Lindsay Jenkins – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

The Dirksen Courthouse - where the Northern District of Illinois sits.

Cooley Partner Lindsay Jenkins has spent the past fifteen years practicing in Northern Illinois and brings extensive experience with criminal law to the federal bench.

Background

Lindsay Carole Jenkins graduated from Miami University in 1998 and got a J.D. summa cum laude from Cleveland-Marshall College of Law in 2002.

After graduation, Jenkins clerked for Judge Solomon Oliver on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. She then joined Jones Day as an associate. Jenkins then became a federal prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois in 2006. In 2021, she became a Partner at Cooley LLP, where she currently serves.

History of the Seat

Jenkins has been nominated for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. This seat opened on September 7, 2022, upon the elevation of Judge John Lee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Legal Career

Jenkins started her legal career at the Cleveland office of Jones Day. While there, Jenkins represented Tobias Valencia in a postconviction challenge to his conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. United States v. Valencia, 188 Fed. Appx. 395 (6th Cir. July 17, 2006). The Sixth Circuit denied relief for her client. See id. at 403.

From 2006 to 2021, Jenkins worked as a federal prosecutor. In that role, Jenkins represented the United States before the Northern District of Illinois in criminal prosecutions. See, e.g., United States v. Yihao Pu, 15 F. Supp. 3d 846 (N.D. Ill. 2014). She also represented the government on appeal. See, e.g., United States v. Serfling, 504 F.3d 672 (7th Cir. 2007).

Among the matters she argued before the Seventh Circuit, Jenkins successfully defended a federal law criminalizing enticing a minor to perform a sexual act against a constitutional challenge. See United States v. Cote, 504 F.3d 682 (7th Cir. 2007). She also defended the denial of postconviction relief to a defendant sentenced by a jury in which a juror was absent for a day of deliberation. See Webster v. United States, 667 F.3d 826 (7th Cir. 2011).

Overall Assessment

With extensive experience as a federal prosecutor and in private practice, Jenkins should have little trouble through the confirmation process.

68 Comments

  1. Another well qualified nominee by Biden here. As with all of the current nominees, the calendar is the biggest obstacle for Jenkins getting confirmed at this point, but the Democrats keeping the Senate would make it a lock.

    Like

  2. Jenkins seems to be a fine prosecutor. I was hoping for one of the other recommended lawyers that had more of a progressive background such as Karen Sheley to be the nominee. It looks like The White House went for a nominee that will have an easier path to confirmation.

    After Florence Pan is confirmed to the DC Circuit, likely tomorrow, all 3 of Biden’s pending intent to nominate nominees will officially have their seats vacant. Judge Lee & Mendoza have already been confirmed so Biden can send all 3 nominees for those 3 seats over to the senate. Now we just need Durbin to hold at least ONE additional hearing on top of the usual every other week schedule.

    Like

  3. Another below average nominee by Biden. If she had been nominated in 2021, I would have given her a C based on her tenure as a AUSA. However, she went and joined a BigLaw firm as a partner afterwards, which for me is a downgrade. I give this nominee a D, and this is not a good nominee for a blue state.

    Like

    • @Shawn

      I agree with your initial grade of a C for her. I will say one thing I found out about her through my research that I don’t see in this post is she was part of a team of lawyers from the United States Department of Justice that investigated the force practices of the Chicago Police Department. So that would probably keep me from going any further below that grade. But as I said in my initial assessment this morning there were more progressive choices even just out of those recommended by Durbin.

      Like

      • I will respond to your comments on the previous post on BigLaw when I get some time.

        But yes, joining BigLaw mid career is a big downgrade for me. I downgraded Judge Candace Jackson Akuwami from A to B+ for joining a BigLaw firm just before she was appointed.

        Like

  4. The Rikelman hearing will likely be quite contentious, Cruz and Hawley will start off with “Congratulations on your nomination”, and it will go downhill real fast after that..

    Like

    • Cruz & Hawley may need an exorcism after the hearing… Lol

      I still can’t get over the panel. Too bad Khan was the 2nd circuit nominee. Had it been Cristina Rodriguez or Justin Driver instead, this would probably have been my favorite panel of all time for any SJC hearing. Two black men in one judicial panel. I wonder when was the last time that had happened… WOW

      Like

      • Khan could put a blow up doll with a wig in her seat & nobody would notice. All of the questions will all virtually go to Rikelman. I expect Durbin will have to interject repeatedly to let her answer questions without interruption.

        The second panel may also be contentious. Kennedy will moan about not having enough time for so many nominees. I will be interested to see which Republicans show up. I believe Graham has only showed up to the KBJ & one other hearing this term. He may show up Wednesday.

        Like

  5. Going to have to try and watch some of this one. I’m sure Cruz, Hawley, and Lee will have the clown show going at full speed lol.

    In all honesty I’m glad that Rikelman is going before the panel now because I feel confident she will need a discharge vote and some close attention to get confirmed this term. I do feel somewhat confident that Manchin will ultimately come around and support her (and Sinema has always been solid on abortion rights, just not eliminating the filibuster).

    Liked by 1 person

  6. From Rikelmnan SJQ, looks like she interviewed for the District Court seat to.

    “On April 25, 2022, I interviewed with Senators Markey and Warren for both the district court and First Circuit positions”

    Like

    • Arianna Freeman also interviewed for the district court at first too. I’m surprised somebody as high profile as Rikelmnan would even consider a district court seat. Kind of the same thing I said regarding justice Nelson leaving the Oregon SCOTUS for a district court seat in Oregon.

      Like

  7. Now with Rikelman and Kahn going on Wednesday, there will be 3 Circuit nominees needing a hearing, that being Benjamin for the 4th, Johnstone for the 9th, and Wamble for the 10th. Which ones would you all prioritize for the next hearing (and the same goes for the district court seats, seeing as there are only so many slots to go by)? I do think that we will see one more circuit nominee who will be paired with whomever doesn’t go in the next hearing.

    Like

    • I would prioritize Benjamin (4th) seat and then Wamble (10th) because that solidifies our majorities on those circuits. Johnstone is a great nominee as well but the 9th doesn’t need help as badly and has already had 6 Biden nominees confirmed. I still think if he (and another circuit nominee to be named) get hearings right around the midterms then there may be just enough time to have him confirmed as well. Thomas and Sanchez both had their hearings on Nov 3 last year and were able to get cloture votes before Christmas. Had Schumer really needed to, he could have confirmed both.

      I don’t have any strong feelings on District nominees so I would simply say take the four that have been outstanding the longest.

      Like

    • So for me, I’m fine with the order the circuit court nominees were announced. And I too think we will see at least one other circuit court nominee from either Maryland or New Hampshire (If not both) by the time Johnstone ‘s hearing came up. Even if there wasn’t, there are so many district court nominees that if they just had Johnstone for the first panel, I would hope they had 5 district court nominees for the second session.

      The real question to me is if Durbin will have any additional hearings. The current every other week schedule combined with recess weeks would mean not all nominees would get a hearing this year. This would be the SJC schedule if Durbin stays with the current format.

      9/21 – Hearing
      9/28 -No hearing
      10/5 – Recess week
      10/12 – Hearing
      10/19 – No hearing
      10/26 – Recess week
      11/2 – Recess week
      11/9 – Hearing
      11/16 – No hearing
      11/23 – Recess week
      11/30 – Hearing
      12/7 – No hearing
      12/14 – Hearing
      12/12 – No hearing
      12/28 – Recess week

      The current schedule means only FIVE hearings left this year. There are currently 25 district court nominees that need a hearing (Not counting Pocan or Rodriguez). If there are 4 district court nominees per hearing, that means 5 of the current nominees would not get a hearing this year. One additional hearing at least gets all of them a hearing.

      Like

  8. Schumer filed cloture on the Disclose Act & a couple of people for positions I’ve never heard of. I hope that doesn’t mean the end of judges for a while after Pan. Hopefully that means he will be focusing on discharge votes.

    Like

      • Uuuggghhh, I was hoping for a better birthday present tomorrow then Florence Pan confirmed… Lol

        I hate this one vote only on Mondays. Right before the camera feed cut off just now. Schumer on a hot mic joked they were finished at 6:40pm & the senators bust out laughing…smh

        Like

  9. I agree, it’s much better when they do cloture on a Thursday and then two votes Monday. Oh well, it was great while it lasted. I still feel solid about getting everyone over the line prior to the end of the year.

    Like

      • 7 GOP senators were missing today while only 3 Dem senators were. Freeman could have been voted on. It’s amazing how Schumer has literally no idea how to count the heads of his own caucus.

        Like

      • I noticed that too @Delco. That pissed me off even more when I heard the remark on the hot mic about them finishing at 6:40pm & then hearing the senate chamber bust out laughing. The only excuse I can think of is the GOP not objecting to the Pan cloture to confirmation vote in 17 hours versus the 30 hours they could require. I guess it’s an agreement to not hold any other votes in exchange for saving the 13 additional hours if the GOP decided to play hardball.

        Like

  10. Pan has been confirmed. Hopefully she will be the last blah, true centrist Biden circuit court judge confirmed if Dems hold the senate. Maria Khan is not a great nominee because of her age but she herself has a progressive background. All of the remaining circuit court nominees excite me at least for one reason or another so I’m hoping today closed the chapter on Biden circuit court nominees I would have a voted no on.

    Like

    • Pan has ruled against immigrants, against workers rights in all areas of labor and against marginalized populations, for police and for more punishment. But hey, at least she ruled that cigarette companies can’t try to hide how harmful cigarettes can be to one’s health.

      It’s amazing how Biden threw out the chance to make the DC Circuit a solidly liberal majority for decades to come unlike the other circuits, where most of his picks had a liberal history. I would say the DC Circuit is currently 6-4 center right. Garcia seems to be much more left than Pan and Childs so that would be 6-5 but still a center right majority. Forget progressive, it’s not even truly liberal in any sense. So frustrating (and no the frustration has nothing to do with race like some on here will insist just to try to guilt trip).

      https://www.afj.org/document/florence-y-pan/

      Like

  11. I think one of my biggest gripes with Pan was her age. Personally would have preferred someone in their 40s but the Biden admin did thankfully correct course with Garcia.

    For a while there the administration was playing it safe with nominees, probably in an attempt to avoid controversy and get as much done as possible. I suspect that now that Schumer and Durbin appear to be on course to get most of these nominees confirmed prior to the end of the year that we should see fairly progressive nominees from here on out. Particularly if Dems do maintain/grow their senate majority.

    Like

    • @Joe

      I completely agree with you. It sucks to see 2 of 3 Trump judges & even 1 OBAMA judge be younger then 2 out of the 4 Biden DC circuit nominees. At least Biden got it right on the book ends with KBJ & Bradley Garcia. I sure wish the middle 2 would have been replaced with any combination of Deepak Gupta, Melissa Murray, Dale Ho, Andrew Manuel Crespo, Danielle Holley-Walker or any number of younger & more progressive possibilities.

      But let’s just hope as you said we will see more younger & progressive nominees from here on out.

      Like

    • Judith Rogers was 55 and David Tatel was 52 when Clinton appointed them to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. So just because Childs and Pan are 55-56 does not mean they won’t stay a long time. Too bad Pan isn’t and Childs definitely isn’t a hardcore liberal lion, because those folks often stay in active service until they are REALLY old.

      Like

      • @Ryan Joshi

        Oh definitely, If Biden had nominated two hard left progressive liberals in their mid 50’s I wouldn’t complain nearly as much. You never hear me complain about Beth Robinson for instance even though she’s actually older then both Childs & Pan. But it’s just a punch in the gut when they are old & moderate. Truly two wasted seats, particularly with so many better choices in both age & being progressive.

        But if they are the last two bad circuit court picks from Biden with a Democrat majority then I can live with that.

        Liked by 1 person

  12. Sounds like the senate will be meeting for the scheduled 2 weeks (really 1.5 weeks) in October. Good news for sure, means another round of hearings and also hopefully some more discharges/votes.

    Like

      • I’m guessing that nothing super controversial (such as the judicial nominees needing discharges) will get done during that time due to the need for vulnerable senators to spend time campaigning for reelection.

        Like

      • My same thoughts too @Frank. But tif we can just squeeze ONE extra SJC hearing out of that week then it will be well worth it. When I put out the SJC schedule yesterday assuming they stay with the same schedule, then there would be 5 district court nominees that wouldn’t get a hearing this year. This extra week could be enough to get all pending nominees a hearing now.

        Like

  13. The D.C. Circuit Court is now back to a 5-1-4 liberal plurality. Srinivasan, Millett, Pillard, Wilkins, Pan are on the left. Henderson, Katsas, Rao, Walker on the right. J. Michelle Childs is the 1 in the middle. When Garcia is confirmed the court will have a solid liberal majority again.

    Like

    • No the DC Circuit Court is 5-5 right now.

      J. Michelle Childs is a conservative, in addition to being an unqualified selection for the DC Circuit who only was selected due to a powerful patron. I know Dequan and others here disagree with my categorization of Childs as unqualified, but I strongly stand by my viewpoint. This was an execrable selection.

      Like

  14. Although Dems had an advantage this morning, the remaining members in the chamber are evenly split 47-47. 3 D and 3 R senators missed the most recent vote (on the Kigali agreement, whatever that is).

    Like

    • Ryan, my understanding is it’s an addendum to the Montreal Agreement, which is actually a very important climate treaty.

      This will probably age like milk, but curiously the senate adjourned just now with no votes scheduled tomorrow. Perhaps it’s just a coincidence but maybe Schumer is waiting to see if he can bring up Freeman before he sets the schedule.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Okok I did not know that. I am big on climate policy & fighting climate change so this is important then so long as the country actually adheres to the treaty, i.e. the countries in the Paris agreement are not on track to meet it.

        Like

      • Hahaha @Joe, indefatigably hopeful. Now I always make sure to look out for your predictions. Unfortunately, no Freeman today.
        People think it’s just a matter of logistics, that if they could just line up all the Dems. Well, if that’s the case Natasha Merle would have been confirmed by now. Today is exactly two months since Durbin had to withdraw her nomination from the floor.
        Oh, and guess whose job it is to line up votes and whip up votes??? None other than the same man in charge of the committee on the Judiciary in the senate: Durbin.
        This is why nominations don’t usually fail on the floor. A competent leadership team, including majority whip, usually know their vote count. When they fail, it’s a huge set back. This is probably why my favorite Dale Ho hasn’t been brought up yet. But let us by all means be optimistic about these confirmations.

        Like

      • Just speculating here, but I think what could’ve happened is that certain Republican senators unexpectedly showed up to vote against Freeman. Perhaps Dems thought that they could confirm her in a 48-48 vote + the VP but a 49th Republican came out of nowhere and voted against.
        Also, is there a limit to how long a nomination can be held after cloture before the cloture expires? Could Schumer have held Freeman indefinitely until there were the votes to confirm her?

        Like

      • @Ryan Joshi
        Well, counting on senate absences isn’t a winning strategy. Remember all votes are scheduled prior to occurring. So who’s to tell who from the other team will show up? Your job at senate leadership isn’t to call up a vote and hope for the best. Your job is to make sure you have enough votes on YOUR side to carry the item.

        To your question, no it doesn’t expire within the calendar year. The 30 post-cloture hours would have just run its course, and the nominee would have just been sitting and waiting to be placed on the calendar for a final vote. Those nominations are usually voted on shortly thereafter because one “rule” of the senate is to never sit on anything when you can just pass it. And if you have enough votes to end cloture, you have enough votes to confirm, as long as your members are there to do their job, having been sufficiently whipped.

        Like

  15. @Ethan

    I’m looking at your judicial chart & noticed you added a name for any Washington DC vacancies that I had never heard of. Roscoe Jones, Jr. (c. 1978) seems like a spectacular possibility, particularly with the lack of black men on the circuit courts. And a board member for the American Constitution Society and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law on top of his career. I really hope he will be considered for a judicial seat, maybe even the 4th Maryland vacancy. He seems to have a lot of ties to numerous senators on the SJC.

    (https://ali.org/members/member/275658/)

    Like

    • Yeah no thanks I’ll pass. In addition to being a BigLaw partner, there’s this…

      “most recently as Chief of Staff to U.S. Representative Abigail Spanberger, as Legislative Director to U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein.”

      These are two of the absolutely worst Democrats in Congress. Feinstein is horrible and should have resigned a while ago. Spanberger is among the worst of the overtly left bashing backstabbers. I can’t stand her and consider her worse than her opponent, extreme far right MAGA Republican Yesli Vega.

      Like

      • I would assume it would be hard to pass up an opportunity for a young lawyer to work with any high profile member of Congress or the senate. I wouldn’t hold that against the lawyer as long as the member was a Democrat & they didn’t push any of the legislation I thought was horrible.

        For instance, if he had worked for senator Manchin but the rest of his record was the same, I would be fine with that. He seems like a pretty solid progressive on his own record & he’s in his mid 40’s.

        Speaking of age, Margaret R. Guzman was born in 1960, about 7 years older then her graduation dates would make her seem. The same thing happened with David Urias last year. I would love to know the back stories behind the 7 & 10 year gaps respectively.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Sometimes, you gotta take what you can get. I have a friend who is interning for a Republican city council official. My friend is a liberal and she is working on liberal policies that the Republican official happens to support, such as expanding healthcare coverage. She told me that she would have applied to work for Katie Porter but the deadline was past by the time she was found out.

        Sri Srinivasan worked as a law clerk for J. Harvie Wilkinson (who is very far to the conservative side) and then for centrist justice Sandra Day O’Connor, however Srinivasan is one of the most liberal judges on the D.C. circuit court.

        Moral of the story: Who someone worked for is not always a good indicator of their political views.

        Like

      • @Dequan

        Jones had a good record at DOJ, but his record since leaving the DOJ has been abysmal. I would be willing to accept your argument if he was in BigLaw and a congressional aide for these bad senators early in his career rather than most recently.

        TBH, I actually find Manchin much less repulsive than the likes of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Josh Gottheimer, Kurt Schrader, Abagail Spanberger, and Sean Patrick Maloney. Henry Cuellar also belongs on that list in a different manner.

        Manchin is what we expect from West Virginia. I don’t find bashing him terribly productive as we are not getting anything better from there. The problem isn’t Joe Manchin, it’s the awful Democratic leadership that resulted in having to rely on Manchin as the deciding vote. These other Congresspeople, as well as Menendez and Feinstein are doing their treachery from blue seats.

        Like

      • The part of your argument I disagree with is in a general election, would the Republican nominee be better then Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Josh Gottheimer, Kurt Schrader, Abagail Spanberger, or Sean Patrick Maloney? If we use your West Virginia argument about we can only get a worst option if we didn’t have Manchin, which Republican who ran against any of the above mentioned would you rather see in Congress?

        I’m not talking about the primary, but after each of them have won their primary, it’s either them or the Republican. I would agree that maybe the Republican opponent of Henry Cuellar might be a better option because he’s so far to the right & anti-choice. But not sure I can say the same thing about the others you mentioned in a general election. Even if I don’t think of all of them very highly.

        Like

      • @Ryan Joshi

        That argument doesn’t work when you are 40+ and have a career already.
        Becoming a BigLaw partner after 10+ years of experience or a Chief of Staff for a Congressperson is not “taking what you can get”, but a clear choice you have made.

        Short of clear evidence to the contrary, I would hold Jones responsible for leading Spanberger’s office or Feinstein’s office.

        Like

      • @Shawn
        Ok I guess that makes sense. Leading a congressional office is very different from being an intern or staffer or law clerk just trying to pay off student loans or make your way into the workforce. So yes I think if you’re leading an office of a congressperson like Spanberger or Feinstein than it should be held against you.

        Like

    • Definitely. I never put people down for the Maryland 4th circuit seat unless I know for sure that they have ties to Maryland (I know many lawyers who work in DC live in Maryland or northern VA, but I rarely know which ones).

      Like

    • The article states tomorrow’s hearing will start to break the norm by having 2 cc & 4 dc nominees. But the hearing 2 weeks ago had 2cc & 2dc nominees as well. So I hop that will begin to be the norm unless they want to add additional hearings.

      Like

  16. @Dequan

    My answer is yes, the GOPer would be better than all the people I mentioned above. They are such left-bashing backstabbers of the highest order than I think they do far more harm than good.

    I mean take a look at Kurt Schrader, he lost his primary in Oregon, and promptly endorsed the GOPer for his race and endorsed a third party former Democrat for Governor (as everyone expected).
    Sean Patrick Maloney used his power at the DCCC to sabotage Pat Ryan’s campaign in the NY-19 special election because the GOP candidate Marc Molinaro was a friend. He released an internal poll showing Ryan behind to justify his refusal to spend money on the race. Pat Ryan won despite Maloney’s best efforts.
    Debbie Wasserman Schultz was the DNC chair when her leadership was used to rig the 2016 primary and bash Sanders and his supporters even after the primary can effectively over. This resulted in handing the election to Trump.
    Josh Gottheimer was instrumental in trying to sabotage a progressive agenda in the House on behalf of his Wall Street hedge fund donors.
    All of these people sit in seats which Biden won by double digits.

    For one the GOPer would be trounced on their ass in 2024 and we would likely get a less offensive Democrat. Secondly, the GOP is likely going to win the House anyway, so this is a good opportunity to get rid of these kinds of people.

    Like

    • I do agree with you to in extent in general. Particularly in short term pain for long term gain. I just don’t know if I’m these particular cases I would agree completely. Probably pre-Dobbs I would have. But now post-Dobbs, I’m not so certain Democrats can’t hold in to the House. It’s certainly not as certain now. So I would rather these members remain in office over Speaker McCarthy at this point in history. But I get your logic & agree with a lot of it.

      Like

      • Yeah well I’m calling bullshit on this one. People here, including yourself, have panned good polls for Democrats and pushed a bullshit narrative that the non-GOP polls are biased toward Democrats. You can’t follow that kind of logic and then also claim that the Democrats have a chance to hold the House. For example, there is no scenario where the Democrats hold the House and Maggie Hassan doesn’t win the NH race by double digits. None.

        Secondly, there actually is a potentially worse scenario for the Democrats in 2024 than a bunch of election deniers getting elected. That scenario is the Democrats holding the House and winning 52+ Senate seats, and then accomplishing basically nothing progressive for a second straight session in 2023-4. Much of the base will stay home in 2024 in that scenario. (I would probably vote for Trump or whomever if that scenario were to occur.) I have no confidence in this dinosaur leadership of the Democratic Party that will get rid of the filibuster and actually get things done. I am an optimist when it comes to winning elections, but a pessimist when it comes to actually getting policy enacted and judges confirmed. Unless the Democrats get Freeman, Abudu, and Bloomekatz confirmed before the midterms, I’m not likely to vote for Democrats outside of US Senate.

        Lastly, I’m not sure I would hypothetically prefer a 220 seat Democratic majority vs. a 215 seat minority with some of these problem characters like DWS, Maloney, or Gottheimer defeated. These piece of shit people are basically cancers.

        Like

      • Well keep in mind I am skeptical of all polls in general. But what poll have you seen that shows Dems in worst shape to keep the House post Dobbs then before? I haven’t seen one. So unless you have seen one that I missed, I most definitely stand by my statement that I think their chances of holding the House has improved.

        Now if your argument is they will not get anything done in the next two years in the majority which would be worse then losing the House, I just don’t agree worth you there. It may be popular to say Biden has been a failure but from my viewpoint it’s not factual. He has gotten a LOT accomplished even with a thin House majority & 50/50 senate. More then Trump got accomplished with a larger majority. And that’s not even counting judges.

        We just have a fundamental difference on if taking a chance on the future of our country keeping a democracy is worth getting rid of a handful of crappy congressman. I am not willing to roll the dice & take that chance. Not with this Republican Party. The stakes are too high in my opinion.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @Dequan

        I’m not saying that the Democrats chances of winning the House have not improved. I’d put the chances of holding the House at about 25-30% vs less than 5% pre-Dobbs.
        What I’m saying is that you cannot argue that the Democrats are 50/50 to win the Senate and think the Democrats have ANY chance to win the House. If the Democrats are no better than a 50% chance in the Senate, the House is LONG gone.

        ” they will not get anything done in the next two years in the majority which would be worse then losing the House”

        Yes this is absolutely my argument. Attacks on Trump and Dobbs will work for one election. But if the Democrats retain Congress and don’t pass a bill to legalize abortion nationally by getting rid of the filibuster, don’t assume it will work again. If they don’t get a voting rights bill passed, don’t assume that people will be willing to stand in line for hours in 2024.
        The only thing the Democrats have gotten done in Congress that I find useful is the climate portions in the so-called IRA. I would vote voted no on every single one of the bipartisan bills that have passed. They are useless or worse in my book, including the infrastructure bill that was 80% a GOP wet kiss.
        On judges, I just have one name, J.Michelle Childs. As I’ve said many times that one nomination is so bad that it wipes out the rest of Biden’s accomplishments in this realm.

        On democracy, let me tell you a dirty little secret. The majority of working class Americans and large numbers of young people of all races don’t give a shit about “keeping a democracy”. They would gladly be ok with authoritarianism if such a system would deliver for them and their families. And this isn’t just limited to the right, support for authoritarianism is growing strongly on the left too. If you care about saving democracy, you better find a way to show that democracy can actually deliver a fair shot for the general populace and not just the wealthy and big corporations. This is what Keynes and FDR understood well.

        Like

      • Democrats passed the initial Covid relief a few months after Biden entered office. Also the CHIPS bill that will bring manufacturing jobs back to the country. And I like the IRA bill, albeit it isn’t perfect. Plus Biden got us out of Afghanistan which is a huge plus for me. Also the burn pits legislation. We have near record low unemployment plus over 7 million jobs gained. I like what he’s doing with Ukraine fighting against Russian aggression, & that’s being done in a bi-partisan basis.

        I won’t rehash our differences on J. Childs (I hate being in the position to defender her because I truly think she was a horrible pick for her seat).

        As for a 52 seat majority not getting rid of the filibuster, you may be right. But I just find it hard for any of the 48 to backtrack after going in the record to get rid of it. Plus the one who in most afraid of backtracking, senator Leahy, is leaving the senate. Senator Feinstein is a potential flip flipper but I think at the end of the day she would stay the course.

        Now as for your comments on democracy, you may be right. I think in general large segments of our population are ok with long term bad decisions like forgoing democracy for short term gains. But I’m just not of the mind set that all is lost & we haven’t reached the point where we can’t save our democracy. That may take a coalition of some crappy congressman & senators but I would rather take that chance until the GOP cleans up there act & becomes a viable governing party again.

        Like

    • This is exactly why I consider the ABA biased and disregard their evaluations. The one or two people on the panel who gave these NQ ratings should be publicly identified (since a strong majority voted WQ on Martinez-Olguin).

      Like

      • Yes now this I agree with you completely on. I understand why you may want to keep members anonymous during the vetting process, but after the vote they should very much be public. Or at the very least a detailed explanation as to why they reached their conclusions .

        But at the end of the day I really don’t care what their rankings are. These are all qualified lawyers so just if they don’t fit the mold of what normal judicial nominees use to look like, that’s all for the better in my opinion. Keep the not qualified coming as long as they are young & progressive.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s