Judge Kato Crews – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado

Judge Shane “Kato” Crews is the third magistrate judge nominated by President Biden to the federal bench in Colorado, after colleagues Nina Wang and Gordon Gallagher.

Background

A native of Pueblo in South Colorado, Crews graduated in 1997 from the University of Northern Colorado and then received a J.D. from the University of Arizona School of Law in 2000.

After graduating, Crews spent two years at the National Labor Relations Board and then joined Rothberger Johnson & Lyons LLP in 2001. In 2011, he shifted to be a name partner at Mastin Hoffman & Crews LLC and then moved to Hoffman Crews Nies Waggener & Foster LLP in 2013.

In 2018, Crews was appointed to be a U.S. Magistrate Judge and has served as such since.

History of the Seat

Crews has been nominated for a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. This seat will open on June 20, 2023 when Judge Raymond Moore takes senior status. Crews was previously recommended by Colorado Senators Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper to replace Judge William Martinez, but fellow magistrate judge Gordon Gallagher was chosen instead. Crews was then nominated to replace Moore.

Legal Experience

While Crews has shifted positions over the course of his career, he has worked on civil litigation in all of those positions, including in labor law, business law, and real estate. Among the suits he handled in private practice, Crews was part of the legal team defending Pizza Hut against an allegation of violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. See Smith v. Pizza Hut, Inc., 694 F. Supp. 2d 1227 (D. Colo. 2010).

Notably, Crews represented the Colorado State University System in defending against a lawsuit brought by Rodney Smith, a police officer who alleged a hostile work environment as a result of his race. See Smith v. Bd. of Gov. of the Colorado State Univ. Sys., Civil Action No. 15-cv-00770-REB-KMT (D. Colo. 2017). Judge Robert Blackburn granted summary judgment in favor of Crews’ client, finding that the plaintiff failed to meet his burden to show that any harassment was sufficiently pervasive to constitute a hostile work environment and that animosity was racial rather than personal. See id.

Jurisprudence

Crews has served as a federal magistrate judge since his appointment in 2018. In this role, he presides by consent over civil matters and misdemeanors, assists district judges with discovery and settlement, and writes reports and recommendations on legal issues. Among the cases that he presided over, Crews denied summary judgment in favor of the defendant in a slip and fall case at a Dollar Tree retail store. See Oliver v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-3443-SKC (2022). Crews found that material disputes of fact remained about the actions of Dollar Tree employees regarding obstructions in the aisle where the plaintiff fell. See id.

Writings and Statements

In 2016, Crews was among 16 attorneys and law students who were interviewed by the Colorado Bar on diversity, inclusion, and bias in the legal community. For his part, Crews noted that he strove throughout his life to work harder and exceed expectations in a desire to overcome any “unconscious” bias on the part of others, noting:

“My experience with implicit bias has not been a story of suffering, rejection, or hurt. Rather, I have found empowerment and positive results from pushing myself to outperform biased expectations.”

Overall Assessment

As he himself describes it, Crews has lived a “charmed” life, rising at a young age (in his early 40s) to be a federal magistrate judge. He is now poised for confirmation to the federal bench, with little in his record that should cause him delay.

585 Comments

  1. Ok Hell is about to freeze over. I’m watching the senate live cam & I’m agreeing 100% with senator Tubberville. He just said if the Democrat in the senate wants to confirm all of the nominees he has a hold on, they can work a full week.

    He said so far this year the senate has taken 24 days, 2 weeks in January & about to take 2 more weeks off. He said regular people don’t get to take that much time off & he is ready to stay on the floor & work a full work week to get a vote for everybody he has a hold on a vote.

    I may hate his politics but that doesn’t mean he is wrong on this point.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Thanks to @Dequan for that data on Brookman. 158 days still seems like a lot.

    Does anyone know how long a background check takes? I imagine with sitting judges they have to look at all past cases, not just the most prominent ones. And all financials, op-eds, law review articles, etc. But is this a month-long thing? 6 weeks? Longer? Maybe shorter?

    I know it probably depends on the number of people who work in that office at one time and how many nominees they’re working on simultaneously, but there must be an average, right?

    Like

    • @rayspace

      Your welcome. And no, 158 days isn’t long at all. It’s actually near record time for the modern are. Remember that’s 158 from (According to his SJC questionnaire) from his first point of contact with anybody regarding this vacancy to the day he was confirmed. So keep in mind all that goes along with the process.

      First the person usually speaks to the home state senators about the vacancy. In this case Brookman spoke to Democrat congressman Carson first & later spoke with both home state senators.

      Second is the recommendation to the president. If accepted then you have the vetting process. After the vetting comes back clear, the president can nominated the person. Next, (The next estimate times are best case scenarios) there’s usually a one month waiting person for the person to get a SJC hearing. Then two weeks later the nominee is eligible to be voted to the senate floor. Last, the nominee has to be given a confirmation vote or voice vote but that usually isn’t an immediate process except for SCOTUS nominees.

      So 158 days is lighting fast. We will need more similar timelines for red seat nominees.

      Like

  7. I might be in the minority but i see it as bad thing when district court nominees or any judicial democratic nominees are confirmed voice vote in this partisan era, when hacks like cruz and hawley have no objections with a nominee thats a not a nice sign

    Liked by 1 person

    • I only think a voice vote is a bad thing if it’s a blue state like in the case of Jennifer Rearden. If a blue seat is being wasted on a nominee that is able to get a voice vote then I think that’s a bad thing. Robert Kirsh is actually a Republican despite being a New Jersey nominee so he may be another voice vote.

      I have no problem with voice votes for district court nominees in red states. We have to understand that without eliminating blue slips, a home state Republican can block the nominee from even getting hearing. So in those cases a White male in his mid 50’s that had nothing progressive in his background but at least received an award from Eric Holder is a good compromise pick in my book & if we can avoid wasting senate floor time to get him confirmed then I think that’s a good thing.

      Liked by 2 people

      • As someone who a strict 50+1 guy, I agree with you both, more so with Dequan on the blue and red state distinction. I don’t care about a nominee getting 99 votes out of 100. Give me nominees that’ll let Ted Cruz’s head explode but who can still be confirmed with only 51 votes, if needed.

        @Dequan
        “received an award from Eric Holder.”

        I’m no snowflake but this is more traumatizing that you probably intended it to be: Matthew Kacsmaryk is literally such a person. He’s arguably the worst of the worst judge on the bench in district court.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Well of course receiving an award from Eric Holder isn’t the only thing that would make the nomination good for a red state. Of course, being a right-wing hack (Which Matthew Kacsmaryk was before his nomination) would erase almost any award or even background a nominee has from being good in my book. I don’t see that in Brookman’s case however so in my opinion he is a good Indiana nominee. But of course, I will repeat I am an advocate of getting rid of blue slips altogether in which case he would not be a good nominee in my opinion then.

        Like

  8. Looks like Schumer only filed cloture on a couple of executive nominees and the fire safety bill, so judges will have to wait a while longer. Frustrating. Maybe he just wanted to be positive that everyone actually makes it into town.

    Like

      • Out of the 5 weeks the senate is in session after the Easter break, I hope 3 of them can be focused just on judges. I am sure they will fill 2 of the weeks on other stuff, especially if senator Tuberville continues his unilateral hold on all military promotions.

        Like

      • Definitely. My hope is that during the upcoming 5 week period we’ll be able to confirm every judicial nominee that is currently on the floor awaiting a vote.

        It probably wont happen but 3 circuit and 6 district nominees have been waiting until June 2022 or longer and I’d love to see those all get priority.

        Like

  10. No cloture motions? Feinstein has to retire, or at the very least, quit SJC.

    Or, I’ll say again, Schumer has to reserve a bunch of Harris’s time to break ties, esp for CCA nominees.

    3 CCAs and 19 districts since Jan. 1? Pathetic. And yes, I know how many of those days they’ve been out of session. But come on…

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Biden & the Dem senators have been very disappointing to say the least. Even the liberal SCOTUS justices have been upsetting.

    -Biden approved Willow project
    -Senate has 4 day work weeks at best and too many recess weeks
    -25 senators (about half Democrats, half Republicans) endorsed this dangerous Patriot Act-style bill that will allow the government to further intrude on our privacy (and also happens to be the vehicle for banning TikTok)
    -No new good circuit judge appointments so far this year
    -overturning DC law
    -won’t get rid of blue slips
    -NOT A SINGLE SENATE VOTE THIS YEAR where all 51 Democrats showed up. Feinstein, Sanders, Casey, & Fetterman have been the ones out the most (Sanders is the “worst offender” because he’s out for non-health reasons)
    -The 3 liberal justices voted to reject Steven Donziger’s appeal. Gorsuch, joined by Kavanaugh, wrote a strongly worded dissent. The blame is very much on the liberal justices considering THEY COULD HAVE RIGHTED THIS WRONG, unlike a lot of cases where they are powerless to
    -Biden bailing out the banks

    This list is probably not exhaustive. Biden is a bad presiden; if Trump isn’t the GOP nominee in 2024, Biden isn’t guaranteed my vote.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I know some on this blog think I am a Biden apologist, which I’m not. I criticize Biden & anyone else when I think they are making bad decisions. My number one issue when I vote is the judiciary because that’s how I started caring about politics. I voted for the first time in the 2000 Election here in Miami & my vote ended up not counting because I was one of the “Pregnant Chads”.

      I will say this about Biden. Spoiler alert, he is not perfect. He makes gaffs, bad jokes, the Afghanistan withdrawal was far worse than it had to be, not pardoning every nonviolent drug offender, he tries to compromise & negotiate far too much, is not a very great communicator & defers far too much to senators when it comes to nominating judges.

      With that said, I honestly don’t see how anybody that holds liberal or progressive views can say he has been a failure. I think he has been one of the top 3 Democrat presidents in the past century. The man has had 50 Democrats (Or less for long stretches) for most of his presidency & still accomplished so much. I’ll list some of his accomplishments below.

      Got the Covid response package passed within his first 3 months.

      Has managed Covid extremely better than his predecessor, leading to the emergency order ending in the next couple months.

      Despite the handling, he did end America’s longest war in Afghanistan.

      The Burn Pitts bill

      The infrastructure package

      Capping insulin at $30

      The Gun violence reduction bill

      The LGBT bill

      Putting the first Black woman on the SCOTUS & more Black woman on the circuit courts then every other president combined.

      I just think we have to keep things in perspective. The man has accomplished a lot with a little. I don’t see him as a failure at all despite me disagreeing with him at times.

      Liked by 1 person

  12. @Ryan Joshi, the Republican Party thanks you for your vote in 2024.
    And if you think both sides are the same, feel free to look at what is being done to LGBT youth and women in red states right now.
    That wouldn’t be happening if Hillary had won in 2016 but too many people like yourself said the courts didn’t matter and did the same garbage you’re saying you’ll do next year.
    One consequence of that is things like the Willow Project, which could have been blocked before won’t be because SCOTUS will overturn any block on that or other things similar to it.
    Bottom line, Biden did what he could to reduce the scope of the project, that was all he could do and if some folks don’t like it, too bad.
    Elections have consequences and the fact some “progressives” are still willing to do the I’ll vote third party garbage shows at the end of the day, they care more about having temper tantrums then anything else.

    Like

    • I said Biden isn’t *guaranteed* my vote. As I already said, if Trump is the nominee, his opponent automatically gets my vote. (Additionally, I would almost certainly vote for Biden if he runs against DeSantis). I am well aware of this and I have used similar language to urge like minded people NOT to vote third party in 2020.

      Biden is absolutely the lesser of 2 evils. I am aware of this and I know that voting is a chess move (as opposed to a marriage). I will absolutely vote for a challenger to Biden in the primary iff they show that they are electable in a general election.

      If the GOP runs someone like Bill Weld or Chris Sununu (let hell freeze over again), I will vote for them in order to help bring the GOP back to sanity.

      Like

      • @Ryan Joshi
        Amen! So often this blog is like Biden Youth! If this blog was America, Biden’s 5th term would be guaranteed, he need only live to see it.

        Biden 2020 was one of the easiest votes ever. I am not sure Biden 2024 will be. He now has a record that can be held against him, despite what his uncritical supporters say.

        The federal judiciary is also my single issue. And I vote like it. Does this mean that I will always vote for a Dem who’s fallen into the habit of nominating people who are mediocre at best or terrible? Nope. As with Gillibrand and the NY governor, so with a president whose judicial nominees might as well be made by Republican presidents. Sick and tired of this battered wife mentality. I am not going to make excuses for you and blame myself when you slap me across the face with Republican judges in deep blue states.

        Like

  13. How nice for a couple of posters here they have the luxury of doing purity tests or thinking they do when it comes to voting.
    That line of thinking is why so many LGBT youth are under attack in red states and why women in some areas have to face certain death before they can get an abortion now among other things.
    Because in 2016 and 2000, some folks didn’t feel “inspired” or thought both sides were the same so they stayed home or voted third party with the same garbage logic a couple of posters here are using tonight.
    How did that work out for progressive courts or goals?
    If nothing else, you say stuff like that and wonder why many of us, even those who want progressive goals or don’t like some of the things Biden has done find you toxic?

    Like

  14. @Gavi @Zack Jones chill out. You both seem to be in the binary of “either Biden is for us or he is against us”, while both (or neither) can be true at the same time. He has done many good things while in office, and he has also done many bad things while in office.

    @Zack Jones as I wrote in my last reply to you, I am not blind to the suffering that LGBTQ+ youth and women in red states face. Despite having the luxury to not directly be affected by this red state drama, I am well aware that many in the GOP want to nationalize the issues and I will absolutely consider that when voting.

    @Gavi I don’t think that automatically voting for Biden because he’s not Trump qualifies as being “Biden Youth”. Additionally, I think it’s not good to vote on a single issue; while the federal judiciary is an important issue, it is not the only issue. Some conservatives who personally disliked Trump voted for him because the judiciary was their single issue (let’s face it, conservatives are far more likely to be single issue voters on the judiciary than liberals are).

    I will reiterate: if Trump, DeSantis, or a similarly minded fascist gets the GOP primary nomination in 2024, I will vote for the Democrat nominee and do everything I can to urge people to vote for them as well. Sitting out is never a good solution. Unless you live in a state with ranked choice voting, a third party vote for president is useless. As for the primary, it’s too early for me to know who I will support there. I will continue to give Biden credit where it is due and criticism where it is due (Biden supporters don’t worship him like Trump supporters worship Trump).

    Like

  16. We are in need of another batch for a potential for a potential 5/3 hearing. Not holding my breath on that one though. The lack of timely nominations from the WH continues to be the biggest issue in my opinion.

    Like

  17. Am I reading right?

    NEW: According to the US Courts website, Justice Samuel Alito has informed the White House that he will retire at the end of the court’s term. He said in his letter that he wanted to go out on a high note and leave people wanting more.

    Like

  20. Srinivasan or Nathan would be my picking it was Alito.

    If it was Thomas I think Biden would likely pick a black jurist.

    If it was Sotomayor I think he’d likewise go for a Latino pick. Maybe Perez?

    Like

  21. @Joe: Here’s where I think Biden could be in a bind if Thomas is the next one to retire. Without knowing any of the players in the Administration, I’m sure Biden would love to be the President who appoints the first Asian-American Justice. But replacing Thomas with an Asian-American person means a loss of African-American representation on the Court.

    Do African-American voters and leaders demand to keep 2 seats on the Court? They might, but Biden is trying to build the Democratic Party and has to try to stem the recent losses of Asian-Americans. A quandary, my friends.

    Of course, this all goes away if Thomas isn’t the first one to retire. Then Biden gets to make the historic choice and put off the decision on Thomas’s replacement. (BTW, I’m convinced Thomas will try to break Douglas’s longevity record, which would put off his decision until 2027, which we all know is really putting it off until 2029).

    Like

    • I can definitely see Justice Thomas trying to break the record. As for if Biden got to name his replacement, I don’t think he would need to replace him with another African American. He has already put the first Black woman on the SCOTUS & has already surpassed every previous president number of Black woman on the circuit courts by five. I doubt he would replace Thomas with another Black person. But it would be a great& welcome problem to have.

      Like

      • This is why I am not a fan of racial identity politics. It isn’t realistic or appropriate for a 9 member court.

        Why is it okay for someone like Alison Nathan another white person on a court that already has five but two black people are too many?

        There’s no vacancy but I hope they find a lawyer of any race outside of New York or DC.

        Liked by 2 people

      • My Allison Nathan prediction is based on two reasons. First, she would be the first LGBT Justice & second is because she is from the home state of the majority leader. I don’t think Justin Walker would be sitting in the second highest court if he wasn’t from the home state of the majority leader. They have a lot of sway. Plus Nathan is a high profile judge as it is. And the notion that identity politics doesn’t play into decision making is just a pipe dream. It’s politics, not the NFL where the most talented person is chosen. It is what it is.

        Like

      • That’s like a big “so what.” I don’t care if she LGBT what does that mean for a black guy?

        I don’t have a problem with Alison Nathan other than she is a New Yorker and we have too many east coast people there.

        I don’t know of a Senate Majority Leader who has ever had the last say of who goes on the court.

        I’m not interested in “high profile” or whatever you mean. What cases are you talking about?

        There’s only two black people (I know that’s a lot for many) and one Latina.

        I get lost sometimes with these claims that people want diversity. That’s only true when it suits someone’s purposes. When Hochul tried it so called progressives jumped all over her.

        I’m not trying to call people names but it’s a rather peculiar form of racism. To accuse people of being “conservative.”

        Like

      • Judge Nathan was the judge for the Ghislaine Maxwell case. She’s had other notable cases as well. And I’m not advocating Black people (I am Black btw) don’t deserve two Black people on the court. I’m simply saying I’ve correctly guessed the last three SCOTUS picks correctly & my pick for any non Chief Justice or Sotomayor replacement is Nathan.

        Like

      • Sotomayor could possibly retire. She wouldn’t need pressure. She’s been a federal judge for over 3 decades. I don’t think she will but I wouldn’t rule it out. It’s Kagan that I don’t understand why people are trying to pressure to retire. She wouldn’t even be able to collect her salary lifetime at this point because she hasn’t reached the rule of 80 yet.

        Like

      • Sotomayor is 68, which is 10-15 years younger than the average justice’s retirement age. She does have diabetes but seems to be managing it well. On March 28, Sotomayor got to assign her first majority opinion (unsurprisingly she assigned it to herself) because Roberts, Thomas, & Alito all dissented. I think Sotomayor wants to have some time as the senior-most liberal. If Dems pull off a Senate miracle and still have Senate control during Biden’s 2nd term, at that point I think Sotomayor would consider retiring — she doesn’t seem to have the same alter ego that Ginsburg had.

        Like

      • Another thing to consider is Biden would likely want to have some more regional diversity. Thomas is really the only Justice from The South (I know KBJ is from Miami but she’s made her career in DC.

        I think Andre Mathis could be a candidate. As much as this board would have it Michelle Childs probably would be as well.

        It’s a problem I hope we have but realistically Thomas, Alito, and Roberts are still fairly young and we know they would only retire a GOP president/senate

        Like

  23. @shawnee68: Sorry if you read my post to mean I think that 2 Black Justices at one time are too many. Really never intended to get anywhere near that.

    I wouldn’t (and didn’t) criticize Black voters and/or leaders who might advocate to keep at least 2 Black Justices on the Court. I was just raising a hypothetical about what might happen if Thomas retired and an AAPI person had not become a Justice yet. Cross-pressures on Biden and all that.

    BTW, although not likely the final word on the choice, a Minority Leader (Harry Reid) suggested Bush43 nominate Harriet Miers, which he did.

    Like

      • I often don’t agree with you Shawnee, but I agree with your views on identify politics. A black man myself, I try to stay away from it because of how problematic it is.
        Who is a better example of this than Clarence Thomas himself? A black man from the south who was a radical black liberationist in his youth, now the most conservative justice to ever sit on the court. No preacher of identity politics wants to see him on the court, let along 8 others like him. Same with Hector LaSelle in NY.
        Hell, Patrick Bumatay is probably a bigger and better example, with his immigrant parents background, gay, and person of color. Everyone on here will lose their minds when DeSantis puts him on SCOTUS (they know each other from law school.)
        And the stigma that Thomas always talks about it absolutely real. People diminishing your worth because they think you’re only here because of some diversity program. No one wants to be a “diversity hire.”

        To the hypothetical vacancy question, I don’t think Biden will nominee a second black person to SCOTUS, no matter who’s seat it is. No, this isn’t because two blacks on the court is too much, we obviously have this right now.
        And I am not convinced it’ll be Alison Nathan. Her being from Schumer’s state will give her as much as of a leg up as Eunice Lee or any of the other NYer Schumer suggested to Biden last year, that is none.
        I don’t know who Biden would pick though, as long as it’s not Michele Childs or Sri Srinivasan or judges of that ilk.

        Like

      • I think Alison Nathan would have a leg up on Eunice Lee for several reasons. For one, Nathan is openly LGBT & Biden’s record on LGBT issues is crystal clear. Second, Nathan has been confirmed twice by the senate & been a judge about a decade longer than Lee. Nathan would be the youngest member of the court if she joined while Lee would be the third youngest. I also think it’s not likely Biden names two straight Black woman so that puts Lee at a disadvantage.

        I do agree Nathan many of those advantages don’t exist over Perez. I didn’t know DeSantis & Patrick Bumatay knew each other in law school. Scary thought if DeSantis was president & had a majority senate. I might have to change my James Ho pick for the next Republican president if it’s DeSantis with that info but for now I’ll stick with Ho. I just hope we never have to find out that scenario.

        Like

    • Didn’t realize the Chicago mayoral race is a big deal to anyone outside of the city. I haven’t been following it and have no opinion on the race itself. The office of Chicago mayor is one of those titles you couldn’t pay me enough to take on.

      The Wisconsin supreme court, on the other hand, has indirect national consequences. (Side note Dequan, I notice you always use SCOTUS when referring to state high courts. Any reason why? No issue, I just think it’s a curious thing to do, knowing what SCOTUS actually means.)
      But yeah, Dems typically do much better in the spring primary for the supreme court, but have often come up short in the general election itself. Let’s hope that this year will be more like 2020 and not like the others. The liberal candidate seems to have the edge against a proven loser, but we’ll have to wait and see.

      Like

      • I think the Chicago race has national attention for several reasons. For one, when the incumbent mayor of the third biggest city in the country gets kicked out for the first time in my lifetime, that sends shock waves throughout the nation. Lightfoot seemed to be a particularly bad mayor but still a big deal. Second, & probably more important, I think the race is a bellwether for the nation. You have a city plagued with crime & other issues. You have one moderate (Some may say slightly conservative) candidate backed by Dick Durbin & one progressive backed by Bernie Sanders. With Biden pivoting to the right since the election last year, this race could determine if he moves even further to the right.

        I just saw the Wisconsin race had had more money spent on it than any other judicial race in the country’s history. It’s that important. Conservatives have had a death grip on the court for over a decade.

        As for me writing SCOTUS for state Supreme Courts, its just easier to write the acronym every time then spell out the entire words Supreme Court when talking about a state. Everybody on this blog knows there is only one Supreme Court of the USA & it’s similar to when I say the senate is confirming the secretary of baking cookies today. You know I’m not being literal. Although some of the positions I’ve seen them confirm over the past couple weeks might be less important then an actual secretary of baking cookies… Lol

        Like

      • Yea I thought about SC but then if I’m talking about multiple states such as Utah, then somebody could confuse it with USC or other popular acronyms. Other states would create similar problems. But just know whenever I write SCOTUS for a state I’m talking about their highest court because of course NY’s highest court isn’t even called Supreme Court.

        As long as everybody knows in about a month when I’m going off about a Republican conservative governor appointing a conservative as chief Justice to their states SCOTUS, I will be talking about Kathy Hochul… Lol

        Liked by 1 person

  25. If Biden is re elected, Ho would be 56 in 2029. In that respect he may have “aged out” of consideration. I’m sure whoever a GOP president picks would be equally terrible though.

    Like

  26. @ Dequan,

    I think Janet Protasiewicz has an edge…Kelly lost by 10% last time he ran…He is REALLY far out there.. I think she wins…I’ll be staring at the NYT result page as it gets filled in in real time…..Last year on election night, I had a NYT & WAPO results pages open going from state to state all night….I had the TV on downstairs but rarely watched it…Too busy staring at the live results coming in from the above papers!

    As far as another SCOTUS vacancy if Biden were to have one, (either you or someone else posed question recently)… I think the next pick should be Elizabeth Prelogar…From what I’ve read, she is supposed to be a fantastic litigator and she has been thru the confirmation process…She also has the Ivy League degree and multiple high profile clerkships

    Like

    • Some pundits pointed out that Karofsky’s 2020 win was aided by having the election the same day as the primaries. The Democrats had an actual primary whereas the GOP basically auto-awarded all their delegated to Trump; because of this, Democrats were more likely to come out to vote than they otherwise would have been.

      Like

  27. I swear, illnesses only afflict Dems/liberals. I know you can still win while being sidelined by sicknesses, but why only Dems? I hope being off the trail a second time for the last 5 days won’t affect her campaign. I hope her surrogates are working overtime. I am working late tomorrow and probably will be home only for the final results, but 29 hours is a long wait for me:

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/dan-kelly-travels-state-supreme-202053403.html

    Like

  28. Pingback: Six Months Into the Unexpected Democratic Senate – Assessing the Landscape of Judicial Vacancies | The Vetting Room

Leave a comment