The brother of Ninth Circuit Judge Roopali Desai, Phoenix based attorney Sharad Desai is vying to become the first Indian American judge on the federal district court bench in Arizona.
Background
Born to an Indian immigrant family in Phoenix, Desai received a joint B.S. and B.A. from the University of Arizona in 2003 and then a J.D. from New York University School of Law in 2006. Desai then returned to Arizona to clerk for Arizona Supreme Court Justice Rebecca White Berch.
After his clerkship, Desai joined Osborn Maledon, P.A. in Phoenix. He became a Member with the firm in 2012. In 2015, he shifted to Honeywell International Inc., a business conglomerate working in aerospace and technology, among other areas, where he serves as Vice President and General Counsel.
History of the Seat
Desai has been nominated to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, to a seat to be vacated on October 21, 2024, when Judge G. Murray Snow takes senior status.
Legal Experience
After his clerkship, Desai worked in litigation at Osborn Maledon, P.A. While at the firm, Desai represented a class of retired Arizona judges in a class action suit against a change in the calculations of pension benefit increases for judges. See Fields v. Elected Officials’ Retirement Plan, 320 P.3d 1160 (Ariz. 2014). Desai secured a victory for the class in trial court, which was affirmed by the Arizona Supreme Court. See id.
While at the firm, Desai was appointed by the Arizona District Court to represent a class of pretrial detainees in litigation by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office seeking to terminate consent agreements overseeing conditions in their jails. See Graves v. Arpaio, 48 F. Supp. 3d 1318 (D. Ariz. 2014). Desai maintained his representation of the class until he left the firm in 2015.
On the pro bono side, Desai represented a Nevada prisoner seeking recovery for costs from litigation challenging a disciplinary hearing against him. As part of his representation, Desai briefed and argued the appeal before the Ninth Circuit. See Jones v. McDaniel, 607 F. App’x 710 (9th Cir. 2015).
For the last nine years at Honeywell International Inc., Desai has served as a Counsel, advising various divisions of the company, and overseeing litigation in general. However, he has not appeared in court during this time. Nonetheless, Desai has supervised litigation, including in a $38 million product liability suit involving a Honeywell autopilot on an aircraft, which ended in a jury verdict in Honeywell’s favor after a two week trial. See Egbers v. Honeywell, Int’l, Cook County Circuit Ct. Case No. 06 L 6992 (Ill. 2016).
Overall Assessment
Perhaps more than any other Senator, Senator Kirsten Synema has been able to grease the wheels for nominees from her state. The three nominees to Arizona courts from the Biden Administration have each drawn more than 60 senators in support, a remarkable feat, given that only around 20% of the Administration’s judicial nominees have drawn that level of support.
While Desai is unlikely to get the same level of support, given the fact that his nomination will almost certainly be considered in the lame duck session, it is possible that Sinema will be able to work her magic a fourth time and ensure that Desai joins the bench in due course.
The Vetting Room 
Yet another one who wasn’t on my radar. But he seems great.
LikeLike
Wonder how early he’ll be brought up in the lame duck. The WH did its part in keeping Sinema engaged by keeping him for the penultimate round of nominees, but Schumer as of late can’t help but bring up the easier nominees. Guess Durbin could play a part by cancelling a business meeting or two.
LikeLike
If I were Schumer I’d definitely hold on Desai as long as possible….
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is a phenomenal pick, almost as good as his sister who sits on the 9th. And their sister may be the most solid out of the three of them. Perhaps they can become the first trio of siblings to become federal judges if she moved to another state but for now I’ll be happy with the two of the three we got. Incredible family.
Reminds me a lot of the Murguia‘s who had two of the three siblings become federal judges. The third sibling was also solid if she were to followed in the same footsteps. Let’s just hope this pair of siblings end up much better off than Carlos Murguia‘a career ended.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As we await a final Biden WH judicial slate that will put a firm cap on his judicial impact, here’s how he stacks up currently among presidential terms:
Total Article III confirmations (ceiling of 242):
1) Carter (261)
2) Trump (234)
3) Reagan 2 (217)
4) Biden (213)
SCOTUS confirmations:
1) Washington 1 (8)
…
T-37) Biden (1)
Circuit judge confirmations (ceiling of 50):
1) Carter (56)
2) Trump (54)
3) Reagan 2 (50)
4) Biden (44)
District judge confirmations (ceiling of 189):
1) Carter (202)
2) Trump (174)
3) Clinton 1 (169)
4) GW Bush 1 (168)
5) Biden (166)
And for Dequan, the number on the bench at the end of a term (excluding unconfirmed recess appointments):
Total Article III judges (ceiling of 237):
1) Carter (258)
2) Trump (229)
3) Reagan 2 (214)
4) Biden (208)
SCOTUS confirmations:
1) Taft (6)
…
T-37) Biden (1)
Circuit judges (ceiling of 49):
1) Carter (56)
2) Trump (53)
3) Reagan 2 (50)
4) Biden (43)
District judges (ceiling of 185):
1) Carter (255)
2) Trump (170)
3) Clinton 1 (168)
4) GW Bush 1 (167)
5) Biden (162)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Haaaaaaaaaaa
I literally was in the gym starting to do the math, subtracting the double counts when I scrolled down to see the second half of your post. Thanks for doing the math for me… Lmao
I hope Biden doesn’t make us wait long on Wednesday for the final batch. I’m going crazy thinking about who the nominee for the 3rd will be.
If it’s along the lines of Christopher Howland then I will be happy. Alexander Mackler would be my personal favorite if nothing else just to see the Republicans on the SJC turn it into the Hunter Biden show. A few of the woman on the state Supreme & Circuit courts would be acceptable but not exciting. Either of his two district court picks Williams or Hall would be an outright disappointment due to their age & light progressive background respectively.
And for the love of God can we FINALLY get nominees for every California vacancy. Feinstein, two commissions & large number of applicants are no longer an excuse after 3 years & 9 months. A surprise Kanter withdrawal & new nominee for the seat would be the perfect way to cap off the final batch from the president that has the best judicial record I’ve ever seen.
LikeLiked by 2 people
(last Carter district number should be 199)
LikeLiked by 1 person
I keep checking to see if any news outlets are breaking nominees from the final batch early. I am particularly putting in Delaware & California in the search bar. Nothing yet.
LikeLike
There are just a ton of possibilities for the 3rd circuit seat. My shot in the dark guess is Kathleen McCormick, but I’m just hoping I wake up to a good nominee. Some of those born 1970-1986 (certainly a few Republicans I didn’t weed out, and some with stronger ties to PA than DE):
Jennifer Hall, DDE, 1976
Christopher Burke, DDE magistrate, 1975
Laura Hatcher, DDE magistrate, 1981
Eleanor Tennyson, DDE magistrate, 1985
Christopher Howland, AUSA, 1980
Alexander Ibrahim, AUSA, 1985
Dylan Steinberg, AUSA, 1971
Hannah McCollum, AUSA, 1976
Jacob Laksin, AUSA, 1980
Jennifer Welsh, AUSA, 1981
Meredith Ruggles, AUSA, 1985
Michelle Thurstlic-O’Neill, AUSA, 1980
Shawn Weede, AUSA, 1972
Chris de Barrena-Sarobe, Chester Co. Att./ex-AUSA, 1983
Graham Robinson, ex-AUSA, 1980
Eleni Kousoulis, federal public defender, 1970
Janet Bateman, federal public defender, 1978
Mary Kate Healy, federal public defender, 1979
Conor Wilson, federal public defender, 1983
Abigail Legrow, SCODE, 1979
Chris Griffiths, SCODE, 1980 (Black)
Kathleen McCormick, chancellor, 1979
Lori Will, vice-chancellor, 1984
Nathan Cook, vice-chancellor, 1982
Sheldon Rennie, superior court, 1971 (Black)
Meghan Adams, superior court, 1981
Robert Robinson, superior court, 1972 (pub. defender)
Reneta Green-Streett, superior court, 1981 (Black)
Danielle Brennan, superior court, 1978
Patricia Winston, superior court, 1974 (Black)
Sean Lugg, superior court, 1971
Kathleen Vavala, superior court, 1970
Alex Mackler, Biden counsel/ex-deputy AG, 1983
Dan Logan, deputy AG, 1982
Lisa Minutola, leading public defender, 1970
Stephanie Volturo, leading public defender, 1975
LikeLiked by 1 person
If we had gotten the final batch last week, that would have left an additional week for anything that could go wrong such as attendance issues, to get this last batch confirmed before the end of the year. With the final batch coming later today, there’s no room for error. That gives me some pause & worry that the 3rd nominee might be more traditional.
Many of the names on your list would be disappointing both for age & background. I’m really hoping I wake up & see the name Christopher Howland or Alexander Mackler. I fear if it’s neither of those two, it might be a disappointing pick. I’m not even gonna bother reading the top portion of the announcement talking about the number of Biden nominees & the usual this batch is groundbreaking speech. I’m going to scroll right down to the 3rd nominee… Lol
LikeLiked by 1 person
Even had the batch come last week, the SJC hearing still would’ve been held on Nov 13 either way.
This batch (assuming we get one) should be voted out of committee on December 5, giving the senate two weeks to get them confirmed. One would hope the backlog would be mostly cleared by then so they can all be fast tracked.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I saw in the last thread that discussion with Allred and blue slips, if DMP in Florida is able to pull off an upset, that could have a pretty big impact on blue slips for Florida district nominees, no? I feel like Rick Scott is more of the hardliner on judges in Florida than Rubio is, and Obama had numerous appointments in Florida with Bill Nelson and Rubio as his negotiating partners (wasn’t one or two of Trump’s Florida appointments in 17/18 renominations from Obama who had additional Florida nominees blocked by the 15/16 Republican Senate?). This came up to me since I saw a new DMP ad that called Rick Scott a snake and how Florida’s biggest snake was not in the Everglades but in the Senate lol. Not sure if that ad will have any impact but I thought it was funny and also had a local theme to it, with the Burmese Python issue down in Florida.
Kind of sucks for Allred and DMP, I think they’re running as good of a campaign as you can get for the difficult states they’re running in, and one of them pulling off an upset may very well determinate Senate control, and if they lose neither of them have much of a political career ahead of them.
As we wait to see if we get an afternoon/end of day batch today, Jenkins received her commission on the Tax Court yesterday, so we’re down to just the one remaining nominee who will be confirmed after the break. Still no commission yet for Shanlyn Park, Court, Conway, or Vargas.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m still waiting on the final batch as well. I can’t imagine Biden missing an opportunity to fill the remaining Delaware seat on the 5th. No batch this week would almost certainly mean confirming the nominee after the senate cancelled some Christmas vacation. Biden isn’t gonna bank on that happening.
As for would Cruz or Scott losing mean a better chance to get judges confirmed in Texas or Florida under a President Harris, the answer to that is a resounding yes. Not necessarily because half the senate delegation would be Democrat. More so because of which half. Both Cornyn & Rubio are more reasonable when it comes to judges with a Democrat president.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Allred will make up at least 3-5% of Trump’s margin. Will that be enough? That depends on how close Harris gets in Texas. Biden lost by 5.5%, that’s probably not going to be enough. But on the flip side, Democrats are going to gain a little bit in Texas compared to 2020. If Harris matches Biden’s national popular vote of 4.5%, I’d say Allred would be a favorite at the point.
My guess is that Harris will need to win nationally by 3% or more to give Allred a real chance. Given the changing dynamics of the popular vote, she’d have a good chance of winning the election even at 2%. So a bare win probably isn’t enough.
I’d put Allred at maybe 35% right now. DMP at no more than 10-15%. Tester maybe at 30%.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I haven’t seen anything yet. I wish they wouldn’t wait until the afternoon to do these!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t believe that anyone nominated now will be confirmed before the end of the year, no matter who wins. Democrats frankly aren’t as interested in filling the vacant circuit court seats the way the Republicans are.
LikeLiked by 1 person
…they could be 1/10th as interested, and still get a new nominee confirmed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A reminder as we await WH action: they have announced judicial nominees as late as 5:30pm (3x), +/- a few minutes.
Also, are we working under the correct assumption that today is the deadline? John Doe on twitter said five days ago that the WH has ~two weeks. They’re generally, though not always, reliable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The answer to that question is no. Today is not the drop dead last day we could get the final batch & all nominees get confirmed before the end of the year if any of the following norms are broken…
So theoretically, we need to hope we get the final batch before the end of today. If not, more than likely one of the six things above will need to happen in order for every nominee to get confirmed before the new year.
LikeLike
It doesn’t seem outlandish to have them named 10/23, hearing 28 days later on 11/20, voted out 12/5 or even 12/12, and confirmed by 12/20. What does it require to get them voted out of committee quicker than 3 weeks? We’ve seen quicker than 22 days for AliKhan (13), KBJ SCOTUS (14), and Desai (15). Without the two-week committee timeline, you get into the game of diminishing floor hours. Perhaps would require a senator to hold a holdover business meeting during the Thanksgiving break. If the GOP decided to boycott the subsequent business meeting, a discharge vote wouldn’t seem outrageous, at least for a circuit nominee.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Democrats aren’t doing any of those things. If anything there may be more recess time, not less.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Theoretically they could announce next week. Would put the hearing date on 11/20, holdover date on 12/5, and vote them out of SJC on 12/12. Schumer could then file cloture on Monday 12/16 for votes 12/18 and 12/19. But that’s cutting it awfully close.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yea but that would require my third of six norms to be broken. A hearing on 11/20, normally would mean Thanksgiving the next Thursday on 11/28 is a recess over week. That normally means on 12/5, they don’t consider the recess week as a holdover week. Following the norm, 12/5 they would be held over & voted to the floor on 12/12.
Assuming that normal schedule, Schumer couldn’t file for cloture until 12/16 (Without breaking any of the other five norms I mentioned). Assuming one nominee for the 3rd & at least two California district court nominees, if Schumer filed cloture for the 3rd nominee on 12/16, it would ripen on Wednesday, 12/18. That would set up a confirmation vote on Thursday, 12/19, leaving the California district court nominees. So a norm would definitely have to be broken to confirm them all.
And of course none of that takes into account anything going wrong. Attendance issues, other items such as the budget that can taken floor time, a snow storm that shuts DC down, a former president passing away or any number of other items can take up senate floor time. Not getting a batch today is a very bad thing if the goal is to confirm every nominee that gets a hearing by the end of the year.
LikeLike
I agree, that’s exactly the scenario I laid out. Voting them out 12/12 would be pushing it. That’s why I fully believe we’ll get some nominees today.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So we’re not getting anything today then?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Unfortunately no. Looks like the White House is banking on senate Democrats to do one or more of the six things they almost never that I listed above. This is the most disappointed I’ve been in this new WHC office. Today is the first time I truly believe we won’t get all nominees who have a SJC hearing confirmed this year. It’s Harris & a Democrat senate majority or bust at thi spoint.
They honestly screwed around with way too much recess time, 3-day work weeks & one vote Mondays for the last 3 & a half years. Now we have to hope for the best in the election to see some of these nominees get confirmed in 2025.
LikeLike
Not all of the currently pending nominees will be confirmed before the end of the year, it is as simple as that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
After today, I sadly agree with Frank as much as I don’t want to admit he was right here. A complete missed opportunity with no batch today.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Guess Bidens team has just checked out. Nice of them to leave the GOP and maybe Trump to add to his record breaking circuit court confirmations.
Schumer isn’t breaking a single norm so that’s that, no one else outside the pipeline (even if nominated after today) is getting confirmed.
Just unbelievable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sadly Mike is probably correct. Out of the six norms, I could only see them breaking #3 Durbin puts the names of the nominees to be held up the very next week instead of waiting for the week after to hold them over.
There’s a slim chance of #4 being broken SLIGHTLY but not too much. They may stay in session outside of the usual Monday 5pm – Thursday 3pm schedule but probably just one week if that.
LikeLike
Oh & where are all of the people on the blog that said there was a chance the senate was coming back from their recess for disaster aid? Haaaaaaaa
I told you all there was zero chance THIS senate is cutting any recesses, let alone the election recess. We need to be grounded in reality. This senate ain’t giving up recess time which is why it was vital to get the final batch today. Now we are banking on everything to be perfect in the lame duck or some norms to be broken. Neither are likely to happen.
Every nominee still pending including the final batch getting confirmed eventually will hang on the presidential election & the senate majority in 2025.
LikeLike
Democrats simply don’t care about the judiciary the same way that you do.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If Donald Trump wins, the extra vacancies will be the least of our issues. There are many many more concerning things in a second Trump administration.
The reason why this is frustrating is the possibility (one could say most likely possibility) of Harris and a GOP Senate. That’s where not filling these vacancies comes back to bite you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is a tremendous missed opportunity. I will hold out hope for a late announcement tomorrow or next week and maybe they will get them over the line in time. I just have a hard time imagining them leaving a Delaware seat (and a potential flip) vacant.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Now I’m really curious what, if any, communications there have been between Jordan and the WH. Could be enlightening. But I’ll hold out hope for a week.
On another note, a GOP justice on the NH supreme court was just indicted. Her mandatory retirement is in 2026. I’ll be pissed if this turns into a scenario where Sununu locks up another seat for fifteen years right before Joyce Craig takes over.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kent Jordan himself was confirmed in the lame duck. He doesn’t seem like he is an ideologue, so I doubt he is giving any trouble behind the scenes. Besides he could have easily made retirement effective six days later from the beginning if he didn’t want Biden to pick his successor. This is just a White House screw up. No excuses for no batch today.
As for New Hampshire, all the polls I’ve seen has either shown Kelly Ayotte in the lead or within the margin of error. I wouldn’t exactly say Joyce Craig should be measuring drapes. But to your point I would rather the Justice stay on the bench until next year as the race seems to be tight & could be a Democrat pick up.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t think he’s an ideologue, but if he wanted to force the WH into choosing a moderate, it’s the perfect setup. His preferred replacement may be 1) moderate conservative, 2) moderate, 3) moderate liberal, 4) conservative, 5) archconservative, 6) liberal, meaning his preferred options run 1) Biden-appointed moderate, 2) Trump-appointed conservative, 3) Biden/Harris-appointed liberal.
NH-Gov is probably the most underpolled race in the country. Three polls this year, all in the past five weeks. Two three-point leads for Ayotte from Saint Anselm (Trafalgar-tier pollster), and a one-point Craig lead from UNH.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I just dont think we will get more Bisen nominees…And Im Irritated the Kent Jordan known vacancy has been sitting there without a nominee fthis length of time…. I’m thinking and hoping we can get 230 to 235 current nominees confirmed in the lameduck.. There are great nominees waiting to be confirmed to the courts ..We have to fill the I think 3 CCA red state seats with bidens nominees …Campbell of Tn 6th , Lipez of Maine 1st and Kidd of Fl 11th circuits…. Come on Durbin and Schumer get moving on floor votes no time to sleep…..Would be nice Mangi also but I don’t cant count him…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Going back to the Trump administration, his last judicial nominee to be announced, nominated & confirmed was Thomas Kirsch. He was announced on October 21, 2020. He had his SJC hearing on November 18, 2020. Cloture was voted for on December 14, 2020 & he was confirmed to the 7th Circuit on December 15, 2020.
October 21st is five days away so Biden still has time to match that timeline. Of course, McConnell made sure the back log for Republicans was much less than Democrats have now so the same timeline as 2020 is not likely.
LikeLike
The 9th circuit has granted a mandamus petition reversing Biden appointee Amanda Brailsford’s denial of recusal.
The interesting part of this is that it involved a close personal friend who was acting as the prosecutor for the case. She has previously recused herself in a manner involving that close personal friend before.
In her denial of recusal she claimed that they were not close personal friends despite being described as long life friends at her investiture and in recusal decision from the prior case.
This case was not a run of the mill case where recusal might not be warranted instead it involved the prosecutor been accused of misconduct.
The 9th circuit was still largely differential and did not hint at judicial misconduct.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I remember reading the Biden administration wanted to pick the other woman on the Idaho court of appeals. She is the same age as Amanda Brailsford & was a former public defender. The Idaho senators refused & demanded Brailsford apparently.
LikeLike
Reading through the opinion, there’s a pretty strong chance that Brailsford and the prosecutor haven’t been anything more than acquaintances for the past 30 years, but if so, the fault lies with Brailsford for not doing more to dispel any appearance of partiality.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Park finally received her commission!
https://www.fjc.gov/node/13761376
LikeLiked by 1 person
320 days between confirmation & commission. That has to be a new record.
LikeLike
Yep.
9 cases that have taken at least 5 months:
320 – Park
300 – James Love received a recess appointment to D IA in December 1855, was confirmed in February 1856, and didn’t receive his commission until December 1856, when President Pierce presumably had a rare day (hour? minute?) of sobriety
219 and counting – DuBose
208 – Ross Wilkins, judge of the Michigan Territory, waited nine months in 1836-1837 for Michigan to gain statehood
198 – Lewis Schwellenbach, sitting US senator, was nominated to ED WA in May 1940, voice voted the same day, was commissioned in November, and resigned from the senate in December
198 – Baggio
174 – Matthew Schelp, Trump’s high mark
155 – Homer Thornberry, sitting US representative, was nominated to WD TX in July 1963, confirmed a week later, and waited till December to be commissioned and resign
155 and counting – Bulsara
LikeLiked by 1 person
Outside of the pending commissions, the only remaining confirmed nominees with future start dates are Bulsara (12/19) and DuBose (1/1/25).
It sucked we didn’t get any new nominees today, but if we get nominees next week I don’t think it changes the schedule in which they clear the SJC. This Congress it’s been two weeks between the hearing and the holdover week, and weeks where the Senate isn’t in session have counted towards those, so the Thanksgiving break would still be one of the two weeks between the hearing and the business meeting that the nominations are listed for the first time. Last Congress I remember is was typically the week after the hearing where a nominee would be held over, not sure why it’s been two weeks during this Congress.
I’d really like to think Biden wouldn’t nominate someone to an appeals court on a seat from his home state, and with a chance at a minimum to change the 3rd circuit from an R majority to a tie.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@tsb1991
I think you are correct but with one caveat. I think the Republicans on the SJC have agreed to count off weeks as hold over weeks. I don’t believe that is written to be mandatory however. My fear is Republicans will go all out and obstruct if either Trump wins or Republicans take the majority in the senate after the election.
That’s why yesterday was so key to get nominees. Because you could factor in Republican obstruction & still have a favorable map to get all nominees confirmed this year. Now you either need everything to go perfect or to overcome Republican obstruction.
LikeLike
Yes, it’s definitely still possible to get nominees from a batch next week confirmed….it’ll just get much harder. Especially if there is a budget to pass as well.
I hope they can at least push through a 3rd circuit judge if nothing else. We will see.
There are 24 other nominees to confirm as well. It’s going to be stressful around here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not all of them will be confirmed before the end of the year though. I’d wager the over/under at 15.
LikeLiked by 1 person
15 out of 24? I think that’s low, personally. But we will see. As I said, it’s going to be stressful around here those five weeks.
Mangi and Park are the two I’m most concerned about. If there is another batch, I’d put all those nominees in there too.
LikeLiked by 3 people
It will be higher than 15. You get to 19 just from district court nominees alone after removing Kanter, Jackson, Shaw Wilder & Netburn. Plus you still have 3 circuit court nominees even if you remove both Mangi & Park (I still think both will end up getting confirmed). And none of that counts the final batch.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not sure if there will even be another batch. Maybe there will be, but I’d only expect 2-3 nominees at the most.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In addition to the names you listed, I’m skeptical that Kasubhai, Russell, Ali, and Sooknanan will all be confirmed. I could also see Brindisi having a difficult time as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Frank, Those four plus Park/Mangi are the ones that worry me. I think Kasubhai will probably be in the best shape of that group considering Schumer supposedly had the votes for him this summer. We will have to hope the political calculus is better post November 5.
I would definitely feel better about all of this had Schumer squeezed in Kidd and/or Lipez in September. But alas.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think the day cloture was pulled on Kasubhai over the summer attendance was 48D-47R, which meant Manchin was likely opposed so the votes weren’t there (I think Sinema was out too so who knows how she would have voted).
I’d really hate to see Ali and Sooknanan not confirmed, given it’s the DC District Court and if not, A) Trump would fill those seats if elected and B) I’d think the DC District and Circuit Courts are seats that would never in this day and age get filled if the Senate and White House are held by opposite parties, given how important those courts are, in the event Harris wins with a Republican Senate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And in addition to your A & B, I’ll add C. A President Harris would fill the seats with a Republican majority with somebody so lackluster, I would probably rather the seat remain vacant anyway. In other words, Schumer better get to work in the lame duck unless Harris wins & senate Dems pull off another miracle. Then they can take a well-deserved break.
LikeLike
My view here is actually probably closer to Frank’s than Dequan’s. I would rather fill the seat with a center-right judge than let it go vacant. Not only out of fear of a FedSoc hack, but because I recognize that sitting judges are overworked and stressed when there are unfilled vacancies. So if Harris and a R Senate agree on a center right nominee, and if I were a senator, I would reluctantly vote yes.
Of course, assuming that I am convinced that said judge would rule fairly. If I were to be a plaintiff in a lawsuit, I would rather have a judge who has a slight preference for defendants (but not enough to be biased) than have to wait years for my case to be heard.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Though Senate Republicans might not care, they really need to think… how would they look if they prevented the first woman president from appointing judges? Maybe they could get away with keeping open a SCOTUS seat that opens in 2028, but if they tried to blockade all seats… I think that would make them look bad especially if Harris makes nominations anyway and the Senate refuses to act on them. Although Senate Republicans were not punished (and perhaps rewarded) for holding open seats in 2015-16, they would probably have caved had Hillary Clinton won.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s fair but my thinking isn’t the choice you gave. I would rather Harris fill a vacancy with a center right judge versus a Republican president fill it if Harris was to lose reelection.
But me saying I would rather the seat go vacant was in reference to 2025 – 2026 versus 2027-2028. The senate map looks good for Democrats in 2026 so I would rather the seat go vacancy for two years & take my chances on winning the senate back in 2027. But either way I agree I would rather Harris fill the vacancy before the end of 2028.
LikeLike
Oh I can easily answer that for you. Senate Republicans would not give one single solitary f*ck about holding any seat open for 4 years. Especially on the SCOTUS. As you mentioned, they paid absolutely no price in 2016. In fact, one of the few things I agree with Trump on is them holding Scalia’s seat open is the reason why he won. Plus they got the Seante & House too.
I would expect 2025-2026 & God forbid 2027-2028 to look a lot like 2015-2016 under a President Harris & Republican senate. You may get a circuit court nominee each year with some red state district court judges & moderate blue state district court judges. If there is a SCOTUS vacancy for Sotomayor you may get a J Childs type Hispanic nominee through but nobody to the left of her. If the vacancy is to replace Thomas or Alito you can forget it. If any of them were to leave the bench for whatever reason on January 20, 2025, the seat will remain vacancy until at least 2029 or if the Democrats are in the majority in the senate, whichever happens first.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just like 2022, Murkowski appears to have endorsed Peltola for re-election to the House. If Murkowski doesn’t run again in 2028 I seriously hope Peltola considers running for her Senate seat and Murkowski gets behind her in that election. At some point Murkowski’s nine lives with surviving Republican primaries has to end, right?
Peltola obviously would be far more powerful as a Senator than in the House, she’d give Democrats a decent chance at flipping a red state seat, would help immensely with judges, and for Peltola she’d have the same statewide constituency that she does in the House right now, so she would have to change her campaign all that much.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Question Do you think our judicial system including biden judges is sufficient now to withstand numerous court challenges to the upcoming election and in a timely matter?
LikeLiked by 1 person
If the election is a 2000 Bush v Gore type election, the answer is no because the lower courts won’t matter. It will come down to the SCOTUS. I don’t expect it to be as close as 2000 in the end.
As for Murkowski, the primary isn’t her biggest problem. She’s already lost a primary & still was re-elected. With Alaska having Ranked Choice, I think she’s in a better position than Collins if Democrats field an Angus King type opponent.
LikeLike
Overall, I think this is the main reason that I (and likely others here) wanted Biden & Schumer to emphasize judicial nominations all 4 years–to act as a stopgap against bad policies and/or acts from either the Federal or state governments, or both.
But I agree with Dequan that I’d most likely that any election challenges this year end up in SCOTUS. I can’t imagine Roberts voting to overturn a fair election, but I don’t know who the 5th vote might be. If we have to rely on ACB, well, yikes.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yeah I think that ACB would be the likeliest 5th vote. Alito & Thomas definitely would not provide the 5th vote to uphold a fair election. It’s possible that Gorsuch or Kavanaugh would provide the crucial vote, though I think Barrett is the most likely of the 3 to.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Unless they get rid of it this cycle (which if I remember correctly is on the ballot), Alaska has a top four primary and ranked choice general election. So Murkowski can get re elected even if a majority of Republicans vote for someone else.
In 2022, Murkowski won a plurality in the first round anyway, but once the Democrat was eliminated she expanded her lead to beat the MAGA republican.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Regarding November, I don’t think the courts will get involved unless there is a repeat of 2020 where one decisive state is down to a few hundred votes. The courts, including a 6-3 conservative scotus, had no appetitive for getting involved in 2020 and measures have been taken in many states clarifying laws since then to limit doubts even further.
On top of that, the Electoral Count Act has also further clarified how congress can object to results as well, so I don’t think there will be much of a leg for challengers to stand on (again, unless you get a scenario where there’s like a 500 vote difference in Wisconsin and the legislature and governor/state supreme court send competing electors).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry, meant to say “repeat of 2000”, not 2020.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Biden judicial nominations Wikipedia page has a 10/21/24 date, so doesn’t that mean there is either a new vacancy, or other new action (ie: someone received their commission, etc)?
They usually don’t change the date unless there is new activity related to nominations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Joe_Biden
LikeLiked by 1 person
What do you mean by change the date?
LikeLike
I think they’ve just updated the numbers to account for Murray Snow going senior today. Nothing new.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ben is correct. There’s one additonal vacancy now, but we’ve known about it for a while.
You can view all the changes here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Joe_Biden&action=history
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sadly if we don’t get the finals batch by this time tomorrow, we won’t get the 3rd & all California vacancies filled this year. Even with a batch tomorrow it’s not guaranteed but no chance without one.
LikeLike
Fingers crossed. Honestly I will settle for just a third circuit nominee. Would be malpractice not to at least try
LikeLiked by 2 people
I honestly can’t believe Biden didn’t announce last week. I guess looking at the timeline for Reeves-Montgomery, Williams & Hall, he feels confident 61 days is enough time to confirm a circuit court nominee from his own home state on his way out the door it he announces tomorrow. I just wouldn’t have risked it.
As you said, even if the California nominees weren’t finished being vetted he should have just announced the 3rd nominee last week. We have gotten three different “Batches” with only one nominee under Biden so it wouldn’t have been unprecedented. They better be going hard after Cruz & Scott in addition to trying to save Tester to go along with Harris. If not, that seat won’t be filled in the next Congress with anybody I would be happy about.
LikeLike
I’m not as certain there will be another batch. As it is some of the current nominees won’t be confirmed by the end of the year.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think there certainly will be a final batch. But I do agree now not everybody in that batch nor everybody else pending who has had a SJC hearing will be confirmed this year. Real mismanagement by Schumer & company. He could have cancelled one week of the Summer vacation or at least had two votes on Monday’s all year.
LikeLike
Still no announcement?
LikeLiked by 1 person
NOPE… No announcement today would virtually eliminate any chance of nominees already not announced getting confirmed this year. Biden would be completely be banking on Harris to win & Democrats to hold the senate. Complete missed opportunity if we don’t get the final batch in the next 4 hours.
LikeLike
I never thought we’d get another batch…bidens involvement in the duties of his office have just dropped off that much
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can’t believe it. A chance to flip the 3rd & Biden is gonna let his own home state be the reason we don’t do it… Unreal
LikeLike
I don’t think Biden (or any president) is personally involved in picking any of their judicial nominees, with the exception of SCOTUS nominees and possibly some home state seats.
They are likely just presented with nominees that have already been researched and vetted shortly before the announcement is made.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Bingo!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Another ninety minutes to say for sure, but at this point it would be a pleasant surprise if there’s an announcement.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Welp its official, no final batch today. The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals will at best be tied through at least February depending on if Mangi is confirmed. I am truly stunned Biden will not be the president to fill the Delaware seat. If the stakes of this election weren’t already clear enough, it certainly should be now for anybody that cares about the judiciary.
LikeLike
Sac Bee reporting there is a pick for judge in Central District
Joe Biden picks Judge Serena Murillo for federal CA court | Sacramento Bee
LikeLiked by 1 person
The article says this makes 259 nominees for Biden. The last batch was at 257 which means there is one more nominee in addition to her.
LikeLike
looks like we are getting nominees after all!
https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/politics-government/article294415439.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
A 6pm batch… WOW, they made us wait for the last batch literally until the last minute. Serena Murillo was born c. 1971 but at this point I’ll take it. Just get nominees announced for God’s sake. In addition, she’s president-elect of California Women Judges, which advocates for women’s inclusion in the state’s judicial branch. I’ll take it. Now who is the nominee for the 3rd???
LikeLiked by 1 person
here it is. Just two district. No 3rd circuit.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/10/23/president-biden-names-fifty-fifth-round-of-judicial-nominees/
LikeLiked by 1 person
WOW, no nominee for the 3rd. I am in disbelief. At least we got Benjamin J. Cheeks from San Diego. He’s a high A, possible A+ nominee. He’s a progressive Black man born c. 1978. He likely will be Butler’s last recommendation as senator. He should be put on the shift list for elevation to the 9th once confirmed. Great pick.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, something is better than nothing I guess. Still, hard to fathom not having a third circuit nominee unless there’s something we don’t know behind the scenes (Jordan making a stink about the next Congress confirming his replacement).
LikeLiked by 2 people
I was speculating the same thing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
From a press release via Sen. Padilla:
Padilla, Butler Applaud Two Nominations for California-Based Federal Judgeships
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senators Alex Padilla and Laphonza Butler (both D-Calif.), members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, applauded President Biden’s and Vice President Harris’ nomination of Judge Serena Murillo and Judge Benjamin Cheeks to fill vacancies on the U.S. District Courts for the Central District and Southern District of California, respectively.
“Judge Murillo and Judge Cheeks hold a wealth of litigation experience, with longstanding commitments to justice and deep roots in the Southern California legal community,” said Senator Padilla. “The daughter of a Mexican-American farm worker and a schoolteacher, Judge Murillo has demonstrated a tireless work ethic and developed extensive criminal and civil judicial experience with the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Judge Cheeks has earned immense respect from his colleagues in the Southern District and has fought to protect vulnerable immigrants against fraud. I applaud President Biden for his continued commitment to nominating highly qualified, diverse judges to serve California.”
“Californians deserve a federal bench that reflects the diversity of the Golden State,” said Senator Butler. “I applaud the President’s nomination of Judge Serena Murillo and Judge Ben Cheeks to the United States District Courts for the Central District and Southern District of California, respectively. These two incredibly qualified candidates bring a breadth of both judicial and lived experienced to the federal bench, and I look forward to supporting their paths to confirmation.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Despite my disappointment with no nominee for the 3rd, I am happy with these two picks. Serena Murillo seems like a highly qualified nominee & my only slight issue with her is I wish she hadn’t reached her 50th birthday yet. But 53 isn’t a deal breaker & she is a good nominee.
As I said earlier Ben Cheeks is a great nominee. I know we have spoken about both judge Lamar Baker & Bryan Nelson being possible nominees for the 9th Circuit if a President Harris wanted to look for a Black man. I think Cheeks could surpass both on the list, particularly since we haven’t had a San Diego Democrat nominee since Obama was in office.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Also means they’ve given up on the Kanter and (barring a discharge that would require a good chunk of GOP absences at the end of the session) Netburn seats. So, at most, Schumer’s lineup of judicial confirmations will max out at 5 circuit, 21 district, 1 tax, 2 DC CoA, and 8 DC superior court nominees.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Remember that “no” votes in SJC can be done by proxy, so for Netburn to advance Ossoff would have to change his mind (unlikely given his upcoming election) or Schumer would have to do a discharge vote (even less likely)
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m skeptical Ossoff would change his vote, so a floor discharge vote is what I was referring to. I’d guess there’d be a handful of Dems unwilling do back her, charitably due to fears of resultant ad campaigns, so the three votes would probably require about a dozen GOP absences.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I doubt THIS senate majority will be doing any discharge votes for Netburn. I don’t see it happening for Kanter wither because unlike Netburn, I don’t think a majority of the senate opposes her. Whatever the reason she hasn’t had a hearing seems to be something personal.
While we are on the subject, I had another question. Would Schumer dare do a discharge vote for Detra Shaw-Wilder & Danna Jackson? Never mind, I know the answer is no… Lol
LikeLike
Yeah, and with all due respect I don’t see them making a huge push for like that for a lone district court judge in California where they’ve already confirmed a bunch of an other judge. Most likely they just let that one go and focus on getting Mangi/Park and others over the line
LikeLiked by 1 person
Her potential saving grace (still a longshot) would be if she was a Schumer pick, but I’d guess she was a Gillibrand pick, although I don’t believe either claimed her.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A bit surprised to see nominees here, but it makes sense that they are for the CA seats considering those are judicial emergencies. Still think it is unlikely that either nominee will be confirmed before the end of the year regardless if Harris or Trump wins the election.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank goodness I was right & we did get more nominees despite what some on the blog said. More importantly let’s hope Carl Tobias is right in the last paragraph of this article…
(https://www.dailyjournal.com/articles/381518-biden-nominates-judges-to-federal-courts-in-los-angeles-and-san-diego)
LikeLiked by 1 person
For someone often quoted as an expert in various news stories about the federal judiciary, I don’t really think Tobias knows what he’s talking about when it comes to stuff like this. Maybe he did at one time, but the landscape for judicial confirmations has changed tremendously in just the past few decades and I don’t think his analysis has followed it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree Dequan. Logistically, there No reason they can’t sneak in votes for those two in the last week of the session, even if there is an omnibus budget to vote on. It’s going to be a fascinating sprint to the finish.
LikeLiked by 2 people
We’re a week out from the election, and two weeks out from the senate returning.
I was looking at SCOTUS tenures, and it’s crazy to think that within a year, Roberts will have been on the court for 20 years and Kagan for 15; I remember their confirmations like they were yesterday. It’s also sad to think that, should the election result I’m rooting for and am fairly confident in come to pass, Thomas is likely to become the longest-tenured SCOTUS justice in history. While he’s currently the tenth-longest, those ahead of him are clustered around 33.5 to 34.5 years. He’s set to pass Field for second-longest in July 2026 and Douglas for longest in May 2028. Would be a shame, though not a coincidence, having two of the ~ten worst/most harmful justices in history (Field and Thomas) as two of the three longest-serving, though not nearly as big of a shame as it would be seeing Thurgood Marshall’s seat hold another partisan hack for the next 30 years.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I hate thinking about Thomas being the longest serving justice ever. Particularly because had Marshall just died in his seat, he would have lasted until less than a week after Clinton took the oath of office. It still hurts to this day seeing how close we were to holding that seat. Especially when I go back & look at some of the Black men Clinton was considering who would have likely been just as outstanding as Marshall himself.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Indeed. One premature retirement away from having an accurate count of Florida in 2000, and had Gore gotten the post-9/11 bounce Bush got, he conceivably could have made four appointments, leaving Scalia and Thomas’s brand of destructive partisanship as a footnote. A 6-3 court vs. a 3-6 court, hinging on Marshall’s health and belief that Bush was a shoo-in.
LikeLiked by 1 person
IMO Thomas shouldn’t be on the Supreme Court now esp because of his far right activist wife who even texted with Mark Meafows to encourage overturning the last election results.. Ginni Thomas will prop her husband up on the court as long as possible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thomas always felt like the type to die on the Court. Alito on the other hand is almost certainly going to pull a Souter and immediately retire the moment the next Republican is sworn into office. On the topic of tenure however, it will be a bit poetic for the two longest serving Justices in American history to be arguably the most leftwing and rightwing Justices to have served on the bench.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Happy Halloween.
Will any nominees be voted on after the election?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Happy Halloween & even more important, happy 5 days left until the election. Yes, there will definitely be more nominees confirmed during the lame duck. We already have Perry & Hawley teeded up. The number of how many more will depend on the election result. If either Harris or senate Democrats don’t win, I expect the pedal to the medal for the remaining nominees. If both win, I could see many held off on until next year.
LikeLike
At least two, yes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
However, if Harris wins and the Democrats don’t keep the Senate, likely very few nominees will be confirmed in the lame duck as the Senate will need to confirm new cabinet members.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You have been saying this; I’ve been saying the opposite and that most nominees would likely get prioritized. The real answer is we don’t know. This scenario hasn’t really happened before in the modern era. We will all have to wait and see.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I actually think we do know the answer. Schumer & senate Democrats have made it clear they want to catch Trump’s single term confirmation number (234, 230 or whatever your number is based on how you count it). They are approximately 19 confirmations away.
If Harris won & Dems lost the senate, Harris isn’t going to nominate her cabinet by the time the senate returns. Even if she did, they still have to go through the appropriate committees. Schumer isn’t going to just have the senate sit around & twittle their thumbs during that time. They will be churning out confirmations. I think it’s pretty clear judges would be the majority of those confirmations.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree, they’ve made their intention clear to at least pass Trumps 234. And even if Harris announces a batch of cabinet nominees the day after the election, it’ll take a few weeks, during which time the senate will have little to do.
It’s going to be fun around here. I’ll be interested to see what Schumer does that first week back.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well, I was waiting for the nominee for the 3rd -Delaware to be announced to write this but it doesn’t look like we are going to get it before the election, so I’ll write it now. Here are my grades for Biden’s 49 circuit court judges & pending nominees. I am ranking them based on background, age at the time of nomination & any court cases they have decided since on the bench. I am lowering my grades if there were clearly better (Younger and/or more progressive & not a sitting district court judge that requires backfill) choices for the seat. Some of them my grades have changed since the time they were first announced. What do you all think?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I may be showing my age, but the pattern of past new Presidents has been to nominate in November and December, having hearings after January 3rd, and confirmation on Inauguration Day.
I can’t remember a Cabinet Secretary for an incoming Administration confirmed in November or December before the Inauguration, ever.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s a great point. I watch every inauguration & I remember without fail after the inauguration speech, seeing the senate return to the floor to immediately confirm some nominees. Usually the Secretary of Defense & other essential nominees. I can’t remember too many (If any) done before the new president takes the oath of office. So with that precedent, I doubt Schumer will have his hands full with potential Harris nominees this year anyway.
There are five lame duck weeks scheduled. The only thing I can see getting floor time besides judges is budget related items, hurricane relief & those one off non judicial nominee that Trump can’t get rid of.
LikeLike
Judge Kayatta took senior status on October 31.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Election almost over…If GOP win the senate and Harris the presidency , how does everyone think the present GOP senators will be with Bidens judicial nominees in the lameduck?¹
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t see the GOP approaching Biden’s remaining nominees any differently regardless of the election results.I think they will continue opposing most almost unanimously.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I suspect Graham will probably vote no on every nominee. Collins and Murkowski possibly may get tougher tops but the GOP hasn’t been exactly accommodating anyway, so it really doesn’t matter. All that matters is getting Manchin, Sinema, and others to vote yes
LikeLiked by 1 person
I thought I posted this earlier this morning, but I guess not. But another underrated factor in November/December will be absences. Retiring and defeated senators sometimes pack it in early. If one side does worse than expected that will likely be bad for moral too. Hard to say how it will all play out, but it’s something to watch.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am bullish on the Senate. There is a chance Tester wins his race by a razor thin margin given the recent scandal surrounding Sheehy (that gun shot story seems completely made up). I believe Brown can win in OH, and we have a toss-up race (potentially) in TX as well as a possible major upset in the Nebraska race.
Let’s hope Dems retain the Senate and we have a Harris victory tomorrow night. Being able to confirm judges for two more years, even in a narrowly divided Senate, is a major victory.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think Harris will win comfortably, along the lines of Biden’s victory. I believe Hakim Jeffries is the next Speaker of the House.
I’m not as confident about the senate. I’d give Republicans a slight edge. The recent shocking poll out of Iowa gives me a little more hope we will see another upset. I think brown will pull through in Ohio. My fear of a devastating surprise in Maryland is all but gone. I think Dems will hold Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona & Nevada.
That just leaves Democrats needing to pull out a victory in either Montana, Texas or Florida. If Harris had made a bigger push in Florida I would feel more confident. But nothing would give me greater joy than the senate being saved because Ted Cruz lost.
LikeLiked by 3 people
We finally got a commission for one of the district court seats over this break! Conway took the bench yesterday. Court and Vargas are still awaiting commissions.
Not sure how many things I’ll be right about in this election, but I do feel proud of myself for never worrying about Maryland for Senate and that the partisan gravity of the state would win out.
For freshman Democratic Senators, we’re very likely to see Alsobrooks (MD), Blunt Rochester (DE), Kim (NJ), and Schiff (CA), and slight favorites for Gallego (AZ) and Slotkin (MI), while Senate control may very well hinge on Allred (or even DMP) pulling off some upset.
Looking out to 2026, I know there’s several Democratic Senators in that class pretty up there in age, including Markey (MA, who has already committed to running), Reed (RI), Durbin (IL). Biggest potential retirement would definitely be Shaheen (NH, at 77).
LikeLiked by 2 people
I for one was worried about Maryland. Hogan is the type of common sense Republican that could win in a blue state. I’m happy he is running in a presidential year. Had this been an off year, I’m not so sure I would have been far off or wrong.
I’m happy to see Conway receive his commission. I was dead wrong on that seat. I said no way it would get filled this term after Johnson pulled another Johnson with the first nominee the night before his SJC hearing. I hate when confirmed nominees wait so long to get their commission. The nomination process takes so long. I can’t imagine a nominee not having their previous work just about finished once they are confirmed.
All eyes on Montana, Texas & Florida tonight for the senate. I think if Democrats win one of those three, a 50/50 majority can be salvaged. With the 2026 map looking more positive, I’ll take a Manchin, Sinema & Feinstein-less 50/50 senate for two years. I think we will get a healthy dose of red state district court nominees the first two years anyway, so with blue slips in play, you already start off with two Republican votes for those nominees.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think because the nomination process takes so long and you never know when or if you are confirmed at all, you have to go on living you life and working on the same way you did, so for me, and what is the case, when Joel Ossoff says ‘no’, you have liquidated your complete professional life just to state that it’s not going to happen, no matter, what reason. That’s really crazy. And on the other side: When Schumer and the Senate has let you wait that long, why you should hurry then? I think they try best to assume office as soon as they can, but if you look how long it takes e. g. for ambassadors who just find out, that they don#t like to serve out a complete term somewhere in Africa and resign after one year and a half. I’m also hoping, they join their office as quick as possible, but I have some understanding why it last some time, not just for judicial nominees.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’d love to see Shaheen simply run again and make that seat lead/safe Dem. Plus, she’s a great senator anyway.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There’s only one true tossup race for the Senate, and that is Sherrod Brown’s in Ohio. The Senate will very likely be either 51-49 R or 52-48 R come January.
LikeLiked by 1 person