Judge Susan Bazis – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska

U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan Bazis may have been passed over for a seat on the Nebraska Supreme Court in 2015, but she is now poised to take a seat on the federal bench.

Background

Born in 1968, Susan M. Bazis attended the University of Nebraska at Omaha and then Creighton University School of Law, getting her B.S. magna cum laude in 1990 and her J.D. in 1993. During law school, Bazis worked at Paragas Law Offices and continued with the firm upon graduation. Bazis also spent three years as an Assistant Public Defender while with the office.

In 2001, Bazis became a solo practitioner, which she maintained until 2007 when Govenor Dave Heineman appointed Bazis to the Douglas County Court.

In 2015, Bazis applied to replace Justice Michael McCormick on the Nebraska Supreme Court, but Sarpy County Judge Max Kelch was chosen for the seat instead.

Around the same time that she thwarted a car theft in 2017, Bazis left the state court bench when Judge Laurie Smith Camp appointed her as a federal magistrate judge, where she currently serves.

History of the Seat

Bazis has been nominated for a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska. This seat opened on February 6, 2023 when Judge John Gerrard took senior status. In early 2023, Sen. Deb Fischer recommended Bazis to the White House for nomination, and Bazis’ nomination was announced on December 19, 2023.

Legal Experience

Bazis started her legal career at Paragas Law Offices, while also having a short stint as a Public Defender in Douglas County. She then spent seven years as a solo practitioner in Omaha, during which time she handled a wide variety of cases including criminal defense and family law. Notably, Bazis has represented death penalty cases in challenges to their sentence. See, e.g., State v. Gales, 269 Neb. 443 (2005). Bazis also argued before the Nebraska Supreme Court on behalf of Edward Robinson, convicted of murder for a fatal shooting after a fight in the Popeye’s parking lot. See State v. Robinson, 724 N.W.2d 35 (Neb. 2006).

Among the family law cases that Bazis handled, she represented a father before the Nebraska Court of Appeals, who sought to have an order terminating his parental rights overturned. See In re Dylan Z., 697 N.W.2d 707 (Neb. App. 2005). The Court of Appeals reversed the termination of parental rights on the grounds of abandonment and neglect, finding that the appellant’s lack of presence in his son’s life was based on his lack of knowledge of the son’s birth, and not on a wilful abandonment. See id. at 719.

Jurisprudence

Bazis has been on the bench for the last sixteen years, starting as a state court judge and then moving on to be a U.S. Magistrate Judge.

State Court

Bazis served on the Douglas County Circuit Court between her appointment in 2007 and her appointment as a magistrate judge in 2017. During this time, Bazis also served as the court’s presiding judge for four years, and also served as an advocate to reform the state’s guardianship system. See Bill Kelly, Guardianship Reform Advances After Judges, Victims Share Concerns, Nebraska Public Media, Feb. 13, 2014, https://nebraskapublicmedia.org/en/news/news-articles/guardianship-reform-advances-after-judges-victims-share-concerns/. Additionally, during her time as a state court judge, she reported her colleague Gregory Schatz to the Judicial Misconduct Commission for improperly contacting the local jail to release one of his friends on a personal recognizance bond. See In re Complaint Against Schatz, 845 N.W.2d 273 (Neb. 2014).

Federal Court

Since 2017, Bazis has served as a federal magistrate judge, in which role, she prepares reports and recommendations for district judges, handles discovery disputes and pretrial litigation, and presides over cases by the agreement of the parties. Among the reports and recommendations that she prepared, Bazis presided over an evidentiary hearing sought by Tracy Inman, who alleged that her counsel failed to file an appeal on her behalf, and ruled that Inman had not directed her counsel to file an appeal. See United States v. Inman, No. 8:21-CR-60 (D. Neb. Nov. 20, 2023) (Buescher, J.). Judge Brian Buescher accepted Bazis’ recommendation in denying Inman’s petition for relief.

Among the matters she has presided over, Bazis ruled that an Administrative Judge had a substantial basis to find that Amber Kraus was not disabled and thus was not entitled to disability benefits. See Kraus v. Saul, 988 F.3d 1019 (8th Cir. 2021). The Eighth Circuit affirmed Bazis’ ruling. See id.

Political Activity

Bazis has a handful of political contributions, including to the Nebraska Republican Party, Heineman and Congressman Lee Terry.

Overall Assessment

As a nominee, Bazis has extensive experience with both state and federal court, as well as the support of her home state senators. Given her close ties to Nebraska Republicans, it is unlikely that her nomination will prove controversial.

59 Comments

  1. Mitch's avatar

    The nomination of Judge Bazis caught me off guard. I had expected Andre Barry to get it. Apparently, Bazis’s background in criminal defense and public defense appealed to the White House.

    She should have no trouble getting confirmed and might get a voice vote.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Ethan's avatar

      @Mitch,
      I too expected Andre Barry. Especially because Barry is based in Lincoln while Bazis is based in Omaha. Duty station doesn’t always better but given how many seats Nebraska has, I figured it would in this case. Upon Bazis’s confirmation, all of the active judges on the district court will be from Omaha. Two of the three senior judges (including John Gerrard, who Bazis is being tapped to succeed) are Lincoln based.

      This makes me assume that when Omaha based Chief Judge Robert F. Rossiter Jr. goes senior, his successor will be from Lincoln. I believe he doesn’t hit the rule of 80 until 2028 or 2029.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. keystone's avatar

    Tennessee has an upcoming State Supreme Court opening coming up. The Governor’s judicial appointments panel just released their list of three finalists.

    One of the names on that list is Camille McMullen.

    The application process was only a few weeks ago. Wonder if this means she’s out of consideration for either the Federal District and Circuit spots or if she’s hedging her bets.

    https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2024/01/05/tennessee-supreme-court-three-finalists-named-for-upcoming-vacancy/72112560007/

    Liked by 1 person

    • Gavi's avatar

      Very interesting, thanks for sharing.

      I tend to believe that Camille McMullen may no longer be/wasn’t under consideration for the CCA6 vacancy. By now you probably know my theory about long lags with naming a seemingly obvious choice. Would it take 5 months (August to now) to decide on McMullen when she was already considered for the first vacancy?

      Justice Roger Page announced his intention to retire last November, after which, McMullen was able to apply for that job. I don’t think she would have applied if she was seriously being considered for CCA6.

      While you’re paid more as a federal judge, the TN supreme court is one of the more powerful top courts in the country (among other things, it alone *anoints* the state’s solicitor general). And there are only 5 justices there. Maybe this is more attractive to McMullen?

      More importantly, assuming that this rank speculation is accurate, I wonder who the leading contenders are!

      Liked by 1 person

      • Joe's avatar

        Tend to agree Gavi. If McMullen was the pick then I think she’d have been nominated by now.

        If you look at the 4 judges who have been elevated under Biden, you’ll see all of them were picked relatively quickly. This isn’t exactly the same situation, but it’s been 5 months already.

        Like

    • Hank's avatar

      I doubt McMullen will actually be picked by the Republican governor for the Tennessee Supreme Court seat – the article states that Mary Wagner, one of the other candidates is 39 and a Fed Soc member, so she’s the frontrunner. The article also says these are the names recommended by the nominating committee, and my guess is that they included McMullen as a courtesy because (1) this seat on the Tennessee Supreme Court has to go to Memphis/West Tennessee, and (2) West Tennessee (especially Memphis) is heavily Black and McMullen’s the most prominent Black state court judge.

      That being said, I agree that McMullen’s unlikely to be nominated to the CA6 seat because (a) Blackburn can’t stand the idea of a majority of Tennessee’s CA6 seats being held by African Americans, and (b) Gibbons (who could still revoke her decision to go senior) likely wants a former clerk/someone she knows. If Blackburn weren’t such a nutjob, I’d think that maybe McMullen could get appointed to the WDTN vacancy in a package deal. Wouldn’t hold my breath though.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Joe's avatar

        Good point Hank. Are there any former Gibbons clerks that are magistrate or state judges? That would be a logical place to look. Of course the Biden administration doesn’t HAVE to get blue slips, but given everything that went down with Mathis I think they will try to get some cooperation from Blackburn/Hagerty if they can.

        Like

      • Jamie's avatar

        There’s no chance with the current Gov. Bill Lee, who is as hard right as it gets.
        If this were Bill Haslam still making this pick, there’d a chance that McMullen might be selected. Brian Kemp selected Verda Colvin (a centrist black Democrat) to the Georgia CoA and later SC; I presume because the good will of having a black justice (when running for re-election) overrode the desire to put another Republican on a court that was already heavily conservative. Haslam might well think that way, Lee certainly does not.
        Also the chances of Gibbons revoking are slim. She has a less conservative record on the 6th than the other GOP appointed justices. She had ample opportunity to retire under Trump, did not, and now is doing so under Biden. I don’t think she’s going to revoke provided someone can be confirmed.

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        I too fully expect Mary Wagner to be the nominee as well. Why would a right wing governor pick a Black woman that President Biden considered for a circuit court seat when he had a 39 year old Federalist Society conservative he could pick. And the SCOT-TN is a 5 member court so one bad pick (Bad if you’re a Republican) four tilt the court in the wrong direction for years. Maybe the third nominee is chosen if he simply wants a White man despite him being over a decade older but I see no way McMullin is the nominee.

        Like

  3. Joe's avatar

    Bazis may be a Republican, but at least she appears to have a strong background in criminal defense. Given that the state has no other openings, this seems like a fine nominee, though I would have preferred someone more center-left.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      Bazis seems to be the best red state Republican I’ve seen in quite some time nominated by a Democrat president. Looking at some of the defendants she represented combined with her being a former public defender is not a bad pick in my opinion. Plus she seems tough since her & her husband fought off a car jacker.

      Like

  6. Mitch's avatar

    On to the vacancy for the Sixth Circuit in Tennessee. IMHO, the three contenders are Camille McMullen, Kevin Ritz, and Travis McDonough.

    McDonough has the advantage of being from Eastern Tennessee, which has no judges on the Sixth Circuit. Andre Mathis, who got the nod last time, is from Memphis. McMullen and Ritz are also from there. It would make sense to choose McDonough, not only because of geography, but because he’s well he seems to be well-liked and respected and no one appears to have any problem with him.

    There is also an opening for a seat on Western Tennessee District Court, and both McMullen and Ritz would be strong nominees if they’re interested.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. star0garnet's avatar

    The point was recently made that any judge politically motivated to step down under Biden would have done so already. I was curious if that had a historically measurable impact, and was wondering what we might expect in terms of judicial retirements under a second Biden term. To do this, I took a look at the archive at uscourts.gov, and assigned every announced Article III resignation/retirement/senior status dating back to 2001 to the month before the earliest month in which it appears in the archive. (So if a retirement first appears on the June 1, 2008 list, it’s assigned to May 2008.) Deaths, elevations, new positions, and impeachments are excluded; retirements that turn into deaths, retirements that result in an abolished seat, and retirements that are rescinded are included. Retirements are assigned to the presidential term in which they occurred, rescinded retirements to the term in which they were announced, and current TBDs to the current term. Retirements announced in Januaries are counted with the rest of that year, regardless of whether they were announced before or after January 20. This involved correcting numerous errors, so I can’t guarantee that I caught all of them, and of course retirements are often announcement privately if not publicly before they appear on the courts site.

    Top level:
    Bush 1: 127 (23 circuit, 102 district, 2 IT)
    Bush 2: 128 (1 SC, 21 circuit, 106 district)
    Obama 1: 175 (2 SC, 30 circuit, 142 district, 1 IT)
    Obama 2: 173 (25 circuit, 144 district, 4 IT)
    Trump: 155 (1 SC, 35 circuit, 117 district, 2 IT)
    Biden: 193+ (1 SC, 42 circuit, 149 district, 1 IT)

    That’s a striking similarity from first to second terms, even with both losing the senate for their last half-term. There’s a perceptible drop in high-level retirements under Obama’s second term, but it’s not as if they came close to stopping. Now for a more detailed, yearly breakdown:

    Bush 1:
    before term: 6 (1 circuit, 5 district)
    year 1: 40 (9 circuit, 30 district, 1 IT)
    year 2: 36 (8 circuit, 28 district)
    year 3: 31 (3 circuit, 28 district)
    year 4: 14 (2 circuit, 11 district, 1 IT)

    Bush 2:
    before term: 15 (2 circuit, 13 district)
    year 1: 33 (1 SC, 6 circuit, 26 district)
    year 2: 32 (8 circuit, 24 district)
    year 3: 17 (1 circuit, 16 district)
    year 4: 31 (4 circuit, 27 district)

    Obama 1:
    before term: 11 (2 circuit, 9 district)
    year 1: 57 (1 SC, 11 circuit, 45 district)
    year 2: 37 (1 SC, 4 circuit, 32 district)
    year 3: 44 (8 circuit, 35 district, 1 IT)
    year 4: 26 (5 circuit, 21 district)

    Obama 2:
    before term: 12 (3 circuit, 9 district)
    year 1: 56 (9 circuit, 47 district)
    year 2: 42 (3 circuit, 35 district, 4 IT)
    year 3: 27 (3 circuit, 24 district)
    year 4: 36 (7 circuit, 29 district)

    Trump:
    before term: 11 (11 district)
    year 1: 58 (17 circuit, 41 district)
    year 2: 49 (1 SC, 9 circuit, 39 district)
    year 3: 31 (7 circuit, 22 district, 2 IT)
    year 4: 6 (2 circuit, 4 district)

    Biden:
    before term: 3 (3 district)
    year 1: 90 (30 circuit, 59 district, 1 IT)
    year 2: 54 (1 SC, 8 circuit, 45 district)
    year 3: 45 (4 circuit, 41 district)
    year 4: 1+ (1 district)

    So we’ve just seen modern, if not all-time, records for voluntary Article III judicial retirements in a presidential term’s first, second, and third years, and almost certainly set a record (the courts having been smaller historically) for a single term before the fourth year had even begun. A few of the current TBDs may turn into ‘before term’ announcements for the next presidential term. We almost certainly won’t see anything approaching Obama’s 2017 mark of 36 in a final year of a term; that was due to a combination of judges retiring with the expectation of a Clinton presidency and other judges retiring once Trump had won.

    But with 286 more judges (5 SC, 67 circuit, 212 district, 2 IT) eligible to retire by the end of the next presidential term, a second Biden term could also see many vacancies, although perhaps not so much if the GOP wins the senate. Obama and Bush both saw increases in circuit vacancies to begin their second terms, after having seen them peter out at the ends of their first terms. A second Trump term might only see Bush levels of retirements, if that, given the extent to which retirements had collapsed toward the end of his term.

    If I’m feeling motivated, I might look at how retirement eligibility dates play into this, but that involves nearly 1000 retirement dates, so that’s a sizable project.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Ryan J's avatar

      The large number of 2015/16 retirements may have been due to the Baby Boom, judges born around 1950 would become eligible around 2015 or 2016. Looking at the ages of a lot of Trump and Biden judges, I expect there to be a big retirement boom in the early 2040s when those judges turn 65.

      On the other hand, if you appoint a bunch of 60+ judges, expect to see a lot of vacancies in 10 years. This is actually quite good timing for Democrats. Because Obama lost the Senate in 2014 and Biden is likely to lose the Senate in 2024, Biden will be able to eke out vacancies from seats Obama eked out in 2014 (Crawford, Azrack, Rayes, and Soto are all examples).

      Liked by 1 person

  10. Aiden's avatar

    Click to access 202214205.pdf

    Nancy Abudu’s Concurrence in this case was great to read, in the last page she almost implies that the Judges have different standards when it comes to hearing POC prison claims. But she hoped skeptically that the more progressive take on prison cases would continue.

    It resulted in a pushback concurrence from the two other judges on the panel including super conservative Chief Judge Pryor.

    Basically, this case was about the fact that, the prison guards didn’t protect white prisoners. A black man stabbed a white guy because he was angry about police brutality and that was his way of ‘doing something about it’. The 11th circuit said this racial animus should have led to him not being put with people of white race. However according to Abudu the evidence proffered was bare bones, just passing summary judgement.

    I believe the 11th circuit has developed a more conservative reputation on prison cases since the makeup switch. So, I think academic researchers having a look at differences in rulings based on race especially in prison settings would be interesting.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. keystone's avatar

    Lorna Schofield (SDNY) is going senior on Dec 31, 2024.

    Judge Schofield was the first Filipino-American on the federal judiciary.

    In 2017, Judge Schofield gave an interview where she discussed what’s its like being a federal judge in addition to being a parent. She said,

    “When your child is young, there’s a tendency to think that he or she will be a child forever. But time goes by so fast, and it’s an experience you can either grab or not. You cannot say that you’ll do it later, so you need to make room for what you want to do now. That includes not only being a parent but also having other activities that you care about, such as work or some other passion.

    To juggle everything, I think you need to draw a line and know your own boundaries so you have a good sense of what you will or will not do, and what you’re willing to sacrifice and compromise. I’m also supportive of law firm part-time programs. They give you room to take on one less major project and allows you to make space for another part of your life.”

    I could imagine this same philosophy influencing her decision to go senior.

    Schumer now has 2 SDNY spots to fill and a EDNY. Excited to see who he nominates since they have deep talent pools.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ethan's avatar

      When Schofield steps down from the bench, there will be no other AAPI women on that court (although there are three on EDNY). Mariko Hirose (Director of Litigation for the International Refugee Assistance Project/ former clerk to Judge Reinhardt on the 9th circuit) and Anitha Reddy (a Partner at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz/ former SCOTUS clerk for Justice Ginsburg/ board member of the Center for Reproductive Rights) are the only AAPI women on my list for there. Obviously SDNY has such a broad pool of possibilities that not everyone will be on my list. If anyone has other suggestions for SDNY that aren’t on my list, let me know.

      Liked by 2 people

      • keystone's avatar

        Anitha Reddy is an interesting choice. A lot of her career has focused on corporate cases at Big Law firms (which is prob very applicable to SDNY). However, she did clerk under Ginsberg and serves on the Center for Reproductive Rights, so there’s a hint of progressivism. In some ways, her professional background reminds me a bit of Arun Subramanian, who was also a Ginsberg clerk with a conventional background.

        There are definitely more progressive candidates but Reddy would be a young, diverse, talented, left learning (at worst) candidate who could prob be confirmed relatively easily. Plus, her nomination would prob force the Republicans to have to once again publicly address abortion (which they hate doing). I could see Schumer gravitating towards her.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Ethan's avatar

        @keystone,

        I also hope Biden doesn’t renominate Trump nominee Iris Lan, who is now General Counsel of NASA. She’s pretty apolitical, which is why I could see her being nominated if there were a time crunch and they wanted someone who could be confirmed by voice vote.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Dequan's avatar

        The New York district court nominees under Biden seem like they were picked by Dr. Jekel & Mr. Hyde. We’ve gotten some A+ nominees like Ho & Merle yet gotten nominees that could have been picked in red states such as the two Jennifer’s (One of which actually got a voice vote. Even both Latinos we got were in their mid 50’s. I suspect this next pick will be closer to the latter of the picks mentioned above & probably somebody close to Schumer who he has personally known for a long time similar to Orelia Merchant.

        Liked by 1 person

  13. star0garnet's avatar

    And Schofield apparently notified at the end of November, so it’s pretty likely the senators have known for awhile. She’s going senior the month she qualifies. The list of Obama appointees qualifying last year has gone from 27 to 7, and this year’s from 28 to 13; I expect each group will be left at about 5 by the end of this term.

    Liked by 2 people

  14. keystone's avatar

    Azrack and Schofield are two judges who become eligible for senior status after the Presidential Election (Dec 2024), but who have given notice well in advance, presumedly, to ensure they can be replaced by a left learning judge.

    Another judge, I’d keep an eye on is Gerald HcHugh (EDPA).

    – He becomes eligible for senior status in November 2024.
    – He’s well documented as being a Dem.
    – His father was Civic activist in Philly who worked on community integration projects.
    – All four of his kids all work in the nonprofit sector.
    – He has a LGBT child.
    – Plus he’s married to he high school sweet heart and, based on profiles, has a lot of extracurricular hobbies: “A connoisseur of California wine, Judge McHugh enjoys body surfing and running kayaks in his spare time”.

    Seems like someone who would prob prefer to have Biden pick his successor and who would also enjoy retirement.

    Liked by 2 people

  15. Mitch's avatar

    I think that you may see the Biden White House changing strategies on judges now.

    In 2022, the Democrats did better-than-expected in the elections. That made 2023 a time for bold action with regard to judicial nominees. Progressives being nominated was widespread.

    That was then, this is now. Now it’s 2024. The Presidential elections are coming up, Biden’s approval ratings have hit record lows, and the Thurmond Rule will take effect in 8 months. I expect fewer controversial nominees and more traditional and consensus judges being nominated.

    Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        So remember what we’re talking about, the Thurmond Rule. That specifically is for around the last six months of the presidents term. Since the senate will be out almost the entire months of August & October, only a few weeks in September will be before the election. Once the election is over, Sinema doesn’t need to vote with Republicans. The election will be over. Either she will no longer be a senator or she will have six more years. Either way, there would be no incentive to all of a something start blocking Biden judicial nominees.

        Like

      • Jamie's avatar

        Sinema has little to no chance to win the election. The only way that she gets any real traction going forward is for one of the two major party candidates to collapse, and in this polarized environment that’s really unlikely.
        I don’t think Schumer or the DSCC will oppose Sinema or even run positive ads about the Democrat Gallego. They’ll do one thing, hammer Kari Lake to make sure that her total is as low as possible. 80-90% of Democrats in the state are already with Gallego, so further endorsements from Democrats aren’t that helpful. Sinema’s own strategist suggested the path for her is roughly to win 60% of Indies, 25% of GOP, and 15% of Dems.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Jamie's avatar

      This is mostly right, you may see a couple nominees outside these parameters, but only a few.
      One more thing though, with time running out, I’d expect more sitting judges and US Attorneys. They are easier to finish background checks and nominated quicker.
      However I don’t expect that the Thurmond rule will be adhered to for openings in blue states (or even red states where the senators have agreed on a nominee).

      Liked by 1 person

  16. keystone's avatar

    Oct 21, 2020 – Trump announced his intent to nominate Thomas Kirsch to 7th Circuit to replace Amy Coney Barrett.

    On November 16, 2020 nomination was sent to the senate.

    On December 10, 2020 nomination voted out of committee

    On December 15, 2020, Senate confirmed Kirsch. Both Sinema AND Manchin voted Yea.

    The election was on November 3rd, 2020.

    Liked by 2 people

  17. star0garnet's avatar

    Sinema’s shown no signs of rebellion on judicial nominees; pretty much everything since her independent switch has pointed towards her trying to walk back her idiotic move and the party trying to aim her towards some cushy gig rather than alienate her. Manchin’s been far more cooperative than I expected he’d be. I doubt speculation on their whims changing will guide nominations, particularly as the house GOP are acting like a party in freefall. McConnell deciding to effectively enforce the rule’s practices throughout the entirety of the 114th congress will be far more relevant in senators’ minds than an obscure non-rule that Dems have only had one occasion to enforce during the tenure of their most senior members.

    Liked by 2 people

  18. Joe's avatar

    I still don’t understand Sinemas decision to go independent. In fact, After 2022, she should have done the opposite and moved more to the left. In fact, she probably could even have announced that she was abandoning the filibuster since by that point it was moot. The DNC would have supported her in her re election.

    The only thing that makes sense to me is she knew she wanted to leave Congress anyway and this was her staying in the spotlight.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. Joe's avatar

    Regarding the Thurmond Rule, I don’t think it’ll play much into the calculus at all. Blue state and circuit nominees will continue to be pushed through and the WH will continue to seek compromises in red states.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      @Joe

      Exactly. The idea that McConnell can all but stop confirming judges the last two years of Obama, then confirm a SCOTUS justice after early voting begun, then confirm additional judges after Trump lost, to now turn around & reinstitute the Thurmond Rule now that Democrats are in power is ludicrous. The Thurmond Rule is just as much in play as the filibuster is for judicial nominees. It doesn’t exist anymore if the president & senate majority are the same Party.

      Like

      • Aiden's avatar

        @Joe @Dequan

        I agree that Holland looks unlikely to be renominated. It’s disappointing, as it drags on the process to actually get a Judge in the seat. Hopefully though it can be someone more progressive. Id love to know what actually was the concern that has led to this hesitancy.

        Colom: I am hopping there may end up been some kind of package deal, however that doesn’t look likely.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Aiden's avatar

        I have no idea how the Todd Edelman thing even came about, the logic for not being renominated is weak.

        I feel like if anything were to happen it would be with Charnelle Bjelkengren. However, I don’t see that happening without there having been some earlier indicators.

        Sadly we have to wait and see….

        Liked by 1 person

      • Ryan J's avatar

        Name me a single Trump nominee who was confirmed despite opposition of 4+ Republican senators and all Democrat senators who showed up.

        Even in mid-late 2019 when there were up to 10 Democrat senators out at the same time, I could not find a single example.

        Like

Leave a reply to Joe Cancel reply