Judicial Nominations 2022 – Year in Review

As the first half of President Biden’s term draws to a close, his team can count judicial nominations (and confirmations) as an area of success as his Administration has outpaced other recent Administrations in both nominations and confirmations (all numbers are drawn from the Federal Judicial Center).  Biden also remains poised for a significant impact on the federal bench in the second half of his term.


In the first year of his presidency, Biden submitted 73 nominees to Article III courts, more than any other modern president. By the end of this year, Biden has submitted an additional 75 nominees, for a total of 148.  This is slightly below the 158 nominations that Trump announced in his first Congress, but, given the significantly larger number of vacancies that Trump inherited, compared to Biden, the fact that the gap is so close is nonetheless impressive.

Of these 148 nominations, 1 has been to the Supreme Court, 37 to the court of appeals, and 110 to the district courts.


In 2021, the Senate confirmed 40 Article III judges: 11 judges to the U.S. Court of Appeals; and 29 judges to the U.S. District Court.  The Senate subsequently confirmed 57 in 2022: 1 to the Supreme Court; 17 to the Court of Appeals; and 39 to the District Courts.

Furthermore, Biden saw confirmation of 65% of judicial nominees submitted in his first Congress.  This is significantly higher than the 53% that Trump saw.


Furthermore, President Biden has still not seen a single judicial nominee defeated in an up-or-down vote.  While Democrats did lose a confirmation vote on Third Circuit nominee Arianna Freeman, this was due to absences, and Democrats were able to confirm her on a motion to reconsider.

However, Biden is likely to have to withdraw two judicial nominations at the end of this Congress.  Eastern District of Wisconsin nominee William Pocan has been blue-slipped by GOP Senator Ron Johnson, despite Johnson having previously signed off on him.  With Johnson narrowly re-elected and Democrats not changing the district court blue slip policy so far, it is unlikely that Pocan has a path to confirmation and the White House will likely look for a new nominee.

Northern District of New York nominee Jorge Rodriguez faces a different issue.  The judge he was nominated to replace, Judge David Hurd, has declined to take senior status, expressing opposition to Rodriguez not being a Utica-based practitioner.  Barring another vacancy opening up on the court that Rodriguez might be nominated for (Judges Glenn Suddaby and Mae D’Agostino would both be eligible for senior status next Congress if they chose to take it), it is expected that he will not be renominated.


The Biden Administration has prioritized choosing women and racial/ethnic minorities for court seats, seeking to do so to offset the lack of diversity in the nominees of previous administrations.  They have also sought out nominees from backgrounds that are traditionally less likely to become judges, including public defenders, and civil rights attorneys.  Both focuses are reflected in the nominees put forward.

So far, Biden has nominated one woman to the Supreme Court, twenty-seven women to the court of appeals, and seventy women on the district level, making 66% of his judicial nominations women.  Biden’s confirmations has surged the number of women on the U.S. Court of Appeals from 59 to 64, moving the court of appeals from 33.3% female to 36.6% female.

Overall Assessment

Perhaps the greatest praise that can be given to the Biden Administration on judicial nominations is they have done more with less than any other recent administration.  President Biden had the narrowest of Senate majorities, dependent entirely on the presence of the Vice President, and had inherited a comparatively small number of judicial vacancies.  Nonetheless, he was able to outpace President Trump and President Obama through a combination of strategy, persistence, and luck.  Biden also owes a significant debt to the Senate Democratic caucus, who held together on every single nomination vote, allowing a number of controversial nominees to be confirmed despite strong Republican opposition; and to Sen. Lindsey Graham, who backed most of the President’s judges, allowing them to bypass time-consuming discharge votes.  Additionally, on multiple occasions, Graham allowed Biden appointees to be voted out of Committee and avoid discharge even where he ended up opposing the nominee in the end.  As a result, of the 97 judges confirmed under Biden, 90 received some Republican support for confirmation, meaning that just 7% of Biden confirmations were on party-line votes.  In comparison, 9% of Trump appointees in his first Congress drew no Democratic support.  With the Democratic majority now rising to 51, senators wishing to demonstrate some independence will presumably have more wiggle room to do so without jeopardizing confirmation.  As such, one may expect to see some Democrats oppose Biden nominees, but it is unlikely that any would do so in a manner that is likely to defeat them.  As such, with 113 vacancies still open to fill, Biden has the capacity to match, if not exceed, the 234 judicial confirmations that Trump saw.


  1. Sad to say but while her heart was in the right place, Bolden blew it here.
    This is something you do when you’re a federal judge, not when you are in a position where you will have to run for political office in short order and as unfair as it is, this will be a self inflicted wound for her going forward.
    Doesn’t change the fact Richard Bernstein crossed the line IMO and took himself off any consideration for elevation in the future.


  2. Excellent article addressing the concerns of the crowd that claim that people are unfairly focusing on just one or two of hector Laselle’s rulings.
    He has actually sat by designation on the highest court. We can use those cases as a fair benchmark to judge the type of Chief he’ll be. It’s absolutely clear that his and DiFiore’s jurisprudence are identical.

    That is not the court New York deserves:



    • Plenty of names to consider for that seat. Here is everyone from Delaware on my list:

      -Aaron Goldstein (born c. 1973): State Solicitor of Delaware.

      -Laura Hatcher (born c. 1981): Will begin serving as a Magistrate Judge in Delaware in April. Currently the Chief of the Civil Division at the US Attorney’s office in Delaware.

      -Christopher Howland (born c. 1980): Assistant US Attorney and openly gay.

      -Pilar Kraman (born c. 1976): Would be the first Hispanic federal judge from Delaware. Has done pro bono work representing asylum seekers as well as prisoners in civil rights cases.

      -Abigail LeGrow (born c. 1979): Judge, New Castle County Superior Court.

      -Alexander Mackler (born c. 1983): Current Chief Deputy Attorney General of Delaware. Former Assistant US Attorney. Also served as Deputy Counsel to Biden while he was VPOTUS and as his Senate Press Secretary before finishing law school. Also ran the late Beau Biden’s successful campaign for Delaware Attorney General.

      -LaKresha Roberts Moultire (born c. 1982): Current General Counsel of HBCU Delaware State University. Former Chief Deputy Attorney General of Delaware and ran for Attorney General of Delaware in 2018.

      -Bindu Ann Palapura (born c. 1980): Partner at Potter, Anderson & Corroon LLP. Would be the first AAPI federal judge from Delaware.

      -Raeann Warner (born c. 1980): Specializes in representing victims of childhood sexual abuse cases.

      -Jennifer Ying (born c. 1983): Partner at Morris, Nichols, Arnst & Tunnell LLP. Has done pro bono work with the ACLU of Delaware and would also be the first AAPI federal judge from Delaware.


  3. Andrews won’t be taking senior status until December so plenty of time for Biden to figure out who to nominate.
    I would also add Magistrate Judge Chris Burke to this list, as he is well respected in patent law etc.


  4. Watford is resigning from 9th Circuit !!! Let’s hope for a 5 star replacement….No Gov Hochul type nominations please !!!!!!!!!!!!


    • HUGE shock, especially since he was under consideration for SCOTUS at one point.

      Lots of good candidates. There won’t be any other black men on the 9th circuit (correct me if I’m wrong).

      Don’t be at all surprised if Judge Lamar Baker (California Court of Appeal, Division Five, Second Appellate District) is picked: https://www.courts.ca.gov/33001.htm

      Brian E. Nelson (Under Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence) is also a strong possibility given his ties to VP Harris from her days as California AG.


      • WOW, that is definitely a shocker. Paul Watford was a SOCTUS possibility so I definitely didn’t see this coming. I think Brian E. Nelson has to be considered a strong possibility, especially with his close ties to VP Harris.

        My personal favorite would be to withdraw Mónica Ramírez Almadani from the district court nomination & nominate her for the 9th instead. California of course has no shortage of Brest possibilities. Hopefully whoever is nominated will be to the left of Watford as he was slightly left of center.


      • Yes this is very surprising – between Costa, Feinerman, Hazel, and now Watford, an unusual number of young Obama appointees are calling it quits to go back into private practice. Watford is the most surprising – everyone knows the 5th Circuit is toxic (I don’t blame Costa for not wanting to regularly deal with Edith Jones and her ilk for the rest of his life), and being a district court judge in a busy district like Chicago/Baltimore can definitely be a lot. Being a liberal on CA9 is a pretty comfortable job though – but maybe it wasn’t Watford’s cup of tea knowing that he has aged out of consideration for SCOTUS.

        Yes I agree that Baker is a possible pick since they picked Sanchez (a Cal Ct App judge) for one of the first CA9 vacancies. My preference for a Southern California-based vacancy would be Sunshine Sykes given her progressive background and the fact that she would be the first Native appellate court judge (I had thought she would replace Wardlaw, who really needs to go senior already). Biden’s other C.D. Cal. are also in the mix – Frimpong would also be a good pick given age/progressive background, and I believe Slaughter is a black man as well.

        Here’s hoping we get another Holly Thomas – I wonder if Padilla will have more of a say since this is a Southern California vacancy (and also because Feinstein is essentially senile at this point).


      • In early 2020 there was an article about how the 10 Trump judges made a “sea change” on the 9th circuit. So it could very well be a toxic environment even if it’s a minority of judges creating such an environment (for example, Daniel P. Collins “sends emails in all hours of the night” and wasted no time on trying to overturn longstanding circuit precedent and Lawrence VanDyke is homophobic). Some of the 9th’s sitting judges had so much dirt on the Trump judges that they would only speak to the press on condition of anonymity.


      • Like Dequan, I had Watford down as a potential SCOTUS nominee, so this is a massive surprise. It’s also an interesting counter-point to the commonly-made argument that ‘younger = better’ (within reason), as if younger judges retire early anyway, the benefits of naming someone in their 40s may be less than assumed.


  5. Sounds like an excellent opportunity for Biden to make another nominee to the 9th. I hope we get an A+ nominee born in the late 70s or early 80s to add some more youth to the bench.


  6. Maybe it’s a combination of knowing you won’t get onto SCOTUS and not wanting to be a part of a court system that is sadly going to be spent writing dissents if you’re a Democratic appointee.
    Whatever the reason is, I could see Sunshine Sykes getting the nominee, as she would be the first Native American on the bench.


  7. In light of Watford’s announcement, it’s worth thinking about the other three judges on the Circuit that Democrats will want to retire by next year – Gould, Rawlinson and Wardlaw.

    Rawlinson, infamously, has made it clear she’ll only take senior status if Berna Rhodes-Ford is nominated as her successor – shades of Robert King on the Fourth Circuit. Not sure if that’s a bargain worth striking, although it might be if it’s the only way to get her to retire.

    Gould is in his late 70s and has MS, so I’m honestly surprised he hasn’t given notice yet. I don’t know enough about Wardlaw to really comment, but given she’ll reach 25 years of judicial service as a CoA judge this year, she may see it as a good occasion to step down.

    Nominations-wise, given how reluctant she is to move out of California, it might be worth trying to persuade Leondra Kruger to take up Watford’s seat or, retirement permitting, Wardlaw’s?


    • I don’t think Kruger wants the seat – she would’ve been an obvious pick for the last few vacancies, so the fact that it went to other candidates makes me wonder if she turned it down. If she changed her mind/is interested I’m sure she’d be a front runner for the Watford vacancy and any future ones, but a California Supreme Court Justice might consider being on an intermediate appellate court (even a federal circuit court) as a step down (not to mention more of a caseload and probably less interesting work).


  8. Unlike pretty much everyone here, I’m not really surprised to see the Watford news. It has been established that a lot of younger Democratic appointed judges are retiring earlier for a variety of reasons, foremost the lower pay compared to private practice. Just because a judge is appointed at a young age doesn’t mean they’ll last on that court longer than someone who is appointed at a much older age than them, and thus this is yet another example why age is overrated by many here. Whoever is appointed here will likely be a state court judge considering who has been nominated to the other CA openings so far (with only a few exceptions) so which ones would y’all consider?


  9. But judicial nominees know the pay for federal judges can’t compare to top law firms in the big cities, but that is what they sign up for…

    Perhaps some just don’t like being a judge, and/or some relationships with other judges or court staff is so toxic they have no choice but to leave..

    I just don’t think it’s money only as to why some younger judges are leaving the court, you know full well judge pay can’t compare to big firm or in some cases, getting job as legal analyst on TV network…

    But federal judges also probably enjoy a good benefit package, plus the senior status perk (receive full pay and benefits and work less hours) when eligible..


    • I agree with Rick completely. There’s no way Costa, Hazel, Watford or any other judge who retires before they are eligible for senior status didn’t know they couldn’t have made more money in the private sector over being a judge from day one. There has to be other factors as to why they are making their decision.

      And for those who say this proves age doesn’t matter, remember this is still only seven judges retiring early out of over 100 pending vacancies plus the 94 Biden has already confirmed. That’s around 3%. I’ll take my chances on the other 97% & nominate young judges.

      As to @ livesofthelaw earlier point, believe me I too want judge Rawlinson as well as judge King to retire. But unfortunately you will be doing more damage long term by allowing them to name their successor as the only way to get them to retire. It will set a bad precedent. I just wish the judges were smarter & didn’t go public with their demands.

      I understand it in judge Karen Caldwell’s case when she said she will only step down if she’s replaced with a conservative because we all know she’s a McConnell hack (She actually dated Mitch when they were younger) anyway. Plus she’s a district court judge in a red state so we’re not gonna get a fire breathing liberal to replace her anyway. But a circuit court judge should never make these demands public. They should use surrogates to quietly relay the message & the deal be made behind the scenes. Once it’s made public, you really can’t nominate the person even if (Like in the case with King) the person suggested was my number one pick in the first place.


  10. Agreed that the pay is surely a factor, but unlikely to be the main one – every judge knows going into the job that they’re likely to be paid far more in the private sector. It seems more likely that a person who reaches the pinnacle of their career in their 40s might get bored at the idea of doing that same thing for the rest of their lives and want something different. It’s also interesting to note how a disproportionate majority (I believe) of judges who resign early are men – maybe that’s partly the burden to provide for their families, but I wouldn’t be surprised if a certain type of male judge is more likely to feel like he was “entitled” to elevation in a way that is less common among women.

    Even if pay is an issue, the obvious solution is just to nominate judges with a true interest in public service rather than ex-Big Law partners/AUSAs (I wouldn’t truly consider being a federal prosecutor “public service” in the way being a public defender or civil rights attorney is because so many federal prosecutors go back and forth between that and big law). You didn’t hear RBG complain about her judicial salary versus what she got at the ACLU.

    Lastly, I know John Roberts was whining back in the late 2000s about judicial salaries being too low because they were linked to congressional salaries, but now district judges get $220k a year – $50k more than senators/representatives and I don’t think he’s complained again since.


  11. Not this or 10 more early resignations would change my mind about appointing young judges.

    People who point to Judge Watford’s resignation and say, “A-ha! See? It’ll be better to appoint only the elderlies to the bench” are already scraping the bottom of the barrel for persuasive arguments as to why less than 10% of early resignations outweigh the vast majority of young appointees who stay on the bench.

    The seemingly disproportional number of Dem-appointees opting for early resignation is a mirage BUT it also shows that Dem-appointees have since gotten wiser about the political realities of judicial replacement. They are doing it now because they know that their replacement won’t be some unpalatable FedSoc hack. Expect this in reverse when there’s a Republican in the WH and a GOP senate.

    Despite this being unexpected, this IS a good thing and a win all round!
    1: He’s more moderate. Hopefully now we’ll get a Sunshine Sykes or a Holly A. Thomas type and age judge.
    Judicial philosophy win – check!
    2: He’s waited until the Dem secured 2 more years of senate control and resigning under Biden, not a GOP pres. in 2020, 2024, or some time before the next 10 years in which he’d be eligible for senior status.
    One more Biden CoA judge win – check!
    3: Judge Watford is 55. Hopefully he’ll live a long and happy (and now guaranteed) prosperous life. Biden now can appoint someone who, even if only slightly younger, represents renewal on the 9th!
    Jurisprudential renewal/continuity win – check!
    4: Going back to Judge Watford’s moderate-ish record, it’s now good that IMO he’s now well and truly out of any serious SCOTUS consideration.
    Smaller pool of moderates potential SCOTUS win – check!

    I thank Judge Watford for his 11 years of judicial service and for resigning with plenty of time for a Dem replacement.
    I thank Biden for only considering a young and vibrant progressive for this seat.
    I thank the California senators to not push back against the above or counter with a subpar state judge.
    I thank Durbin and Schumer to move this replacement through to confirmation at least by the time Watson’s resignation takes effect.
    I thank those who would rather nominees be in their 60s to find better arguments and only work in GOP Admins.


  12. Also another thing I’m thinking about… a good number of red state Dems took senior status but not waiting for a successor — and now their seat is vacant and without a nominee. I see these possibilities for why:

    1) they are oblivious to the blue slip process
    2) they have too much faith in their state’s GOP senators
    3) they don’t care enough to stay on the bench indefinitely

    In some cases it is literally counter-productive. For example, B. Lynn Winmill in Idaho went senior in hopes of adding a judge to the court. His goal was to go from 2 active judges & no senior judges (since Edward Lodge outright retired shortly prior) to 2 active judges & 1 senior judge, but because there is STILL no nominee, Idaho now has 1 active judge & 1 senior judge, in other words, Winmill’s move means Idaho is even more of a judicial emergency. Winmill and other red state Democrats should have waited for a successor (provided they didn’t leave the bench due to failing health).


    • “1) they are oblivious to the blue slip process”

      That’s a breath taking take. You think that the very thing that allowed almost all pre-2017 judges to get there job is unknown to them?

      I think the simplest reason is that most of them thought they had given enough notice and really wanted to assume senior status for the lighter caseload.
      If the R senators are holding out against Biden, what can they do? Not go senior at all? Just die on the bench?
      Even when blue slip isn’t in play you still see major delay. Take Costa’s seat on the 5th circuit. It’s coming up a year since he announced his intention and still no movement. Do you really blame judges for leaving, after they’ve given so much notice?

      In your example, Idaho, I am not too worried about that. I thought the two senators worked in good faith with Biden on the US attorney vacancy, giving that state Joshua Hurwit who’s in his early 40s. Maybe we’ll get an acceptable district court nominee.

      But no, I don’t blame judges for eventually leaving after giving a Dem president and Dem senate enough notice of their intention. They did the right thing by waiting for the optimal timing. It’s not up to them to change the blue slip curtesy. The ball is no longer in their court.

      Liked by 1 person

  13. I’m sure this is a factor as well.
    Can’t be much fun being a liberal/moderate jurist who knows any decent ruling you do will get overturned in short order.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. The costa seat being still vacant is nothing other than cowardice from biden simple, he is scared that bad faith hacks like cruz will attack the nominee and create chaos. If only biden had the same temerity as trump who wasn’t bothered about that and who shove patick bumatay, kenneth lee and other partisan hacks down the democrats throats..
    This same thing will play out likely with the kanne seat on CA7, i predict the two GOP senators will stall it


    • I wouldn’t be concerned now that the Democrats have a majority in the Senate, and you have a tendency to be overly negative so it’s not like this fear is actually warranted. It’s difficult for Democrats to nominate candidates in red states without the help of a group like the Federalist Society like Trump and other Republicans had.


      • I’m not concerned about any circuit court vacancies that are open in January 2023. I am very concerned about any vacancy that occurs after January 2024. With Biden showing red state vacancies can take upwards of a year to fill, combined with him being perfectly fine with letting 4 circuit court seats going unfilled (Including two in blue states) had Democrats lost the midterms, it’s very possible to see a scenario where a circuit court vacancy in a red state that is announced after January 2024 could go unfilled.

        We all know the senate will take off virtually the entire months of August & October in 2024, so your really talking about 10 months to consult with two Republican senators (Who will surely drag their feet), vet, announce, hold a hearing & vote to confirm a nominee. I’m not confident that will happen. But all vacancies before the end of January 2024 should get a confirmed judge even with this administration & senate.


  15. Even if a Circuit court vacancy occurs on Halloween 2024, Democrats should still fill the seat after what happened in 2020 with the Barret nomination, who was confirmed after 50 million people + had already voted..


    • WOW… So we don’t have a nominee for the 4th circuit in a blue state because Cardin & Biden can’t agree? Are you serious??? Had the Dems lost the midterms the seat would have gone unfilled. This is infuriating. And senator Tubberville’s press secretary’s statement that “The White House has gone radio silence” in judicial vacancies is also concerning.


      • Yes it’s silly that this is what almost led to Republicans flipping this seat, but I bet Cardin is the one who wants an older/less progressive/non-diverse candidate (we know the admin will nominate young progressives if it can, and Cardin’s a pretty low-profile backbencher who definitely seems more centrist than progressive). Probably his campaign counsel (I couldn’t figure out who that is, so if anyone can, please share) or someone most folks on this blog would not have approved of. I still think an old moderate would’ve been better than letting the seat flip to the Republicans, but at least this shouldn’t be an issue post-midterms. At least this is public now – Demand Justice/AFJ/etc. would be wise to start pressuring Cardin to stop being such an obstructionist.


      • @Frank

        I’m going to speculate on the Cardin/White House divide. Perhaps Cardin is pushing for District Judge Stephanie Gallagher, whom Cardin pushed for during the Obama Presidency than persuaded Trump to appoint. He obviously thinks highly of her. If that’s the case, the Biden White House would likely prefer someone more partisan and ideological.


  16. I think we should be careful about assuming that Tuberville is telling the truth here; it could just be he’s refused to entertain any nominees that the Biden Administration would consider appointing.

    The dispute over Motz’s seat on the other hand is truly eyeroll-worthy. Like others, I’m curious to learn who he’s proposing, to try and understand what the problem is.


    • I agree with both. Tubberville may be telling the truth but there is probably more to the story. Perhaps the silence from The White House is because the counter offer was so ridiculous or out of the realm of possibility that they would rather use their time on blue states & red states where the Republicans will actually work in good faith. But I still think radio silence is the wrong approach. They should keep a long & detail paper trail & make the case to Durbin to amend blue slips as that is truly the only way these seats will get filled other than a horrible Chad Meredith type deal.

      And I completely agree Cardin is most likely the one trying to recommend a run of the mill type nominee. The only district court nominee from Maryland over the past 8 or so years that has been solid is Boardman. Cardin most definitely is trying to pass on somebody that would make a red state Republican blush.

      Liked by 1 person

      • @Dequan

        More on Alabama. I continue to be certain that Magistrate Judge Jerusha Adams is the Biden Administration’s choice for the Middle District vacancy. Its past appointments record points to her. As for the Senators, I don’t know what to think. My opinion is that they might give her the blue slip, but only for a major concession on the northern Alabama vacancy. Perhaps they want Adams and Edmund LaCour as a package and the White House isn’t willing.

        I’m only speculating at this point, I have no hard evidence. This is just consistent with past decisions by both the White House and the Senators.


      • I don’t know about the names but I’m sure your right about the senators wanting a package deal. The problem is what’s the ratio. If it was 3 to 1 like in Pennsylvania, I think Biden would go for that. That’s working in good faith.

        My guess is Tubbervillie isn’t trying to work in good faith. He probably presented them with a 2 to 1 ratio or knowing him even a 1 to 1. That’s not acceptable. I’d rather leave a long paper trail & take my chances on presenting that to Durbin & he amends blue slips on a state-by-state basis.

        I wouldn’t even take Alabama’s version of Dale Ho for the Democrat pick if it was a 2 to 1 ratio, let alone 1 to 1. 3 to 1 is fair & if there are less then 4 vacancies in the state, I would give the Republicans their 1 to fill the 2 or 3 vacancies now as long as Durbin understands that when the fourth vacancy eventually occurs if the senators refuse to turn in their blue slips, they are reneging on the deal & the nomination of the fourth nominee should proceed regardless.


  17. What really hurts and is painful is that democrats worked in good faith with trump allowing him to put hacks on blue state district courts. Dick durbin allowed trump to appoint 6 JUDGES! 6! to the ND of Illinois.
    Think about how unfathomable such a concept would be now with biden in red state district courts. Its shameful that democrats allowed trump to appoint anyone to the district courts in blue states.
    Belonging to the federalist society on its own should mean your blocked from ever getting a chance to be a district judge in a blue state if its a republican nominee, yes i know anthony johnstone is among but he is a liberal, yet schumer, durbin and other democrats let trump do this.
    Its just so infuriating. Both sides play different scripts, one side cares only about power and getting partisan hacks into the courts while dems try to be bipartisan.
    Theres no reason federalist society hacks and right wing trump judges should be on any district court in newyork, illionis, hawaii etc or any state with two democratic senators.
    Take texas for example, so many open vacancies in their district courts and yet vile man like cruz would never allow biden to appoint ACLU, voting rights/NAACP laywers, so why do democrats allow them to appoint right wingers to district courts that they can fully block?
    I just don’t get it.
    Treat them as they treated us!
    I will keep reminding everyone on this forum that the prediction i have is that the kanne CA7 vacancy will remain vacant through the entire 2023 year because of republican senators stalling. Thats my prediction.
    They cooperated with biden to appoint doris pryor because its liberal replacing liberal and it makes no ideological changes.
    They will never acquiese to the same thing when its replacing a right wing reagan conservative judge and biden will foolishishly in the spirit of ”bipartisanship” allow it. The same prediciton i have for costa seat on CA5 there will be no nominee this year.
    Why?because they value bipartisanship over results.
    Can you imagine mcconell leaving a circuit seat vacant for a year because the two democratic senators didn’t agree to it? The notion alone is ludicrous.
    They shoved patrick bumatay and kenneth lee down our throats and told us to like it. Thats the type of people we are dealing with. You cant play with kid gloves with this folks.
    Imagine as a black litigant or indigenE in chicago or another blue state thinking you will get a fair or sympathetic sentence from trump judge? This stuff affects peoples lifes, its important. we shouldnt look over just from a criminal justic perspective the damage this right wingers on district courts in blue states will do to people seeking justice or even a second chance in the justice system.
    I truly yearn for the day when a democratic president and senate plays hardball with these republicans.


  18. I don’t even know what to say…
    Trump would have proceeded with the nomination, which is why you had a few Republicans upset with this circuit court nominees, especially Kennedy.
    If Biden is willing to entertain Republicans (Chad Meredith!) and Dems (most NJ!) when they recommended horrible candidates, then I simply cannot imagine how horrendous Cardin’s pick must be! Like Dequan, I, too, am amusing the problem is with Cardin and not Biden.
    And to gable a court of appeals seat over the disagreement? Wow. When does Cardin’s term end. Hope he’ll never run again.
    I won’t even suggest that Biden ignore Cardin’s objection like Trump did. That’s almost impossible to see Biden or Dems at large doing, unfortunately.


    • The only way I can see Cardin’s pick being more progressive is if the candidate is a law professor since Biden doesn’t like them as judicial nominees (but since Cardin is a relatively middle of the road Democrat, I’d be surprised if that was the case). I do think that we would have seen a nominee (and a confirmation) had the Democrats lost the Senate.


  19. It’s absurd a seat has been held up that long because of a dispute with a senator but I imagine in this case it’s because it’s not a Republican senator, it’s a Democratic one and if Cardin has stated he’ll vote no if it’s not one of his preferred nominees, that combined with Republican votes might be enough to sink him or her.
    I hope progressive/moderates call him and let him know it’s time to stop keeping this seat open.

    Liked by 1 person

    • He’s also up in 2024 (when he’ll be 81), and it’s not like Maryland is short on ambitious Democrats. Somebody should definitely look into primarying him (ideally from the left) simply because Maryland should have a senator who can be expected to survive his/her next full term.


      • Hopefully Cardin thinks the Democrats won’t hold the majority & decides against being in the minority again & gracefully bows out. After governor Moore’s win, I’m not worried about if something happens & Cardin doesn’t finish his term like I was the past 8 years. I just want an actual progressive senator in the seat.


      • @Dequan I was thinking a primary challenge more to pressure Cardin to not pull this stunt with other nominations (or anything else the Senate might do) in the next 2 years. Really no reason to have a difficult old moderate in a state as blue as Maryland, and it would be a good way to put other senators who are too moderate for their states on notice.


      • Oh yea, I’m all for primary challenges in states where whoever comes out of it will hold the seat in the general. However I just say my number one primary wish would be against Menendez in 2024. Not just because he’s horrible on judicial nominees (Which is enough in my book) but also because he seems to be corrupt to the core.


  20. I may have found out what’s causing the delay in Idaho. Wendy Olson was not controversial when she was appointed U.S. Attorney. But in 2016, some claimed that she mishandled a major case involving some migrant children in Twin Falls. There was a horrific sexual assault of a 5 y/o girl by three migrant children whose parents were admitted as refugees. So awful, I can’t bring myself to describe it.

    The U.S. Attorney’s office got involved because it involved refugees admitted into the country. When criticism of the immigration policy got heated, Olson’s office put out a statement that spreading inflammatory or threatening statements about the perpetrators may violate Federal law.

    This has led local conservatives to imply or openly say that Olson downplayed the crime and perhaps she and advocates for refugees and immigration approve of this rape. No doubt that the Senators are catching local heat over this.

    As for the other three applicants, not much is known about them.


    • The issue with Idaho from what I remember is Olsen was the only one acceptable. The other three would also all be the first woman judge in the district but none of them were really worth the SIC slot & floor time. If I remember correctly one was born in the late 1950’s. That’s beyond ridiculous.

      The Idaho senators worked in much better good faith with Obama surprisingly. David Nye was acceptable & I was happy they re-recommended him to Trump. I know how bad Biden wants to nominate the first woman but honestly if the senators could recommend to him a nominee more in the mood of the US Attorney, that would be well worth the loss in diversity.


    • Per this article from last year (https://www.idahopress.com/news/local/eye-on-boise-gop-senators-reviewing-possible-federal-judge-nominees/article_81b9535f-bbbf-522d-87f4-d7d824f20a7d.html):

      The slate of nominees that the [Idaho] Democratic officials sent the White House, in alphabetical order and not ranked, were Idaho Falls attorney DeAnne Casperson; Boise attorney Keely Duke; Boise attorney Deborah Ferguson; and former US Attorney for Idaho Wendy Olson.

      Idaho has never had a woman as a federal judge. Maybe they should consider AUSA Syrena Hargrove if none of the others can get through.


      • Keely Duke (born c. 1974) is a former federal defender & would be my first choice even before I knew about the Wendy Olson issues @Mitch mentioned above. DeAnne Casperson (Born c. 1966) mostly defended corporations & management side cases.

        Deborah Ferguson is the most liberal out of the four. She successful constitutional challenge to Idaho’s same sex marriage ban & worked with the ACLU. Unfortunately she was born c. 1959 which takes her out of the running in my book albeit if the Idaho senators would only sign off on her & Casperson, I would definitely go with Ferguson despite her age.


      • I’d never heard of Syrena Hargrove, but if none of the others work out, she’s worth looking at.

        Hargrove has lots of experience as a prosecutor, she’s been an ASUA since 2008. I don’t know if she’s ever been in private practice.


  21. @Ethan

    I looked up the other three nominees. Deborah Ferguson has practiced law for 34 years. She seems to specialize in civil rights law, though she’s also practiced other fields. DeAnne Casperson specializes in employment law and Keely Duke specializes in medical malpractice law.

    I thought that Wendy Olson had it in the bag, but didn’t know about that horrible case that she’d been criticized for. I’m sure the White House doesn’t want to deal with that.


      • The only scenario that somebody like Barbra Lee would be good in is if Feinstein couldn’t finish her term for whatever reason. Newsome has already committed to naming a Black woman to the senate if given the opportunity. If he named somebody like London Breed or another younger Black woman then they would have the power of incumbency in the general. If he were to nominate Barbra Lee as a place holder & she promised she wouldn’t run in the general, that would be the best case for all in that scenario.

        Porter’s worst case scenario is Feinstein leaves this year, Newsome names a young Black woman that wants to run in the general & she gets a year as an incumbent. Porter’s best case scenario is Feinstein finishes her term & retires.


      • Three weeks ago, Katie Porter would have been my absolute favorite for this seat.
        However, there’s been so revolt from her former staff who’ve alleged that she’s contributed to a hostile environment in her office.
        This broke after she allegedly fired a worker for giving her COVID. Porter denies all of this.
        But still, a high-profile US Senate campaign will only draw more scrutiny, forcing her from campaigning into defending mode. Maybe it’ll be better to avoid the drama and go with another progressive? This is California, after all.


      • And it’s not like the deep bench of progressives are being put in the federal bench for the most part… Lol

        But in all seriousness, I’m not so worried about those accusations about Porter in California. If it was a swing state maybe yes, but the Democrat primary is the real general election in 2024 for US senate. As a matter of fact, now that I think of it I believe California is a state in which two Democrats can actually advance to the general if they are the top two vote getters. So I’m even less worried. I’m not saying Porter is my personal choice, just saying I’m not too worried about that.


      • To be fair, Kamala Harris had even worse accusations & she’s the Vice President now. I truly don’t see it being an issue for her in California. Her buffet worry will be shoeless throws their name in the hat & who the establishment lines up behind.


  22. I think if she runs, London Breed will win that seat. I also think she’ll be picked by Gavin should anything happen to Feinstein. That may not make progressives happy, but Breed has got support from a wide range of the donor base and has a high name recognition. Porter has too many issues in her background and opposition researchers will have a field day against her.


    • Frank’s comment is just silly – Breed doesn’t even have anything close to unified support among her base in SF (in part because she’s pissed progressives off in one of the most progressive cities in the country), while Porter is a progressive who has proven her electability (and fundraising potential) in an Orange County swing district. There’s no question about who will be the stronger candidate – even if Newsom were to appoint Breed to the seat, she’s not going to clear the field the way Padilla did.

      Frank, it’s fine (and preferable from a transparency point of view) to just admit your personal biases as a conservative instead of trying to dress it up as objective analysis. I can honestly say that I’m far closer ideologically to Porter than the likes of Breed, but I would still prefer for Porter to stay in her OC swing seat so Dems can hold it in 24 (and after).


    • That’s not gonna happen. To move from a court with 7 members (CA Supreme Ct pays more) to being 1 of 50 judges on court has to be unpalatable.

      It’s probably been over 100 years if ever someone moved Ca Supreme Ct to 9th circuit.

      Bush circumvented Ca Senators by sending Janice R. Brown to DC Circuit.


    • I wish Sen. Chuck Grassley a healthy recovery. It seems like whenever a Republican is out for whatever reason, it always falls right before or during a recess. I remember senator Collins got Covid, but it was right before a 2-week recess. That allowed her to continue her streak of not missing a floor vote which I believe at this time is the longest active streak of any senator.

      On another note, with Paul Watford’s unexpected resignation, I will repeat I remain slightly optimistic that Biden will get the now 13 more circuit court vacancies he will need to fill to pass Trump’s 54. Watford’s announcement was completely unexpected & it just shows that a vacancy can occur for numerous reasons, even from a Republican appointee like judge Kanne.

      The Federal Circuit alone has three active judges born before 1940. While I wish them well, the reality is time catches up with everybody so there’s a strong possibility that court alone will see multiple vacancies over the rest of this Congress.

      I’m not as optimistic about Biden filling all of the vacancies even if he got 13 more to fill depending on when the announcement is made. I strongly believe any announced vacancy after January of next year that is not in a blue state runs the risk of not being filled. Between Republican senators dragging their feet to the multiple recess weeks (And in the case of August & October, MONTHS) & the unpredictability of if senator Manchin will vote to confirm any more judges after a certain time, combined with The White House taking a long time to announce nominees as it is, I think circuit court vacancies announced after that time run the risk of remaining vacant through Biden’s first term.


  23. Roger Wicker says he will support Scott Colom: https://cdispatch.com/news/2023-01-11/cafb-absolutely-essential-says-wicker-during-tour/

    Wicker also told The Dispatch on Tuesday he would support the nomination of District Attorney Scott Colom as a U.S. district judge.

    President Joe Biden nominated Colom last year for a judgeship for the Northern District of Mississippi. Colom now serves as district attorney for the 16th Circuit Court District.

    The nomination stalled, and Colom will now need to be renominated for the issue to go before the newly elected Senate, which must confirm him.

    “I will vote for the confirmation of Scott Colom,” Wicker said. “The administration, I think, has been very slow in getting these nominations to us, and now that the new Congress has begun, they’re going to have to go through a procedure to renominate everybody. I don’t know when that will come up, but when it does I will be supportive.”

    The nomination goes to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will either call for a hearing on Colom’s candidacy or deny it. However, each senator from Mississippi is allowed to partake in the “blue slip” process. This allows a home-state senator to stop a judicial nominee’s hearing if either of the senators from the state don’t return their blue slip.

    Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Mississippi) has not publicly stated her stance on Colom’s nomination, and could not be reached by The Dispatch on Tuesday.

    The new Senate boasts a 51-49 Democratic majority, and a Democratic majority on its committees, which could speed up the confirmation process for Biden nominees.


  24. So Garland appoints a special counsel after trump hack U.S attorney in illinois recommended that course of action, off course. This is what i say two sides play the game differently, can you imagine Michael mukasey opening a special counsel on bush? or i cant even say it with a straight face barr on trump? The notion alone is asinine.
    Yet for democrats this is what it is.
    Why is this happening? Because biden at heart is a political coward who favors bipartisanship and getting along and not getting criticized by the GOP above all else.
    He values comity over progress.
    In no sane world should a centrist/right wing judge especially on criminal matters have been a democratic AG but the coward that biden was so scared to pick sally yates. Why? Because chuck grassley and lindsay graham would be upset! and we cant have that!
    Yet again in judicial nominations he shows he is a coward
    in no sane world should costa replacement on he 5th circuit not have been named yet,in no sane world should ted cruz have any input on any democratic judge especially a circuit one at that, in no sane world should it have taken over a year to get a nominee to the kansas open vacancy.
    Reminder D.C circuit judge justin walker, took less than TWO months from the time his nomination was sent to the US senate to when he got a confirmation vote, trump nominated him on 4th MAY 2020 he was confirmed in june. Can you even fathom a biden circuit pick moving with such fast time line? Off-course not.
    The closest we got was roopali desai because bad faith GOP senators thought they could curry favor from sinema to tank bidens agenda, simply for nefarious reasons.
    I ask everyone in Good faith to dispute any of these points.
    Reminder i will keep repeating this on every post i make on this site, the prediction i have is there will be no nominee to the open VACANCY on the 7th circuit this senate year, why? Because the two right wing GOP senators will stall and stall in the guise of working in good faith with biden, because they know it is a right wing judge seat that is open, and biden
    the coward he is will not force the issue and let it like that.
    Anyone wants to bet 10bucks on that? No nominee will be sent to the senate this year to kanne seat on the 7th circuit because biden is a coward at heart.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I can see you are frustrated. I agree with the other person who responded to your comment. But, I ‘ll address some issues that you mentioned.

      First, it was Garland who appointed the special counsel not the person who was selected. As for Garland as AG, I think Biden wanted him for that job. I believe Doug Jones would have been the fallback if Republicans had held the senate.

      I first remember Garland as the prosecutor for the Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. In April 19, 1995 he blew up a federal building that killed 168 people including children. He said the children were “collateral” damage. He was executed. Do you have a problem with that?

      I also learned about Garland that Justice William Brennan said that he was the best clerk he ever had. That’s quite a statement.

      I think Biden is doing as well as he can now. We can see how the house republicans are conducting themselves. Along with their senate counterparts they are nothing more than a grievance party.

      No one on here came name one thing Republicans want to do on the behalf of ordinary Americans.


  25. @aangren

    I agree with a lot of what you said. There are two disagreements I have so I’ll focus on those.

    I think Garland appointing a Special Counsel was the right move. I was actually hoping he would do that after the second batch was found, let alone FOUR. The reason is we both know the two situations between Trump & Biden are different. Trump refused to hand over classified documents & then lied to The National Archives & said he had no more while as soon as Biden’s lawyers found he had some, he turned them right over & is cooperating fully. So a Special Counsel is all about appearance. You want to show the country that you will investigate both cases the same by appointing somebody independent. I have no problem with that & think it’s brilliant. Only bad things could have come out of treating the two differently regardless of how a Republican Attorney General would have handled it.

    Also I just wholeheartedly disagree with you that we will not see a nominee for the 7th circuit before the end of the year, albeit I do not disagree with your reasoning as to why you think we won’t. I don’t see that happening even with the senators dragging their feet for two reasons.

    First, judge Kanne dies on June 16th last year. There is simply no way a circuit court vacancy will take over a year & a half to have an announced nominee past the second year of Biden’s presidency. The 10th circuit court seat took that long during the first two years when the FBI had a LOT more on its plate such as vetting many many more officials & the J6 investigation. Now that many people have been confirmed, vetting should not take as long now.

    Second, I actually think Biden will be able to come to an agreement with the Indiana senators on a nominee. It’s probably worse that he will, because we won’t get somebody like Jessica Eglin in that case, but if it fills all of the district court vacancies along the way, as long as the nominee is acceptable, I think it’s worth the deal that could be reached.


    • Dequan, this poster doesn’t deserve being listened to. He continues to troll by making doom and gloom posts about how Biden is a failure with not appointing progressives or acting progressive, but was a big supporter of Childs, who while immensely qualified, is certainly not progressive. Is any serious Democrat really saying today that a special council shouldn’t have been appointed for the Biden files? No.
      We will see a 7th circuit nominee by the end of the year. and Wamble along with the other nominees who weren’t processed yet (save Rodriguez and Pocan)will get renominated in short otter per a Biden Administration official to Reuters, yet this “Progressive ” went on a long “rant” saying that his nomination was dead. He doesn’t speak with anything besides unwarranted fear and until he changes nobody should engage with them.


      • Very true Frank. And I’m still holding out hope Rodriguez will be renominated for the vacant Southern district seat. I doubt it since that’s the most powerful in the country. Maybe with him being close to Hocul & an actual progressive, combined with the need for more Hispanics on the federal bench, perhaps they will go ahead & have him move the 90 miles South & put him on the court. I think that would be the fair thing to do since what I want to be done which is impeach judge Hurd isn’t going to happen.


  26. I know we have focused on New York, but Pennsylvania supreme court justice Max Baer died. That will give incoming governor Shapiro an immediate vacancy to fill. Let’s hope he can do a better job then his predecessor (Who appointed a Republican with one of his picks) & of course better than Hochul.


    • Shapiro is a moderate Democrat in the mold of Kathy Hochul, so I’d expect a status quo, middle of the road nominee. Likely it’ll be someone to the left of LaSalle, but not a fire breathing progressive by any means, and I wouldn’t rule out a Republican just to appeal to those voters who supported his campaign.


  27. Couple of things to clear up on the PA Supreme Court.
    1( First of all, in Wolf’s defense when he made the Republican appointment he did, Republicans controlled the State Senate and they were never going to allow a flip to happen.
    2) To the above point, any appointment made will have to face voters the year and could face other challengers so whomever the pick is, no assurances he or she would hold that seat.
    3) Shapiro is no Hochul and the idea he would let a seat flip to appeal to some voters is absurd.
    The biggest issue some folks here will have is the nominee likely won’t be a flaming liberal but he or she is most certainly going to be a Democrat.
    Whether he/she gets confirmed and can retain his/her seat this year is another question.


    • @Zack Jones

      Thanks for the clarification on the Republican appointment. I am not from Pennsylvania so I will assume that was the best deal he could get. I probably would have preferred to either play hardball with at least a moderate Democrat or Independent or leave the seat vacant, but I understand why he didn’t want to leave the state’s highest court shorthanded. As for Shapiro, I don’t expect a flaming liberal but at least a reliable progressive voice on the court.

      On another note, Janet Yellen said the US could reach the debt limit by the end of next week. How in the Hell did the Dems not take care of this before the recess, especially since they didn’t do any judges. They should have raised it high enough so that we don’t have to deal with it for the next two years, let alone two months later…smh


      • One other Pennsylvania note. There are currently three district court vacancies throughout the state. I am looking forward to seeing what kind of judges we will get out of the state now that we have two Democrat senators. I’m hoping for at least one if not more labor or union lawyers in the mold of Jennifer Sung. Surprisingly we haven’t seen many so far from Biden’s first 150 nominees.


  28. That is wild how many democrats in hugely important purple and blue states appointment republican or right of center judges to the highest courts meanwhile Republicans are laughing their a@@ off in Florida, Ohio, Georgia and Arizona with their red as can be courts, not just republican judging but they’re replacing them with MAGA style judges as they retire.


  29. Should be noted in states like Oregon, Washington Democrats have done very well with their Supreme Courts that have done things like cracking down on capital punishment, illegal police searches etc.
    @Dequan I get your point about Wolf but the issue was there really wasn’t a way to play hardball with the PA Republicans on the vacancy, as they didn’t care if Wolf didn’t allow other things to pass since they don’t believe in governing that much anyway.
    If nothing else, as pointed out, Democratic voters could have shown up in the Fall of 2017 and voted the Republican out and they didn’t.
    Our side has gotten better on caring about the courts but still a ways to go.
    And my final point, there are a couple of posters here who have let their dislike of Biden get to absurd levels.
    Arianna Freeman and Andre Mathis didn’t have support of one or both of their senators yet Biden/Schumer stuck with them anyway and he has renominated several deadlocked nominees.
    Hardly the sign of a coward.
    Do I think he and others took too long to name some nominees?
    Yup but that is a far different issue then saying he was a coward when the record doesn’t bear that out.
    And as to what Republicans did with judges under Trump, they had an outright majority with no filibuster for circuit court nominees.
    Far easier to push judges through when that is the case.
    Bottom line, Biden hasn’t been 100% perfect on judges but being able to get as many judges confirmed as he did in a 50/50 majority is pretty remarkable and before the year is through, I’m pretty sure any current and future Circuit court vacancies will be filled with more great nominees.


  30. I don’t know if this will look like a SCOTUS confirmation battle in the US Senate, but the stage is set. Mark your calendars:


    Hochul has determined that this nomination is worth all the political capital she’s been spending on getting it over the finish line.
    More recently (and as I have predicted), the Republican leader has said that he intends to make up the vote difference with Republican votes, if this nominee reaches the floor. For context, a majority of the judiciary committee voted against Jenny Rivera, now a member of the liberal wing of the court (and also a looney anti-vaxxer). She was still allowed a full floor vote by the Republicans in charge at the time, and was confirmed. They are now arguing that the same procedure should govern the LaSalle nomination.
    I’ve already said, and still believe, that the only way this nomination will fail is if Hochul withdraws it. So despite what Majority Leader Stewart-Cousins has said, I don’t know if she’ll be able to hold out for long against Hochul or a mandamus order by a NY court.


    • You know the funny thing about norms is they continue until Republicans break them when it’s to their advantage. Harry Reid is still the only Democrat with a backbone in my lifetime that I can say I’ve seen break a norm first. This would be absolutely dumb to allow this nomination to the floor when you know a majority of Democrats do not support it.

      I’m not saying you’re wrong Gavi. With the state of the NY Democrat party you sadly could be spot on. I’m just saying after Cuomo had to resign, the Lt. governor being indicted & the state costing Democrats the majority in the US House, this would be the perfect opportunity to final start to right the ship. Especially after it was the NY court of appeals that ruled against the redistricting case that cost the majority in the first place. Screw Hochul for putting them in this position in the first place. I only wish the vacancy had happened a few months earlier so she wouldn’t have politically been able to make this horrible pick.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I just don’t understand why Hochul needs to play for Republicans in New York. Democrats have a major voter advantage in the state. If it was Arizona or Alaska I could see it but I just don’t understand this narrative in New York. Why piss off Democrats by trying to curry favor for Republicans, most of whom still aren’t gonna vote for her anyway.

        I’m no Republican, but if I was, I don’t see voting for Hochul for picking a conservative Democrat to the courts over Zeldin who I know will pick conservative Republicans. But I can see Democrats not voting for her over that, amongst other decisions. I’m just missing that thinking in a bright blue state.


      • I agree 100%. Democrats though think that since Republican voters care about the courts much more than Democrats do, that by picking conservative lite judges they can expand their reach, forgetting that Republican voters will still just vote for the Republican who will push through a actual conservative.


      • Exactly. 1000% Frank. This is why the New York State Democrat Party is in the shape it’s in today. And I applauded the New York Republicans for being smart & stating they will provide the votes to confirm. Now this forces the Democrat senators hand. Sad the Republicans in a bright blue state are in a better position than the majority party with a super majority. Thanks a lot Andrew Cuomo for your legacy (Sarcastic voice).


  31. Hochul is saying that attacks on LaSalle are overstated and untrue. I guess people don’t really want “diversity” when people have different ideas or experiences.

    I mean to call someone a conservative democrat is ridiculous. That’s the tactic to smear people.


  32. As someone who lives here in NY, I have to sum up the battle over Lasalle this way.

    NY IS a a blue state but it’s not a deep progressive blue like many folks think it is.

    Yes, there are plenty of places where DSA/progressives do well but in many other areas, they are viewed as folks who only care about the rights of criminals and think everyone should be let out of jail on bond no matter what.

    It isn’t true but that is the perception held by many here in NY and to be brutally honest, bail reformers dropped the ball on day one in failing to forsee there would be attacks on it nor did they seem to take the issue of how crime was perceived in different minority groups Latinos, Asians etc. in any serious matter beyond saying it wasn’t as bad as the media was making it out to be.

    They weren’t wrong but that wasn’t the perception many of the groups I mentioned above had which is why we saw a shift towards the GOP and the loss of some seats beyond the restricting snafu.

    Bottom line, Lasalle isn’t about catering to Republicans.
    This is Hochul and some others thinking the issue of crime cost them Democratic voters in swing districts/NYC and trying to get them back.
    Ignorant at best, political malpractice at it’s worse (there are folks from ALL wings of the party who oppose him) and it will cost her and some other Democrats down the line IMO, especially if he gets confirmed.


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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s