According to data compiled by the California Secretary of State’s office, 148,241 mail-in ballots were rejected during the June primary, representing 1.73% of all mail ballots returned.
That marks an increase from the 2024 primary, when 108,982 ballots were rejected, or 1.56% of all mail ballots cast.
The largest reason for rejection was ballots arriving too late to qualify under California law.
State data shows that 93,479 ballots were rejected because they failed to meet the state’s deadline requirements.
California allows mail ballots to arrive up to seven days after Election Day, provided they are postmarked on or before Election Day.
Voting experts believe many of the rejected ballots received postmarks dated after Election Day, making them ineligible to be counted even if they arrived within the seven-day grace period.
Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, said the timing of postal processing appears to be a significant concern.
“Ballots rejected due to lateness are caused primarily to being postmarked too late to count, not because they arrived too late to count,” Alexander said.
Election experts have questioned whether recent operational changes within the U.S. Postal Service may be contributing to delayed postmarks.
Earlier this year, a group of mostly Democratic U.S. senators wrote to the Postal Service expressing concern that mail-processing changes could affect ballot handling during federal elections.
Updated Postal Service procedures mean postmarks may reflect when mail is processed at regional facilities rather than when it first enters the mail system.
Because processing centers have been consolidated in some areas, election officials have warned that postmark timing could be affected.
Before the June primary, California election officials encouraged voters to mail ballots as early as possible because of potential postal delays.
The June election also featured a highly competitive race for governor, which some experts believe encouraged many voters to wait until the final days before casting ballots.
In addition to late-arriving ballots, approximately 44,000 ballots were rejected because election officials determined the voter’s signature did not match the signature on file.
Another 8,300 ballots were rejected because the return envelope did not contain a signature.
State records also show that 743 ballots were rejected because those voters had already cast another ballot.
Other rejected ballots involved missing ballots inside return envelopes or multiple ballots submitted in a single envelope.
The highest rejection rate in the state occurred in Tulare County, where 3.52% of returned mail ballots were rejected.
Alpine County and Merced County followed closely, each recording rejection rates of 3.36%.
California has frequently faced criticism for taking weeks to complete vote counting after major elections, largely because state law permits ballots meeting certain requirements to continue arriving after Election Day.
Following the June primary, President Donald Trump again criticized California’s election system, while the Department of Justice opened an investigation into election administration in Los Angeles County.
Election experts emphasize that the increase in rejected ballots should not be interpreted as evidence of widespread voter fraud.
A 2025 report by the Brookings Institution found documented cases of mail ballot fraud remained extremely rare, estimating roughly four cases for every 10 million mail ballots cast, The Associated Press reported.
State officials have not identified evidence of widespread fraud connected to the June primary, but the increase in rejected ballots is expected to receive additional scrutiny as election administrators evaluate whether changes in postal operations, voter behavior or election procedures contributed to the higher rejection rate.
