President Trump took a bullet for us, and we owe it to him to protect his legacy and ensure true “bold and fearless” and “battled tested” lawyers are placed on the bench. President Trump’s frustrations with some of his past judicial nominees is well documented on Truth Social. Unfortunately, we are facing another disappointment in the nomination of Rebecca Taibleson to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Because of my loyalty to President Trump and his mission, I must oppose Rebecca Taibleson’s nomination.

In 2022, Taibleson donated to ActBlue, designated for Joe Manchin, during a time when people were pushing him to run as an alternative to Trump. That appears to be the only senate level donation she ever made. In 2024, Taibleson donated to Bridget Schoenborn in a judicial race in Wisconsin. Schoenborn was appointed by Democrat Governor Toney Evans and was endorsed by the Waukesha Co. Democrat Party while her opponent, David Maas, was endorsed by Brad Schimel, the former Republican Wisconsin Attorney General. Taibleson’s husband, Benjamin, also donated to ActBlue as well as Biden’s 2020 race against Trump, Kamala Harris’ 2015 Senate bid, and Forrest Dunbar’s congressional campaign. Adding these ActBlue donations with an almost blank record in the conservative movement, you have to ask “how could she possibly have been nominated.” But the problems even grow from here.

Taibleson intentionally interned for the Obama D.O.J. Additionally, her husband-to-be published a book review that concluded the author’s proposal of “a universal social welfare regime – especially one based on upon education for all” was reasonable and “should enjoy the luxury of a gentler standard.” While working for Biden’s Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, Taibleson served on the defense team for a case brought by the Brown County Taxpayers Association challenging Biden’s student loan forgiveness policy.

In 2008, Taibleson served as an intern for the American Bar Association’s Rule of Law Initiative, which falls under the ABA’s Center for Global Programs, which has as one of its purposes to advance gender and social inclusion. In 2009, Taibleson interned for the Obama Administration’s Department of Justice’s Office of Policy and Legislation.

Taibleson has had very little legal involvement with conservative legal positions and, beyond advocating for then-Judge Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination, no public advocacy for conservative policies. Some point to Taibleson’s clerkship for Justice Scalia as a conservative credential, but that’s no certain green flag. Scalia was known to hire a “counterclerk,” a politically liberal clerk whose predispositions were the opposite of his own. And some of Scalia’s former clerks have gone on to fight the conservative legal movement broadly and President Trump specifically.

It is true that Taibleson worked in the Solicitor General’s office from 2019 to 2020, but she decided to stay on to serve President Biden all the way through 2022. She appears to have spent more time advancing Biden’s agenda, not Trump’s. Perhaps this is why she earned liberal Senator Tammy Baldwin’s support for this current nomination. In addition, Taibleson donated to a non-profit that advocates for “social justice” and hosts and supports “a group of greater Milwaukee lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex.”

If there were no good, highly credentialed and strong conservative candidates to fill this important seat, the situation might be different, but the opposite is true. Two very strong, highly credentialed and proven conservative choices applied and were available to serve.

There is no evidence Taibleson is bold or fearless, battle tested, or strong on the issues. Instead, the evidence suggests she is a weak pick in an important circuit with serious national consequences. I support and encourage oppose to her confirmation.