Jeremy Daniel – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

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

Federal prosecutor Jeremy Daniel is the fifth of seven recommendations made by Illinois Senators to the Northern District bench to be nominated.


Jeremy Christen Daniel graduated from Illinois Wesleyan University in 2000 and got a J.D. from Loyola University Chicago School of Law in 2007.

After graduation, Daniel worked at Katten Muchin Rosenman’s Chicago office. In 2013, Daniel left to clerk for Judge Virginia Kendall on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Since 2014, Daniel has been a federal prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois.

History of the Seat

Daniel has been nominated for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. This seat opened on December 31, 2022 when Judge Gary Feinerman resigned to return to private practice.

Legal Career

Daniel started his legal career at the Chicago office of Katten Muchin Rosenman. While there, Daniel handled intellectual property cases, including defending a patent infringement action involving a portable screwdriver. See Easypower Corp. v. Jore Corp., 747 F. Supp. 2d 997 (N.D. Ill. 2010). He also represented defendant Apotex Corp. in defending a patent infringement suit against a series of generic drug manufacturers by AstraZeneca Corporation. See In re Rosuvastatin Calcium Patent Litig., 719 F. Supp. 2d 388 (D. Del. 2010).

Since 2014, Daniel has worked as a federal prosecutor. In that role, Daniel represents the United States before the Northern District of Illinois in criminal prosecutions. See, e.g., United States v. Fausto Lopez, No. 16 CR 169 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 13, 2016).

Notably, Daniel tried Chawain Lowe over three days for possession of a firearm. See United States v. Lowe, 502 F. Supp. 3d 1332 (N.D. Ill. 2020). Subsequent to the verdict, Judge Elaine Bucklo denied the defendant’s motion to overturn the verdict. See id.

Overall Assessment

As far as judicial nominees go, Jeremy Daniel has a fairly conventional background. There seems to be little that is likely to trip Daniel up during his confirmation process.


  1. This nominee is certainly conventional. It is another missed chance to nominate someone from a unique career background, which while the Biden administration has been doing well on overall they could be doing even better.


  2. While I am happy to see a young Black man ascend to the federal bench, it’s likely out of the three recommended nominees that were left to chose from, Nicholas Gowen would have been the more progressive Black manchoice. He also is young & certainly Karen Shelley is the most progressive out of all 7 recommended candidates.

    Perhaps Daniel’s military service being a Marine veteran put him over the top. With one vacancy left on the Northern district, it will be interesting to see if Gowen or Shelley gets nominated. If it’s Gowen, that would mean 5 of the 6 Biden judges to the court will have been Black with a Latina rounding out the 6. That would be an incredible amount of diversity added to the court. If it’s Shelley who is a White woman, that would signal Biden went with the more progressive choice. I suspect we should find out within the next month for so. In the mean time, Daniel’s looks to be on a fast track to confirmation barring any missteps answering questions from senator Kennedy at his SJC hearing.


      • I don’t usually look for pictures since I just edit for their SJC hearing to post a snapshot for their SJC hearing in their Wikipedia profile. The copyright rights are automatically approved from there. I would have to acquire them if it got the picture from a private source. I didn’t even know Daniel was Black until I read it in several news articles while researching information to add to his Wikipedia page.


    • Daniels being black doesn’t mean much to me seeing as he comes from a prosecutorial background, which is extremely overrepresented on the federal bench, and the relative lack of career diversity makes this a missed opportunity: While his military background and race shouldn’t be discounted completely, it feels like that was a greater factor in the nomination than I’d have given it. I’d rather see nominees who come from backgrounds of defending minorities than prosecuting them.

      Liked by 1 person

      • His being black doesn’t do anything for me, either. It’s amazing that people can heap loads of shame on Clarence Thomas (which he deserves) while over-relying on identity politics. Karen Sheley would have been the best nominee. Thomas shows that it should be about philosophy and professional background, not race.


      • Yea somebody soley being Black doesn’t pass for me either. In Daniel’s case he also is a veteran & young so I can see why he might have been chosen. But I agree with the others Karen Sheley should have been chosen over him as well as some of the past nominees as well. Hopefully she will be chosen over Gowen for the final vacancy but judging by the direction the administration has been going on I wouldn’t bet on it.


    • I’m not as familiar with the US Attorney positions so I won’t comment more than I’m just happy either pick would be historic. And I’m happy to see one of the remaining two Trump holdovers get replaced. I understand the reasoning behind leaving the Trump holdover in place in Biden’s home state as the Delaware office is handling the Hunter Biden investigation. Although there’s no way Trump would have done the same thing if the shoe was in the other foot but that’s ok.

      Since there were 7 name’s recommended & Biden will get to pick 6 judges, we will see the direction this new WH Counsel’s office is going. If Karen Sheley is the one person that doesn’t end up getting nominated then we will know the most progressive person didn’t get picked even with 6 vacancies. If I had to chose one of the seven not to get picked, I would have chosen LaShanda Hunt to be the person not nominated. Plus she’s a bankruptcy judge so she would have been fine if not nominated.


  3. Now here’s an idea I can get behind – it would screw over both Hyde-Smith and Cornyn/Cruz at the same time (while putting some fear into the IN/KS senators to move things along or risk their states’ appeals court seats moving to IL/CO):

    Unfortunately I highly doubt this administration has the backbone to pull something like this off (or they’re still naive and think they’ll get district judge nominees out of Cronyn/Cruz/Hyde-Smith). But unlike the whole blue slip discussion, this would get at fixing the conservative lean of the federal courts where it actually matters – at the appellate level.

    Re: Daniel – he just seems like a more boring version of Lindsay Jenkins (both were AUSAs/in big law, though she was chief of a section of the office where he does not seem to be in a senior role there). Best way to describe him is an Obama-era pick – demographically diverse, but professionally the same as a Republican nominee. Assuming this trend continues (and with Biden’s conservative pivot on literally everything recently, unfortunately I’m sure it will), I’d be highly surprised if Gowen isn’t picked for the Durkin vacancy.

    Liked by 1 person

    • @Hank

      I like the suggestion but I wouldn’t do it for several reasons. First, Texas definitely needs the judgeship more than Mississippi. Second, there is no Hispanic judge on the 5th for states that have a large Hispanic population. That combined with the need for more Hispanic nominees to the circuit courts by Biden would lead me to hope that seat goes to a Hispanic nominee.

      Third, I think the move would actually create more problems than the one it solves. It’s likely Cornyn & Cruz would simply throw a hissy fit & refuse to turn in their blue slips for any of the 8 district court vacancies in Texas. Fourth, there’s no guarantee either of the two Mississippi judges on the 5th will take senior status before Biden’s presidency ends.

      The last & in my opinion most important reason I wouldn’t do it is because it doesn’t solve the real problem. The main issue here is blue slips. Nominating Colom to the 5th Texas seat guarantees one district court seat in Mississippi not getting filled & likely means 9 district court seats won’t get filled. Blue slips are the problem. They either need to be ditched (Just like Republicans did 5 years ago) or at the very least reformed) to solve the problem.


  4. Filling an appeals court seat with a good nominee like Colom is worth 10 district court appointees (especially district court appointees in circuits where they’ll be reversed anyways on any ruling that goes against the Republican Party’s platform). Quantity does not outweigh quality (and by quality I mean the position the nominees are confirmed to) when it comes to judges.

    But yes the Dems don’t have the political will to do this – if for no other reason than the senators’ fear that their states’ appeals seats will be moved to other states in the future. It’s a silly concern since the difference between (for example) a Fed Soc back from Illinois and a Fed Soc hack from Indiana is minimal, but Senators are not known for their strong logic.

    Liked by 1 person

    • While I don’t agree one circuit court judge is worth sacrificing any ten district court seats, even if I did agree that wouldn’t apply here. That’s because there are no blue slips for the 5th Texas seat so there’s no reason we can’t get a phenomenal pick from Texas for that seat.

      The root problem is blue slips today just like it was in 2017 for Republicans. Their solution was to get rid of them without hesitation. That resulted in Trump getting one less circuit court judge in 4 years than Obama got in 8 years. Democrats should respond in year three of Biden the same way Republicans responded in year one if Trump.


      • Also it would be interesting to understand how much each of here values circuit court vacancies vs. district court vacancies. For me it probably depends on where the seats are located. For example, I’d much rather have 10 district court seats in Texas than 1 seat on the 5th circuit, considering how far to the right the 5th circuit already is. But on the 9th circuit I think that a single seat may be worth 10 district court seats, considering the 9th circuit is closely divided (actually I take that back just because of how big the 9th is — maybe 2 seats on the 9th is worth 10 Cali district court seats).

        It also depends on who we’re appointing. If we’re talking about moderates who are conservative on criminal justice issues, I’d rather have the circuit court seat since it’s mainly important to keep Fed Soc hacks from gaining majorities. If we’re talking about progressive public defenders, I’d rather have 5-10 of them on the district courts.


    • @Dequan I think I’m just less convinced than you that Biden is going to fill the 5th Circuit seat with a progressive Latina – honestly at the rate they’re going (1 circuit nominee in the last 6 months), I wouldn’t be surprised if they let the seat go vacant until after the 2024 elections. That’s how little confidence I have in Delery/the new WHC team, but I hope I’m proven wrong.

      @Ryan you’re right that 1 appellate appointee makes less of a difference on CA5 because there are so many Fed Soc there, but that’s also true for district judges under CA5’s (or CA11/CA8’s) jurisdiction. Do we really think the likes of Ho, Duncan, and Oldham will hesitate to reverse any district court ruling that protects minority rights or might be adverse to the Republican Party?

      To the extent that right-wing troll Jill’s comment merits a response, I will point out that Harsh (the person who runs this blog) is the one who brought up this idea on the Vetting Room twitter.


      • Having a new liberal district court judge in TX would be useful, particularly one that is willing to take chambers in Amarillo. That way, conservatives filing lawsuits in Amarillo wouldn’t be guaranteed Kacsmaryk. Should be done similarly to other single Trump-judge areas.


      • The court involving Amarillo currently has no vacancy so this would not work there, but I’m talking hypothetically here (pretend like there are 10 open district court seats, 1 open 5th circuit seat, we can fill either the 10 district court seats or 1 circuit court seat, and Cornyn/Cruz have no veto power over whichever we pick but will hold open whichever we don’t pick).


      • @Hank

        It’s scary to think that this year, let alone this term could end without a judge for the 5th and/or 7th. I’ve heard others say this could happen. I still say that’s not possible albeit I admit with this new White House Counsel’s office I can’t say that with anywhere near as much certainty as I would have last year.


    • Isn’t it amazing how it works. Republicans get into power & use it resulting in judges like Judge Kacsmaryk & rulings like this. I wonder what would happen if Democrats used their power when they have it.

      Well I guess we will never know because holding on to norms is more important. Hopefully Scott Colom can find a nice McDonalds to work at since a senator that said she would happily attend a hanging in the front row will be allowed to unilaterally block his nomination.


      • God, his contempt is so palpable. I am about half way through the opinion. Look how he tries to justify granting standing to third-party challengers, using right-wing terms like “abortionists.”

        “Here, the physician-patient dynamic favors third-party standing. Unlike abortionists suing on behalf of women seeking abortions, here there are no potential conflicts of interest between the Plaintiff physicians and their patients.”

        Prelogar’s office will have 7 days to file for a longer stay pending an appeal. She better get on it.


      • He, just like many Republican appointees get the verdict they want first, then use whatever bs rationale to justify it second. Chuck Schumer has already come out with a statement. Thanks but I would rather hear him say when the senate returns from recess for 5 straight weeks, the senate will use at least 3 of those weeks to do nothing but confirm some of Biden’s judicial nominees to counter Trump judges.



      • What an insanely partisan decision per his own words. Trumps insane judges only make up 1/3 of the 5th Circuit Court so it’s possible they overturn this wild overreach but I have a feeling Biden will need to take this to the Supreme Court.

        Even if Biden loses that appeal, it’ll make a lot more headlines when Roberts clown show announces how they believe abortion is a states right issue but they’ll place a nationwide ban on an abortion drug that’s been out for 23 years.

        Kneecap the 2024 election like they did the 2022 for GOP.


  5. With regards to the Fifth Circuit, I am still expecting that Judge Amparo Guerra of the state Court of Appeals is the front runner if she’s interested. She seems to be acceptable to both progressives and the more establishment oriented Democrats. I don’t know how Texas’s Senators stand on her, but they may decide that she’s not as bad as others who are interested.


    • @Mitch, she’s definitely a possibility, but I think there other Latinas who could also receive strong consideration.

      I’m sure Cruz/ Cornyn would prefer one of the two Latinas appointed by Obama to the Southern District of Texas:
      -Marina Garcia Marmolejo (born 1971).
      -Diana Saldaña (born 1971).
      -Nelva Gonzalez Ramos (born 1965).

      All three of them are older than Gregg Costa (1972), who they’d be replacing, so I hope none of them are the eventual nominee.

      There’s an outside possibility that the following Magistrate Judges for the Southern District of Texas could be elevated directly to the 5th circuit:
      -Diana Song Quiroga (born c. 1976).
      -Nadia Medrano (born c. 1981).

      Besides Amparo Guerra, there are other Latina Texas Court of Appeals Judges who could be considered:
      -Veronica Rivas-Molloy (born c. 1975).
      -Luz Elena Chapa (born c. 1973).
      -Rebecca Martinez (born c. 1967).

      If I had to choose any of the names mentioned above, it would be either Guerra or Chapa.

      Another thing that could potentially come into play is where they would be based (duty station).

      There are currently no 5th circuit judges based out of Laredo (where Marmolejo and Saldaña would be based out of).

      There are also no active (there is one senior) judges on the 5th circuit based out of San Antonio (where Chapa and Martinez would be based out of).

      Plenty of current 5th circuit judges based out of Houston (where Guerra would be based out of).


      • @Ethan

        What a good, informative list.

        The White House needs to balance progressive jurisprudence with confirmability. With a 51 to 49 majority and one Democratic Senator representing West Virginia (voted 70% for Trump), it’s a delicate balance.

        It’s possible to achieve satisfactory results by working with Republican Senators. Doris Pryor, Dana Douglas, and Michelle Childs are proof.


      • @Ethan

        It turns out that Marina Garcia Marmelejo was considered for the Fifth Circuit during the Obama Administration.

        If she were chosen, Diana Song Quiroga would be an obvious choice to replace her.

        I hadn’t thought about geography. A nominee from Laredo would make sense in that regard.


  6. On the 5th Circuit, it should be noted that even before the Trump judges, it was a horror show and had been since Reagan and George Sr were able to reshape it.
    George W’s judges made it even worse and like the Trump judges, didn’t even pretend their rulings were based in anything but their own political preferences.
    The horrible Edith Jones (who is still in active service) makes most of the Trump judges seem nice by comparison.
    I can certainly understand why Judge Costa left and while a lot of folks might not want to take a seat there.


    • And the aforementioned Edith Jones was appointed to the 5th at the age of 35. I don’t believe she ever served as a judge previously. This is what upsets me when progressives say age doesn’t matter. I’m not sure what reality they are living in but conservatives have sure as Hell figured it out to their credit. Oh & Jones is another judge just like Clarence Thomas that has had multiple complaints against her but still happily serving to the day.


      • Yup, she and Jerry Smith among many others were examples of how Republicans were playing the long game.
        Heck even as far back as Nixon with William Rehnquist being put on SCOTUS when he was only 47 and Anthony Kennedy being put on the 9th under Ford when he was only 39, Republicans were making clear the game they were playing and it’s a darn shame our side (though Carter did his best) got caught flat footed.
        As for Jones, it shows the problem with lifetime appointments.
        You can be as cruel and corrupt as can be and most of the time, not a darn thing will be done about it.


      • Also Alito was put on the 3rd at 40. If I remember correctly that was a voice vote. I’m not even as mad at how things were. I’m more upset that still to this day some people are advocating appointing older judges & not getting rid of blue slips. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.


      • Do you ever hear anyone say that Thomas is a good judge ? Of course not. You hear more about RBG who has appointed at 60 than Thomas at 43.

        RBG was a more experienced lawyer and judge than Thomas by far. Does any know if Roberts assigns any opinions to Thomas?


      • I don’t think Justice Thomas is a good judge. That’s my point. Liberals care about good judges. Conservatives care about votes. The conservatives now have the votes & are winning. That’s what I ultimately care about not having my rights stripped away. If that means appointing judges a dozen years out of law school then so be it.

        Liked by 1 person

      • No , one says he is because he is not. I’m not a Scalia fan but no one could argue that he wasn’t influential and respected for his legal acumen.

        No serious person could ever make that argument for Thomas and he has been there for over 30 years.

        He can hardly talk during oral arguments.


      • For the record, I’m not advocating Democrats fill the courts with progressive Clarence Thomas. I’m advocating filling them with RBG’s that is Clarence Thomas’s age when he was appointed. But if I had to chose between a liberal Thomas at 41 or a liberal RBG at 60, I would chose the 41 year old every day of the week & twice on Sunday

        Both Tomas & Edith Jones were put on the SCOTUS & 5th before RBG was appointed. She’s gone & they both are still on the bench overturning many of the things she fought so hard for. That’s what I want on the progressive side. There’s no reason why that can’t be done appointing young & well qualified nominees but if a few progressive Clarence Thomas’s slip through, I won’t lose a minute sleep in 40 years while they are still on the bench upholding my rights


      • We definitely disagree if you would rather an older judge that’s more qualified but will serve much less than a younger less qualified. I can’t remember which Justice said it but I agree with the saying the only thing that matters is to be able to count to five.

        RBG was a great justice but Justice Thomas was helping to count to five before her & is still helping to count to five long after she’s gone. His unqualified votes are taking away more rights than RBG’s qualifications are today & for the foreseeable future. That’s what counts. Conservatives have figured this out & I can assure you one thing, they could care less what the Supreme Court’s approval rating is. They care about winning which they are doing now.


      • What conservatives are doing is ruining the country. Just because it works for them in the interim doesn’t mean Democrats should do the same.

        I think people at both ends of the extreme left and right have a similar approach to governance; pursue your agenda regardless of how reckless it is.

        I’m not talking about power for now. I am talking about the country in the long run.

        Do you really think Republicans are really doing well? Do they have a lock on Congress and the Whitehouse?

        The situation with the court is temporary. Eventually one or more of the corrupt Justices will have a mis-step (if it hasn’t already happened) then we’ll see what happens from there.


      • The problem with that thinking is it’s based on hope. Hope a conservative justice leaves the bench while there is a Democrat president & senate. The Republicans strategy isn’t based on hope. It’s based on votes which they have because of their strategy. And to answer the question do I think Republicans are doing well, my answer is no.

        But the problem is that’s not the important question. The question you should be asking is do I think Republicans are winning. The answer to that would be an emphatic HELL YES. And if the “hope” strategy doesn’t work in the near future, the answer will still be HELL YES next decade, the decade after that & the decade after that. They will be The Houston Astros of the country. They will have the lowest approval rating yet keep winning regardless.


      • The Republicans are not great strategists as you suggest. They have a built in structural advantage and high voter turnout. That’s all.

        Last week we saw their presumptive favorite arrested and arraigned in court. Next week, the same guy will have testify in civil case where he is accused of defaming a woman he allegedly raped. That’s only 2 cases ,but the House Speaker and Republican establishment are still supporting him. Does that sound like a winning strategy to you?

        The Republicans lost ground in 2018,2020 and 2022. They don’t even have a party platform. If you think the Supreme Court is everything then it might make sense, however it likes Mr . Justice Thomas will have to answer questions about non-disclosures of travel and vacations.

        I can’t wait to see how that turns out.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Clarence Thomas deserves to be impeached. Unfortunately he won’t be. Even if he was, he wouldn’t be convicted in the senate. This all goes back to hope. Republicans don’t care about hypocrisy, precedent or anything else other than winning. The party may not have a winning strategy for elections but when you own the courts & have the structural built in advantages you mentioned, Democrats need to capitalize on their power when they have it. Republicans sure do.


      • Clarence Thomas testifying under oath will have one of two outcomes. Either Thomas will lie under oath & still remain on the bench until he retires under a Republican president and/or senate or dies, or Thomas will tell the truth under oath & still remain on the bench until he retires under a Republican president and/or senate or dies.

        Either way Republicans will have put a young judge on the bench & continue to win. The only way that changed is either the Democrats get lucky with their “hope” strategy or change their strategy.


      • We don’t know if he will be truthful if he testifies. Was he truthful during his confirmation hearings? How about Alito and Kavanaugh? Did you feel that they honest when they were answering questions about Roe and Casey?

        I can’t think of any Justice chosen by a Democratic President who lied to the committee. It’s been most of the Republican nominees doing that,


      • I personally doubt he will be truthful. That’s why I wrote there will be one of two outcomes. One of the two I wrote was he will not be truthful. But the outcome for both possibilities will be the same which is he will remain in the bench until he retires under a Republican president and/senate or the Democrats hope strategy works in their favor for once & he dies in office with a Democrat president.


      • I’ve definitely moved on. My rights have moved on right out the door thanks to Republicans appointing judges in their 40’s while Democrats are still playing nice with blue slips & appointing judges in their 50’s & 60’s. Don’t worry, more rights are on the way that will also be moved on.


      • I think it’s more the result of losing elections. Are you suggesting that RBG should have been chosen when she was 40? I could say Elena Kagan could have been chosen when was an undergrad.

        I don’t know what you mean when you say you have” lost”
        rights. Wherever you are you are free to come out west we will be happy to have you.

        I try to look forward so that we don’t lose anymore opportunities in the 2024 election cycle.


      • I’m happy for you & everybody in blue states however I live in Miami, Florida so we’re not so lucky here. But even if I didn’t live here I would still want every American to be afforded the rights those of you in California have. That’s one of the reasons I’m so passionate about the courts.

        But I do agree with your last point about remaining hopefully for 2024. I just can’t agree that Democrats shouldn’t be doing everything possible to counter the Trump years while they have power regardless of 2024’s results.


  7. The court is at its lowest approval ever because it’s taking away peoples rights and doesn’t align with the popular will. If Scalia and RBG had been replaced with liberal justices the court would be more or less out of the public eye probably be well regarded.


    • I know it serves no purpose to keep looking back on what could’ve been, but I still wonder had Obama nominated the 1st Black woman instead of Merrick Garland, had McConnell not been the obstructionist he was in blocking Garland’s confirmation.


      • @Jill

        This is a blog about the judiciary. It’s always ok to take a look back at history here. As for your suggestion, I think had Obama nominated the first Black woman instead of Merrick Garland, it would have helped Hillary get elected as long as she guaranteed she would reappoint that woman. I don’t think it would have budged McConnell or the Republicans who were entrenched in their hypocrisy.

        My only thing when that is brought up is what Black woman would it have been? Most people say KBJ, but I’m a firm believer in I don’t believe any president has nor will ever appoint somebody from a district court straight to the SCOTUS. Even Reagan didn’t do it when there were almost no Republican appointed woman in the circuit courts in 1981 & he had his first vacancy which he promised to appoint a woman for. It’s one of those things that’s nice to say you’re considering a district court judge, but it’s never happened & probably never will.

        I think the better question is why Obama didn’t nominate KBJ to the DC circuit instead of the district court. He could have replaced Patricia Millett (Who could have been nominated to the 4th instead). Then KBJ would have been put in the second highest court in the land at age 43 & been prime for the SCOTUS at 46.


  8. Should be noted with RBG that what happened with her seat was avoidable, as she could have retired anywhere from 2009-15 and could have been replaced.
    Her ego is what cost us that seat, not the age she was put on the court.


    • @Zack Jones

      Sadly I’m afraid you’re most likely right. She probably doesn’t even realize how much she’s hurting the country by staying in office these last 20 months. Between her & these one off senators being out, I think Schumer needs to treat a 50-49 majority as the best he’s gonna get & act on confirming the heavy hitters accordingly. I haven’t heard an update in McConnell’s situation. Perhaps he will be out a little longer when the senate returns in 8 days.


  9. Sen Blumenthal expects to be back next week in senate!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Wow, now that’s great news. Finally luck on the Democrsts side with the accident happening during a 2 week recess. All eyes on Feinstein. Schumer still can confirm just about all of the remaining judges pending. Feinstein coming back would clinch Dale Ho & Julie Rinkleman being able to get confirmed.


      • If Feinstein isn’t back on 4/17, she needs to resign…
        She’s served CA honorably for 30 years, but if she keeps up the MIA’s, she needs to at the very least resign from the SJC..She needs to put the ego at the door and do what is best for the Democratic party as a whole


      • @Rick

        I 1000% agree. This military unilateral hold by senator Tubberville really worries me. I can see the senate taking floor time confirming numerous positions that have always been confirmed via voice vote in the past. That is in addition to virtually every judicial nominee needing a cloture & floor vote with so far only 3 by passing both & getting confirmed by voice vote under Biden.

        It’s not fair to the other 50 Democrats to not be able to take a day off here & they’re without temporality losing the majority because of Feinstein being out so much. I truly hope the people closest to her are having serious conversations about resigning if she can’t return next week.


      • You can repeat your rant about Feinstein as often as you like. However, she’s not gonna leave until she is good and ready.

        To kick someone when they are down is despicable. She has served for 30 years. Has a better attendance record than Fetterman despite being much older and residing on the west coast.

        Enjoy what’s left of your Easter


      • Senator Feinstein is a public servant. It is not despicable to hold our public servants accountable in a democracy. And we are not just talking about her attendance, albeit that alone would be enough. Her mental stability is also failing. We only get 100 US senators. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a country of 330 million people holding those 100 people accountable.

        She has had a fine career over 3 decades. That’s part of the reason I either want her to return to work or retire. I don’t want to see her ruin her legacy. But no, a US senator doesn’t get to miss as much time as she does, make as many mishaps she has in the SJC & get a pass. If you want that, become an Avon lady. Then you can make as many mistakes & miss as much work as you please. But not as a US senator. Not in this day & age.


      • Yes, but Feinstein represents the state of California where you don’t live and have a vote. Whatever, her “mental” faculties are that really isn’t anyone’s business.

        Meanwhile, you have several people Rubio, Scott and De Santis that I never hear you say anything negative about them. I would rather have Feinstein in a diminished state (if that’s what you think of her) than anyone currently “running” Florida.

        You just don’t like people who reach a certain age. That’s your issue but not Feinstein’s problem.

        When John McCain and Edward Kennedy were terminal (which Feinstein is not) no one was heckling them that they had to leave on someone’s else’s timetable.

        Your disdain for Feinstein is clear , so do you need to repeat it every week?


      • Haaaaaaa… You never hear me say anything negative about Rubio, Scott and DeSantis??? Ok now you’re just not being truthful. I believe I was replying to YOU just yesterday saying DeSantis is taking away the rights of Floridians. And I have repeated multiple times how bad I wish Demmings could have defeated Rubio & how bad Rick Scott is.

        But that’s neither here nor there. Senator Feinstein is a United States senator therefore I do get to have an opinion about her even though I don’t get a vote. If she was a state senator I wouldn’t be as vocal but when you’re a senator for the United States then you affect the entire country.

        And you’re wrong when you say I “don’t like people who reach a certain age.”I don’t like Democrats appointing federal judges that are old because those positions have lifetime tenure. Any other job in the government I have no issue with how old the person is as long as they can do their job. Senator Feinstein repeatedly hasn’t done her job to my liking.

        She gave senator Graham a big hug & said the ACB SCOTUS hearing was the best hearing she’s ever been a part of, 4 years after he said he would never confirm a justice in an election year. She repeatedly has to ask people to speak up louder when they are right next to her in the SJC. She forgets to introduce her own nominees & has to interrupt the next speaker when she remembers. She forgets she put out a statement she will not run for reelection. She misses WEEKS at a time multiple times over the Biden administration.

        So yes, I as an American voter do have distain for a US senator that I feel isn’t doing their job. That’s regardless of the state or age of the senator. That bares repeating daily until she either fixed the issues I feel she has, her term ends or she resigns. As I’ve said before if senator Booker was doing that I would call him out just as quickly.


      • Yes, you are very kind when referring to the people from your state. So what , if someone made a misstatement or forgot a line. When it came time to vote Feinstein was there.

        It’s quite a stretch for you to think you have a say over an elected official who lives in another state. You are not a constituent so she does not answer to you other than referring you to Rubio or Scott. That’s who represents you.

        Yes, you are OCD about people over 50. That’s old for someone like you. Again, that’s your thing . Eventually if you are lucky to get to that age you’ll grow out of it.

        At that time perhaps you’ll obtain an ounce of scruple when you refer to someone like RBG who IS no longer with us .Who does that?


      • Again, making a comment that is completely untrue doesn’t make it true just because it is repeated. It’s very easy to disprove that I am “very kind when referring to the people from my state”. Anybody can simply scroll up or go to any previous post on this site for the two years I’ve been posting on it. I challenge anybody to find one positive comment I’ve made about Ron DeSantis, Marco Rubio or Rick Scott. Literally just ONE. I use my real name on all my post so go ahead, prove me wrong. You can’t because you are completely making it up… Lol

        It is not “ quite a stretch” to have the right to have an opinion about a United States senator from one of the 49 states you don’t live in. Their votes affect my life unlike say a state senator or county commissioner from another state.

        And again as for the age, this too is easily disproven. Bringing up me not saying bad things about John McCain when he missed work is obvious. He is a Republican & I am a Democrat. I am happy when Republicans miss work. I care when Democrats miss work. Here’s a list of list of Democrats that I don’t believe I’ve ever had a bad word about that is over the age of 70 to disprove that repeated line of yours…

        Mazie Hirono – 75
        Ed Markey – 76
        Jeanne Shaheen – 76
        Sherrod Brown – 70
        Ron Wyden – 73
        Jack Reed – 73
        Peter Welch – 75
        Patty Murray – 72

        All other senators over 70 I have criticized at one time or another. So there’s EIGHT Democrat senators over the age of 70 I challenge you to find me having anything negative to say about other than if they recommended a federal judge on the older side. Notice none of the eight have repeatedly missed weeks of work, forgotten statements they have made, commended Republican SJC chairman for sham SCOTUS hearings during an election month or repeatedly forget to introduce their own nominees at hearings.

        I know facts hurt when they disprove your narrative but you continue to repeat things that aren’t true. You’re entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.


      • Of course you haven’t gotten to the Senators you mentioned. You are like a Pit Bull on Feinstein and RBG who hasn’t been with us for a couple of years.

        I guess RBG is the perfect target because she can’t fight back. What are you trying to accomplish by attacking her after she is gone? Does it help you sleep better at night?

        Yes, you have a an opinion but so does the guy who hangs out at the corner liquor store. I was just saying you don’t have a say in how or when Feinstein wants to leave the Senate. Nor, does anyone in the Senate so you certainly don’t.

        Senator Feinstein has a family who looks out for her. It’s their responsibility when it’s necessary. Chuck Schumer and Dick Durban do not have a say in the matter. This would also include you too. That’s all that I am saying and think you know that.

        Take Care


      • But that’s what you’re not understanding. I haven’t gotten to the other senators because they haven’t done nearly any of the things senator Feinstein has done. Unfortunately if you chose to be one of the 545 people at the head of the three branches of government (President, SCOTUS, US Senate & House) you are a servant of the people. So yes me, you, residents from states they don’t live in & even the guy at the corner liquor store all get to have an opinion about those 545 people.

        When I think they do a good job, great. When I think they do a bad job, we say it. That’s how it works if they chose to be one of those 545 people. And to top it off this is a blog literally based on the judiciary. So obviously most of the comments are going to be related to either members of the judiciary or members that affect how they get on the judiciary. But if you want to talk about another subject such as sports, I hope The Lakers get eliminated, I can’t stand The Yankees & I had a great time last weekend in Los Angeles at Wrestlemania… Haaaaa

        But yes you have a good night as well


      • So that’s about half the Dem senators over 70. To get this right I’ll sum up what your criticisms of the other Dems over 70 are:

        Dianne Feinstein (89) – missed votes, forgetting statements
        Bernie Sanders (81)- missed votes
        Ben Cardin (79)- playing Russian roulette with 4th circuit seat
        Angus King (79) – ?
        Dick Durbin (78) – won’t get rid of blue slips
        Dick Blumenthal (77) – idk what your criticism of him was before he broke his leg yesterday
        Tom Carper (76) – idk what your criticism of him is but I know he has DV allegations
        Jeanne Shaheen (76) – supports Michael Delaney to an extreme level
        Joe Manchin (75) – obvious one here; frequently torpedoes the Dem agenda
        Elizabeth Warren (73) – ?
        Debbie Stabenow (72) – ?
        Chuck Schumer (72) – won’t keep the senate in session more than 4 days a week & too many recess weeks


      • @Ryan Joshi

        I actually would have to add Angus King, Dick Blumenthal, Tom Carper (I’ve seen others on this site speak I’ll of him but I never have), Jeanne Shaheen & Debbie Stabenow to the list. I’ve never said anything bad about any of them other than if they recommended bad judges which I mentioned above.

        But yea, spot on about the rest. I have criticized Elizabeth Warren plenty of times (I see you put question marks) when she ran for president. I definitely criticized her when she was talking about adding seats to the SCOTUS while we still didn’t have nominees for the 1st & 2 district court seats in Massachusetts.

        Liked by 1 person

  10. Looking ahead, if we can get a new batch of nominees this week, here are the possible SJC slots before the 4th of July break.

    4/19 – Possible hearing
    5/10 – Possible hearing if we get a new batch this week
    5/24 – ***Recess week***
    5/31 – Possible hearing
    6/14 – Possible hearing


    • My hope is with all these small “batches” (I use that word loosely), at some point I have to assume there will be a double digit batch. With three possible SJC slots missed already this year, I surely hope that happens this week.

      There are some opportunities for a big batch. If senators Cornyn & Rubio are to be believed, Texas & Florida alone could fill three slots. And that’s not to mention the remaining blue states with vacancies.


  11. Hey all, hope I didn’t miss any important judicial news this weekend.
    I started off my week this morning by reading up on some of the previous Wisconsin Supreme Court races and some of the justices currently serving. Of course, if you look at something long enough, you’ll probably always find unbelievable things.

    Take for example, the court’s current chief justice, Annette Ziegler.

    Late in the campaign in her first race in 2007, she was dogged by serious conflict of interest allegations. Those allegations were so serious that the new court that she was about to join, voted 5-1 to do the rare thing of publicly reprimanding her for these violations while she was a lower court judge.

    But that’s not the most shocking part.
    The shocker is that she ran *unopposed* for reelection in 2017. That is well within the Trump-era when liberals started to do everything to counter his degenerative effect on our politics. Are you telling me that Wisconsin Dems/liberals couldn’t field a candidate to take her on and all her baggage? Even without these allegations, I don’t think conservatives will ever not contest such a high-level judicial race.
    And how has she been while on SCOWIS? A total hard right-winger. From voting to loosen conflict of interest laws for elected official (duh hahaha!), to voting to hear Trump’s adsorb lawsuit to decertify Biden’s 2020 win (which failed by a single vote).

    Liberals are well known to not us the power they have. When the new SCOWIS liberal majority is seated in August, they better use the power that the Republicans have given them and take away the chief justice title from Ziegler, just like the conservatives on the court did.

    There’s a lot I’m looking forward to from this new court. Let’s see what it does.


  12. She is an absolute disgrace. Shameful behavior, she needs to resign or step aside from the judiciary committee. Another reason why i say democrats are cowards, mcconell would have replaced a member on the committee if it was stopping them from quickly confirm lifetime federal judges while dick durbin is doing nothing , same thing for the clarence thomas story, imagine Elena kagan taking several trips worth several hundreds of thousands of dollars sponsored by george soros ,it would be story on all news network with every gop senator calling for resignation or serious investigations , with democrats/senate dems we get cowardice.


    • @aangren

      We don’t always agree but in this I’m in 100% agreement with you in accounts. Both of these issues would have either been settled or the process to begin setting them would have been well on its way to being resolved by the end of the Easter recess had Republicans been the party in power. The fact that we still have progressives even on this blog defending Feinstein remaining in her seat, blue slips remaining unchanged & Thomas remaining a low level concern, exemplifies why we have the courts we have today.


  13. Unless you have 67 votes for conviction, you can investigate Thomas all you want, he isn’t going anywhere.
    As for Feinstein, it’s RBG all over again in that people think it is sexist and ageist to point out that someone’s chronic health issues are putting civil rights at risk and that they need to step down for a greater good.
    Feinstein’s issues are different from RBG in that I think her issues are more dementia related and I don’t know how you can fully get through to someone who may not be aware of what is going on at this point.
    Still, if someone can encourage her to resign, would be worth it.


  14. YES! Rowan Wilson got the nod! He’s one of the liberals on NY’s Court of Appeals. This means that Hochul will now pick another person from the list to replace him. Maybe she’ll pick a more moderate candidate to offset this wonderful nomination. (PS. I still hate her and will (not “would”) vote against her in a heartbeat.)


    • Haaaaaa… Governor Hochul picking Rowan Wilson as chief Justice proves one thing. Even a broke clock is right twice a day. She still will get ZERO credit in my book until I see her replace him with another liberal. If not, then the court will still be a 4-3 conservative majority. I have little faith in her picking a liberal replacement but hopefully the super majority senate either pressure (Or more than likely embarrass) her into picking a liberal.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Ok, if Caitlin Halligan is her replacement pick then I will for once say something nice about governor Hocul (Despite it leaving a bad taste in my mouth). I advocated for Halligan to be picked by Cuomo & feel she shouldn’t have given up on the DC circuit when Obama nominated her because she deserved to be on that court as well.

        Good job today governor Hochul. I wish you would have done it two months ago but I’m happy you finally made the right choice. Bravo


  15. The giant elephant in the room now will be how will they rule on the redestricting challenge that will be heading their way.
    Besides all of other LaSalle’s issues, that was the giant elephant in the room.
    On Caitlin Halligan, I know she won’t be everyone’s cup of tea but IMO, she is a solid nominee and deserves confirmation, especially after what happened to her with the D.C. Circuit.


  16. And now for the victory dance:

    To all those naysayers (I remember you) in here who tried to poo-poo we LaSalle critics, saying that even if we succeeded in killing his nomination that we shouldn’t expect a more liberal candidate from a more liberal list: ha ha! You’re wrong again! Your shortsightedness must end. Pushback and criticism are important in a democracy, even if it isn’t ultimately successful. Any idiot knows this. So yes, even if there aren’t enough votes to remove Clarence Thomas from office, his behavior is still worth serious congressional investigation. I can’t believe I have to say this.


      • Haha, this is still a little like preaching.

        Once this chapter closes, one of the biggest losers will be the current acting chief judge. How embarrassing to be passed over so often. I would resign out right from the court. (I hope he’s listening to me and will do just that.)

        I’m on a judicial high from the Wisconsin race last week and these nominations today. The only thing that could make me feel better now is if Dale Ho is teed up for confirmation next week!


      • I remember when I first became interested in the judiciary after I was one of the hanging Chad voters in Miami-Dade County in the 2000 presidential election & was angry my first-time voting didn’t count. One of my initial biggest surprises was when I started looking at various state courts. I remember when I first searched California’s SCOTUS (Once again just my acronym for any state’s highest court), at the time I believe 6 out of the 7 justices were Republicans. I couldn’t believe it. One of the bluest states in the country was almost unanimously Republican.

        It took decades but finally California’s highest court reflects the will of the people in that state. Now it’s the exact reverse. 6 of the 7 are Democrats. The idea that Democrats should just sit down, shut up & remain silent just because the politician doing bad is Democrat is INSANE to me. If anything, I will shout even louder when a Democrat is trying to put conservatives on the bench. It could have taken over a decade to undo the damage a Hochul conservative chief justice pick would have caused. But instead, Democrats stood up & gave her a resounding NO. Now 2 months later we get a SOLID liberal chief justice & a pretty liberal associate justice to replace him.

        Nobody should be silenced when criticizing Democrats for doing bad. I am a Democrat & I want Democrats that will advance the judiciary to the left. If not, then what’s the point.

        So yes I want senator Feinstein to either show up to work or resign. Yes I want senator Durbin to get rid of blue slips. Yes I want senator Schumer to stop taking so much recess time off. Yes I want governor Hochul to have more days like today when it comes to picking judges. Because two decades from now I want to look back on the judiciary as a whole the same way I am looking back at the California Supreme Court 20 years ago.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Excellent points, and effective and evocative picture you paint of California then and now (notwithstanding our disagreements on Feinstein and blue slips).

        As with California, so with NY, and Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, others.
        Looking ahead, Pennsylvania will have a partisan supreme court race later this year. And Wisconsin will have races in at least three straight years: 2025, 2026, and 2027.
        The days of liberal judicial disengagement should be over.


      • Totally. It’s sad it takes people getting their rights taken away for them to realize how important the judiciary is but better late than never. State supreme court races should now be treated just like US senate races are treated.

        And on another note, bravo to governor Newsome. I saw parts of his interview yesterday on MSNBC & he has started a PAC to fund Democrats in red states. This is another underappreciated area when it comes to Democrats. We need to pick off some of these red states that I believe are winnable. There are too many races that Democrats aren’t even fielding a nominee for. It’s inexcusable. We wouldn’t be sweating every two years to hold on to the senate majority if we picked off a couple of these red state seats.


      • In addition to Pennsylvania & Wisconsin, there are several more states that have supreme court vacancies.

        New Jersey has had a vacancy since last Summer that still does not have a nominee. I know the state has a partisan split, but this is a seat that can be filled by a Democrat. Governor Murphy has done a phenomenal job (Although I wish he abandoned the partisan split) so I look forward to seeing the nominee for this seat.

        In Minnesota, one of the remaining two Republican justices reaches mandatory retirement next year. We should get a good nominee there.

        There is a vacancy in Connecticut thanks to the elevation of Maria Araújo Kahn. Govenor Lamont has put older justices on the bench so far.

        Delaware has two vacancies. They have a partisan split rule but also like New Jersey, both seats can be filed with Democrats.

        Oregon has the vacancy that was created by the elevation of judge Nelson.

        Next year a seat will become vacant when a Republican govenor Hogan nominee reaches mandatory retirement age. It will be great to see what kind of justice new governor Wes Moore nominates.

        Liked by 1 person

  17. By all means investigate Thomas but don’t give the notion that it will lead to anything in the end because it won’t.
    As for Caitlin Halligan, she is moderate but was by no means the most liberal name Hochul could have chosen so I’m not sure how she’ll rule on the map which IMO is the biggest issue that will be coming before the courts soon.


    • I think folks are overestimating how moderate Halligan will be – I hardly think she’s going to be a Jose Cabranes when the GOP filibustered to keep her off of CADC. I’d be surprised if she sides with the conservatives on the redistricting issue, though obviously we can never take anything for granted. I think her background is pretty similar to Patricia Millett (who was also filibustered before she filled the seat on CADC that Halligan was nominated to), so here’s hoping she ends up being similarly liberal.

      Also, Durbin is holding an SJC hearing on SCOTUS ethics:

      Dems better turn this into a Clarence Thomas bashing session if they know what’s good for them. I can’t believe how little press there’s been about Thomas accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts – and from a guy who has statues of Nazi’s in his garden and a signed copy of Mein Kampf.


      • The House is better at these types of hearings. That’s not gonna happen now with the GOP in charge over there.

        What we don’t need is just “shyt talking.” They need to try to bring people in to answer questions. What happened with the leak at the Supreme Court.

        More questions and investigation should shed some light on ethical lapses at the Supreme Court.


  18. I see AOC is the strongest voice in the House for holding Clarence Thomas accountable. I’ve never liked her politics, but I am glad to see her giving this issue the attention it needs.
    Now someone needs to act. Whether or not McCarthy likes it, anyone in the House can put forward impeachment resolutions and the House *must* act on it. So–I know this is tough for some to get–even if these resolutions fail (and there’s every expectation that it may), Thomas and other federal judges will be on notice that they can no longer flout judicial ethics or conflict of interest laws with impunity. This alone, even without removal, would be a positive outcome.


      • While I’m not the biggest AOC fan, why would her saying she wants to impeach a servant of the people because they broke the law for over two decades be the thing she needs to shut up for? Republicans chanted “Lock her up” for 17 months for a person that didn’t have so much as a parking ticket. They also filibustered LBJ’s pick for Chief Justice for doing a tenth of what Thomas is accused of.

        It’s not even like Thomas is denying the reports. He is just saying he was told he could do it without reporting without giving any names to back up who told him that. And this isn’t the first ethics scandal he has had.

        I don’t think Thomas would be impeached but that’s not because he shouldn’t be. And the House impeached & senate convicted judge Portous of Louisiana about a decade ago for similar infractions. Do you really think somebody should get a free pass just because the House is majority Republican?


      • It’s a waste of time and turns a serious allegation into s sideshow. The purpose ought to be to force changes at the Supreme Court.

        I still don’t know why cameras aren’t at the court during oral arguments. The reforms can start there and then we can find out what Alito and Thomas are up to.

        It doesn’t have to personal but an understanding of how that place runs. A justice cannot be permitted to supplement his/her income by accepting lavish gifts from benefactors or fan club members.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Couldn’t agree more with this. AOC is simply grandstanding to her base and following the Democratic playbook of tearing down the judiciary with talk of it being ‘illegitimate’ simply because of some rulings not being in line with their political positions.


    • Oh I’m sorry, how are the likes of Frank and Shawnee (to the extent you aren’t trolling) suggesting anyone “force changes” to the Supreme Court? You think Alito and Thomas are going to be inviting cameras on their luxury yachts to show exactly how little they care about things like ethics? Thomas has life tenure, so how exactly will anyone get him to stop accepting lavish gifts from benefactors? Obviously an impeachment isn’t going to pass in this House, but an actual vote against Thomas (or even a nonbinding resolution) would send a signal to Thomas and the other conservatives that they’re not above reproach.

      In fact, I think the best way to add teeth to any reprimand is to propose stripping the funding for chambers staff for any justice who violates the ethics code like Thomas – sure he has life tenure, but there’s no entitlement to $500k/year to pay his law clerks and assistants. After all, Supreme Court justices in the 1700s and 1800s didn’t have a team of four clerks doing all their work, and we know how much old Clarence loves going back to 1789.

      And @Frank you have a lot of bad takes, but this may take the cake – the only ones “tearing down” the judiciary are the likes of Clarence + Ginni Thomas and Kacsmaryk. If someone is going to act like a GOP nutjob in robes, their rantings and ravings deserve as little deference as Trump’s latest tweet.


      • I didn’t say anything about impeachment or anything like that. The statements that Thomas made that someone told him it might be okay or something like doesn’t pass the giggle test.

        However, it should not be difficult to compel Robert’s , Thomas and Alito to provide statements to lock in these stories that would be a good start.

        The Congress has more power over the Court than vice versa. They don’t need the Court’s approval to have cameras. Any resistance can result in funds being cut which they don’t want. They can also force clerks to come before the Senate before being hired.

        They have life tenure but they can make their lives difficult if they aren’t behaving.


      • That’s why I don’t like talk of impeachment.If Thomas has broke laws about accepting gifts then it’s necessary for someone to look into this.

        That judge from several years ago Portious was doing stuff like not paying for things or trying to stiff people who were before him.

        How long has Thomas been sponging off this billionaire? It’s no wonder why he hasn’t left the job and it’s paltry salary : his lifestyle is being subsidized by a fat cat.


      • I don’t think impeachment would ever happen. But, I would like to know more because if Thomas broke any laws of substance ; he needs to go to jail.

        I don’t see a money campaign to get Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson on the Court.

        We had Kavanaugh who was overloaded with credit card debt that mysteriously went away. Then Alito having his meal paid for and allegedly forecasting pending Court decisions. No one has ever provided a full explanation of what became of the inquiry in the leak of the Hobby Lobby decision. We know that none of Justices and only clerks were questioned.

        Worst yet, Thomas has been accepting travel on Yachts and private jets in Europe or wherever for several years. He knows it wasn’t appropriate .

        It sounds like corruption.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Porteous’s impeachment was bipartisan – I think the vote was 94-2. (note that Porteous had agreed to retire the following year if not impeached). I think it would be much easier to impeach a judge in senior status than one in active status because they technically no longer hold their seat.


      • @Hank

        I often ignore comments by Frank and Shawnee whenever I cannot wrench reason from whatever they say, even if it’s a reason I disagree with. Sometime it just seems like they take contrarian views just for the sake of it, which is fine, I guess, but I don’t feel the need to always engage.

        It’s amazing that we have to explain the different ways in which you can hold public officials accountable. Saying AOC “is simply grandstanding” because of “rulings” when she’s speaking out explicitly on the specific issue of Thomas’s lapse of judicial ethics is willful obtuseness unworthy of a thoughtful response.


      • If someone like Katie Porter, Adam Schiff or even Ro Khanna makes a statement at least you can take them seriously.

        We’re not on a college campus. You can have temper tantrums and talk shit but at the end of the day it doesn’t mean anything.

        I hope AOC runs for the Senate then when see if she can convince people statewide to vote for her.

        Everyone on here has the sense to know that she does not. To have different ideas what’s wrong with that?

        Liked by 1 person

      • I agree that the actions taken by Clarence + Ginni Thomas and Kacsmaryk were reprehensible. However, the Democrats are nowhere near beyond reproach for seeking to undercut the legitimacy of the courts by constantly talking about how they are illegitimate in a similar fashion to Trump seeking to undermine the publics faith in the electoral process by claiming voter fruad simply because he lost.


      • I would argue there’s a difference between the two. Trump said judges can’t do their jobs because they were Mexican, appointed by a Democrat, lived in a liberal city & because their daughter worked for a Democrat. The Democrats complain some judges shouldn’t be on the bench because they broke the law for two decades, were credibly accused of sexual harassment & lied at their SJC hearing.

        The two are not the same. Also the last time we had a Democrat appointee accused of anything close to any of the things I mentioned above, judge Poertus of Louisiana was impeached & convicted.

        Liked by 1 person

  19. There is also question about who will be the next U.S. Attorney for Northern Illinois. I’m predicting Sergio Acosta will be chosen. Also, I wouldn’t be surprised to Acosta nominated for a judgeship in a second Biden term if that happens.


  20. Seeing some grumblings from some NY Progressive about work related lawsuits Caitlin Halligan was on the wrong side of as well as fears about which wing of the court she’d join but at this point, it’s pretty clear that unlike Lasalle, she has the votes to get confirmed and I don’t see that changing.


      • Caitlin Halligan is a good nominee & I would expect she will be in the liberal wing of the court. Obama made good nominations to the DC circuit & Halligan was the only one of the five that wasn’t from the DC area or a neighboring state. If he went outside of the area to pick her that speaks volumes about her to me.

        I can understand reservations about anybody Governor Hochul picks. Lord knows I certainly examine anybody she thinks is good more closely. But progressives need to take a win when we get it. Regardless of the reason Hochul made these two choices (Pressured or embarrassed into making them), they should be happy these were her two picks. They weren’t the most progressive picks out of the seven recommended, but still fine picks in my account.


  21. If nothing else, some folks need to understand it wasn’t just progressives who were opposed to Lasalle, it was ALL wings of the Democratic party, something Hochul refused to believe until the very end.
    With Halligan, it’s pretty clear that won’t be the case this time.
    Just me but I think the progressive wing of the party needs to be happy they stopped Lasalle’s nomination and leave it at that, because IMO fighting over Halligan’s nomination will be just as short sighted as what Hochul did with Lasalle and leave you with nothing in the end.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s