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.
CBS Host LOSES IT After Sen. Kennedy FACT CHECKS Her Trump LIES… THIS GOT BAD!...
CBS Host PRESSES John Kennedy on Trump’s Spending — His Answer Takes an Unexpected Turn
The interview began with some of the biggest questions facing Washington: the conflict with Iran, rising fuel costs, and the approaching midterm elections. But when Republican Senator John Kennedy appeared on Face the Nation with CBS host Margaret Brennan, the conversation quickly moved toward an issue that could shape the political debate for months to come: how the government spends taxpayers’ money.
Kennedy did not pretend that the economic pressure facing American families was insignificant. He argued that voters were far more concerned about the cost of living than the daily battles playing out on television. With oil prices affected by disruptions around the Strait of Hormuz, he said, the consequences of foreign policy were reaching directly into household budgets.
Kennedy Brings the Conversation Back to Affordability
Kennedy’s message to the White House was unusually direct. He predicted that the midterm elections would be close and argued that Republicans needed to keep their attention on the financial concerns of ordinary Americans.
“When moms and dads lie down to sleep at night and can't,” Kennedy told Brennan, they are worried about the cost of living.
He also called for a nationwide address explaining why the United States entered the conflict with Iran, what the administration hoped to achieve, and how it intended to bring the situation to a conclusion.
His position was not a blanket rejection of the administration’s strategy. Kennedy defended continued pressure on Iran while acknowledging the economic consequences of the partially closed strait. He opposed sending American troops into the situation, warning that deploying them could create a new set of problems.
That combination—support for pressure abroad alongside concern about prices at home—set the tone for the rest of the interview.
Nearly $1 Billion in Cuts Sparks a Constitutional Dispute
The conversation became more pointed when Brennan asked about the White House’s decision to cancel nearly $1 billion in previously approved federal funding without congressional consent.
Brennan raised concerns expressed by Senator Susan Collins, the Republican chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, who argued that the move threatened Congress’s constitutional authority over federal spending.
Kennedy disagreed.
“I love Susan like a taco, but she's wrong,” he said before explaining his view that Congress often appropriates money in broad categories, leaving agencies with considerable discretion over how funds are ultimately used.
He then deployed the phrase that would become the interview’s most memorable sound bite: “Spending porn.”
Kennedy used the expression to criticize what he considers wasteful government expenditures, pointing to funding for circumcision programs in Zambia and electric buses in Rwanda. He also argued that Congress should take greater responsibility for identifying and eliminating spending it believes is unnecessary.
But the disagreement was about more than whether particular programs were worthwhile. It raised a larger question: when Congress approves funding, how much authority should the executive branch have to cancel or redirect it?
Kennedy defended the cuts, while Brennan’s question highlighted the legal and constitutional objections. The interview did not resolve that dispute, but it brought the competing arguments into sharp focus.
Then Kennedy Turned the Standard on Trump
The most revealing moment came when Brennan shifted from the proposed cuts to taxpayer-funded advertising.
She asked Kennedy about a government-funded commercial prominently featuring President Donald Trump and praising his leadership. The question echoed earlier controversy surrounding former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, whose department had spent $220 million on a border-security advertising campaign in which she appeared prominently.
Kennedy had previously criticized Noem’s campaign. Now, with Trump featured in another advertisement paid for by the federal government, Brennan asked whether that spending was appropriate.
Kennedy’s response was notable because he explicitly included his own political allies—and himself—in the principle he was defending.
“I don't think any public official, including President Trump or Kristi Noem or John Kennedy, should spend public money on private ads for themselves,” he said.
He acknowledged that the White House viewed the issue differently but argued that public funds should not be used to promote individual politicians. He also suggested that politicians should not have buildings named after them while they are still alive.
That answer complicated any attempt to portray his position as simply a defense of the administration. Kennedy supported the proposed spending cuts, but he also applied his criticism of taxpayer-funded self-promotion to Trump.
The Real Takeaway From the Interview
The exchange was not a shouting match, nor does the published transcript establish that Brennan lost her composure or that Kennedy fact-checked a series of false statements from her. What it does show is a pointed discussion about economic priorities, congressional spending authority, and whether public money should be used to enhance a politician’s image.
Kennedy’s argument was straightforward: families are worried about affordability, government spending deserves scrutiny, and the rules should apply regardless of party.
Whether viewers agree with his assessment of the proposed cuts is a separate question. The legal dispute over executive spending authority and the debate over taxpayer-funded political advertising deserve examination beyond a few memorable television lines.
The moment worth watching is when Brennan moves from criticizing government spending in general to asking Kennedy about an advertisement featuring Trump himself. That is where the discussion becomes more complicated—and where Kennedy’s stated principle is tested against his own party’s leadership.
Watch the full interview through the link below to hear the exchange in context and decide how convincing each side’s argument really was.
