Sharad Desai – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona

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.

1,386 Comments

    • Joe's avatar

      I don’t think SCOTUS has any appetite for getting involved. They didn’t in 2020 and Democrats didn’t control as many legislatures, governors, and secretaries of state as they do now. The Electoral Count Act hadn’t been passed then, either.

      The only way I think they’d get involved is if it’s a hyper close race a la Florida 2000.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      Moreno & Justice flip two seats. Montana likely lost as well. The senate will flip to Republicans. All those vacations & 4 day work weekends for four years & we still lose the senate. I still see Harris winning & Jeffries becoming Speaker but sucks the senate will be lost. I hope Schumer works the last 5 weeks like they should have been working the last 4 years. Looks like the 3rd won’t flip with no Delaware nominee. Horrible

      Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        The Supreme Court is done for a generation. Trump will replace either Alito and/or Thomas (After he breaks the record in 2028 of course). With the Republicans likely having at least 52 senators, Justice James Ho or Aileen Cannon is on the table.

        The 8th Circuit may be gone for just as long if not longer than the SCOTUS. I could see Josh Hawley’s wife in the mix for the second woman on the circuit. Poor Jane Kelly may never see a fellow Democrat appointee on the court with her.

        All of those Texas district court vacancies plus the more to come over the next 4 years will be filled in quick succession. That just makes the Irma Ramirez nomination that much worse, only filling 3 of the 8 vacancies.

        We need the Clinton & Obama appointees to get the best health care in the country for the next 4 years. Sotomayor should have daily check ups.

        It’s going to be a rough ride for the next 4 years. Buckle up.

        Like

    • Joe's avatar

      Well, it seems like the best we can hope for is Slotkin, Baldwin, Rosen, and Gallego hanging on and at least keeping the senate at 52-48.I know Casey thinks he can still win but it seems daunting.

      It’s probably impossible to flip the chamber back in 2026 (Maine and maybe NC are the only real possibilities as I see it), but the goal here is damage control and avoiding a complete apocalypse.

      Regarding SCOTUS I think Alito retires in 2025 or 2026. Thomas may want the record. One can only hope that egos get both of them and they wait too long

      Liked by 1 person

  6. lilee2122's avatar

    I respect the election results but let’s not forget the voter purges in Viginia and perhaps Pennsylvania and .disenfranchising so many others..Along with the whiny court cases the GOP filed even before election day…. I hope S humer steps on the gas get all confirmed he can a d stay in session a few Fridays and Saturdays

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Rick's avatar

    I hope Schumer can at least confirm all the remaining judges left on the calendar… Who knows when there next will be a Democratic president with a Democratic led senate.

    I enjoyed watching Wed nomination hearings and Thurs Business Meetings these last 4 years. When Jan rolls around, I will never watch these hearings. Yeah, I’ll read about the horrible nominees that Trump will put on court, but I ain’t tuning in.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Mike's avatar

      same, I can argue about policy or politics but lifetime appointments are too depressing so I won’t be by very often. It was fun while it lasted and thanks for the interesting conversations everyone.

      on the plus side, due to their immense success the first time I don’t think there will be anything close to the number of vacancies for Trump to fill this time around unless they get rid of the blue slips.

      Liked by 3 people

  9. Gavi's avatar

    The dearth of judiciary news and the horse race comments on here for the last few months have made this space unreadable so I’ve pretty much stayed away. But I do remember some of the breathless and bold predictions made.

    I remember asking one person on here, given the poor/tied polls, including the “wrong-track” more Americans say the country is on, why are you so sure of a Trump win. The person responded: I have one word for you buddy, TRUMP. Trump’s name alone on the ballot will ensure he loses.

    Another person on here pulled out his statistics to give Dems an 80% chance of winning the WH and the senate. I just read some of this person’s comments from just last week and this person was still peddling his surety of a Harris win.

    Now to Texas, that totally gettable state for one person here. When no one else would bite on Allred’s chances, this person said that they’ll call out everyone who poo-pooed the race if Allred wins or loses by only a few points (I don’t remember exactly the margins given, maybe 3 or 4). Well, in a state where Harris held a massive rally with Beyonce, Allred is losing by nearly 10. Still think the rest of us were irrational?

    A combination of magical wish-casters in here, seeing the poor/tied polls kept going “but but 2022!” Wrong here to be stuck on, folks. This was more like but but 2016. For me, at least, this was worse than just 2016. This feels like 2014 and 2016 combined, with the senate wipeout and the presidency, respectively.

    So, since the mere name of Trump on the ballot didn’t save us; or January 6th didn’t save us; or Dobbs didn’t save us; or a decent economy didn’t save us… I logged back in to see if those same people have just as boldly and humbly eaten crow.

    I suppose some find it fun to make bold predictions as if they have a crystal ball. But if you don’t have one, a little humility goes a long way. Remember, being terrified of the alternative, hope, and wishful thinking are all human traits, but are no basis to make sweeping predictions.

    Now these same people have already been telling us how great 2026 is going to be. Folks, forget the grain of salt, you can safely discard these milk-aged predictions.

    Most of the federal judiciary is gone for probably a generation. If we are lucky, as painful as that is, it’ll be the greatest extent of the coming disaster.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Frank's avatar

      You hit it on the nail here. There is almost no chance that the Democrats will ever regain enough power to influence the judiciary in any way for the foreseeable future. Dream all you want, but it doesn’t change reality. Because of how the Senate is set up, it is very unlikely Democrats will have a majority in that chamber for at least the next decade, if not longer, no matter what happens going forward. A 8-1 SCOTUS is very plausible coming in the near future.

      Liked by 2 people

  13. Zack's avatar

    As much fun as I’ve had here over the past couple of years, I won’t be back once Trump takes office.
    I didn’t agree with all of the judges Biden nominated but I knew none of them would be hurting me or anyone else in the LGBT community among others.
    That won’t be the case with Trump’s judges and it will just be too painful to talk about them or what could have been with SCOTUS or certain court seats.
    I just hope we can get all the remaining nominees confirmed before the Senate changes hands.

    Liked by 2 people

  14. Rick's avatar

    GOP already planning for AWFUL nominees.

    https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/second-trump-term-opens-door-to-even-more-conservative-judges

    “Gregg Nunziata, of the conservative group Society for the Rule of Law, said the focus shouldn’t be on whether Trump nominees are unqualified. Instead, he said there could be some “highly credentialed, very right-wing nominees who are committed to an agenda, not towards neutral judging.”

    Liked by 3 people

  15. humanfault's avatar

    Very minor annoyance about the judiciary in the grand scheme of Trump having control over appointments for the next 4 years, but Dan Sullivan slow walking two of the three District Court seats for the entire Biden Administration really stings. Especially, because if there’s any District Court that should have a Native American judge (Outside of the Oklahoma Courts) it’s Alaska.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Mike's avatar

    While I can still try to be positive, before the alt-right takeover of our government, we got so lucky with the midterms going the way it did and not losing senate seats in NV, GA and breaking the 50-50 logjam with PA.

    119 judges confirmed over the last 2 years that Trump and his cronies won’t get to touch.

    Another 2 or 3 dozen confirmations yet to come if Schumer has any brains and actually cares about protecting our democracy.

    I’m not joking, he should literally ignore the funding bill and pentagon bill in favor of confirmations considering the American voter just proved they have zero interest in competence and the memory of a goldfish, they won’t remember or care in 2 years if senate democrats were confirming Judges during a shutdown so why not do it.

    If the majority of this country want chaos and incompetence for the new year, why make them wait Chuck.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      That’s the problem. Multiple months long recess, 4 day weekends & other strategic decisions made during the 4 years Schumer has been majority leader in itself is incompetence. I remember the last year McConnell was majority leader. They were coming up on the election recess & you remember what happened? He threatened to cancel some of it to keep confirming judges. Then Democrats agreed to voice vote about a dozen judges & they left as scheduled. That’s leadership. There was no such threat of Schumer doing that which is why we are stuck with the backlog of judges we have with 5 weeks left on top of all the other things that need to get done. And since we don’t have a nominee for the 3rd (DE), he won’t have to worry about spending time on that.

      Republicans are so much better at playing the long game. I remember when GW Bush was president. The precedent prior was you don’t campaign against the senate leader of either Party. Majority leader Tom Daschle was up for reelection in South Dakota. Bush made the decision to campaign for John Thune in that race & he barely won. Now that seat may end up being the seat that makes Murkowski & Collins irrelevant with their no votes & he may be the next senate leader. That’s leadership. The Republicans are about to show Democrats how to use power when you have it. I hope they get rid of blue slips so that will be the last nail in the coffin of Democrats that’s tried to hold on to precedent & norms.

      Like

  18. Joe's avatar

    The one thing that makes me think Blue Slips will stick around (in the short term at least) is that there are very few blue state vacancies at the moment. It’s very possible that Trump inherits as few as three (Kanter’s SDCA seat, Netburn’s SDNY seat, and the seat opening next year in Massachusetts).

    Of course, there will be new vacancies that pop up this winter and over the course of the next few years, but assuming the senate can get it done, the Biden WH has done a fine job getting these seats filled.

    I think the longer the GOP controls the WH and senate though, the more tempting it’s going to get.

    Liked by 2 people

  19. Joe's avatar

    I should clarify, I’m not really “predicting” anything. Just bringing it up. It’ll ultimately be up to Grassley (I think) and Trump.

    Trump will likely push for it to end, but he was rebuffed over procedural stuff in his first term. Hard to say how it’ll go this time.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      I agree it is less likely they get rid of blue slips in Trump’s term only because they are only padding their lead in the judiciary, not trying to catch up. I was more forceful in my belief they would ditch blue slips if Harris won & they retook the White House in 2029, which would have meant they were catching up then.

      Thank God that Judges Act wasn’t passed now huh…

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        I’ll let the courts be short handed for 4 years. It’s not like they haven’t been already for about three decades anyway. I would hold off on passing it until 2028 & put my hopes on things being so bad by then, the American people will wake up & vote blue. As you said if not, 8 years of Republican presidents would probably mean we are screwed anyway.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Thomas's avatar

        A good idea or measure isn’t suddenly turning into a bad one because the political circumstances have changed. The judiciary needs reinforcement and now is the right moment to do it to give an effective relief. Plans to postpone it until Trump is out of the White House are simply just these tactical games I dislike so much. In fact it’s even streched to twelve years with eleven additional posts at each congress, so Trump will appoint a maximum of twenty-two if he has a Republican Senate for his full term. This solution is not perfect, because all 66 are needed now and not in 2035, but obivously it’s the best both parties could agree on and doing nothing is no option.

        Liked by 1 person

  20. Mitch's avatar

    I remember people talking about Allison Riggs of the North Carolina Supreme Court in a prior posting. They are elected in North Carolina. She’s on the ballot this year.

    Her election is heading for a recount. Her opponent is leading by only 10,000 votes out of 5.5 million cast. Should she have been the 4th Circuit nominee instead of Ryan Park?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      If Wynn had announced earlier perhaps Riggs would have been a great option. But with him announcing when he did, had Riggs been the nominee, the SCOT-NC seat almost certainly would have gone to the Republicans. It still might but that seat was worth the risk. Ryan Park is (Like Riggs would have been) an A+ nominee so we didn’t lose anything with him. Now we just need Schumer to learn how to count between now & Christmas so he can schedule his vote when a Republican or two is out of town.

      Republicans should already be down Vance the rest of the year. I doubt he will step down before the end of the year. Any speculation on who will be appointed to replace him? Governor Dewine is one of the more moderate Republican governors so might be an upgrade from Vance.

      While we are in the subject of speculation, any idea on the composition of the SJC next year? I’m assuming Senator Schmidt will try to find his way on the committee now that Republicans will gain a seat. The Democrats shouldn’t have any issues needing to remove anybody since Senator Butler is retiring.

      Like

  22. Joe's avatar

    Yes, the Casey win shocked me for sure. I thought he was the safest of the swing state democrats and he’s the only one who lost.

    At 53-47, I think Trump is probably assured to keep senate control for his entire four year term. Democrats would have to flip 4 seats in the midterms and looking at the map that doesn’t seem likely at all.

    Liked by 1 person

    • lilee2122's avatar

      yes AP called the race for Mccormick but as Casey pointed out in PA there are still thousands of votes to be counted…As for the th CCA seat I’m hoping Schumer can fill that but park needs a hearing I think or not? For Trump he seemed in his speech to know it was his last time he could run for the position I’m hoping that takes some fight and competitiveness out of him… But his aides and all GOP agendas will still be horrible and Trump could get sick he is almost 79 then we have vance as president… Schumer has to get busy confirming all the Circuit court nominees and at least blue state nominees ….leave. no nominee behind!!!!

      Liked by 2 people

  28. Mike's avatar

    Casey losing in PA sucks but he was the biggest target of the GOP super pacs, I can’t remember the exact amount but I think it was WELL OVER $100m.

    I’m not sure why but the GOP really wanted that PA seat and considering Casey is running 100k votes ahead of Harris, I guess those really needed every dollar they spent to beat him.

    I’m not usually the happy go lucky guy but I want to tell some of you to keep the faith. I think there will be blue waves in 26 and 28 without Trump on the ballot.

    He appears to be a singularly unique candidate (a worse off version of Obama for the GOP) that can get people to vote for him but not the Republicans alongside him most of the time considering Baldwin and Slotkin have won and it looks like Rosen and Gallego will too.

    In North Carolina, Trump won by 3.5% but Dems beat the terrible Mark Robinson and won the Lt. Gov, Attorney General and Sec of State elections.

    Oh and with Vance now being VP, his seat will appointed then up for election in 2026, might be a good opportunity for a soon to be former senator that outperformed Trump by 7%.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Joe's avatar

      Yeah, I think politically there will certainly be a reversion to the mean. Democrats for the most part did fine elsewhere, just not at the top of the ticket. This happened in 2018 and 2022 (as well as the GA runoffs) too so there are overall some positives if you squint hard enough

      They will likely be heavy favorites to take the House in 2026 and will probably do well in senate races then too. The problem is there are so few realistic targets. Even if they can flip Maine and NC (both will be very tough races) that still leaves the senate 51-49 with Republicans having a tiebreaker. For better or worse, I fear the GOP will control confirmations for at least four years.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Haaaaaaaaaaa

        Gavi & me don’t always agree but I’m 100% with him on this. There is NOTHING good that came out of Democrats losing the presidency, Senate & not retaking the House Tuesday. Nothing, nothing (Repeat after me) nothing. Not in 2024, 2025 or 2026.

        I don’t care if Trump gets zero SCOTUS appointments, 10 circuit court judges & 100 district court judges in his second term. We are behind right now so anything Trump adds is padding their lead.

        Let’s not try to spin this. Tuesday was a disaster for national Democrats. About 10 million less people voted for Kamala Harris this year than Joe Biden 4 years ago. 10 f*ckin million less people. That’s the population of the state of Georgia.

        And the worst part is she wasn’t running against a common sense Republican like Nikki Haley. She was running against a 34 time convicted felon who has been found guilty of sexual assault, impeached twice, lost the only debate he had with her & had a closing argument that consisted of Haitians eating dogs/cats/swans, Puerto Rico is trash, Arnold Palmer had a big penis, Liz Cheney should be put in front of a firing squad & doing sexual acts on his microphone that would put some Porn Hub actors to shame.

        And what did we get for all that? Trump wins the popular vote & a Murkowski & Collins-proof majority in the Senate. I’m sorry but I can’t see the good at all in any of that if we are talking about national Democrats. Help is not on the way either. Trump is going to do exactly what he said he was going to do over the next 4 years.

        Even if Democrats do repeat in 2029 what they did in 2009 & 2021 so what. They will take over a country with a cratering economy, exploding deficit, skyrocketing inflation, social security about to bankrupt & rights rolled back. When they try to fix the problems, they will have a judiciary that stops them at almost every turn. Of course the Republicans will blame Democrats every step of the way for the countries problems. When they finally do start to turn things around for the better guess what. The next election will be around the corner. Americans with our short memory will only remember going to the gas station & grocery store, seeing high prices & blame the Party in power.

        This was the most important election of our lifetime & Republicans walked away with the presidency, Senate & House. The first two of those three will be for at least 4 years. I just can’t see any good in that.

        Liked by 2 people

  31. Dequan's avatar

    I’m not sure what Carl Tobias is smoking but he may want to puff puff pass instead of puff puff puff…

    “Beyond that, he speculated, Democrats are likely to win the Senate majority back in 2026.”

    (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-judges-second-term_n_672a7c86e4b0ffe83cf1dd5b?utm_source=cordial&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=hp-us-reg-morning-email_2024-11-07&utm_term=us-morning-email&email_hash=de017c0fe15eeb269996034e729e5c4653882ba0)

    Liked by 1 person

  32. Lillie's avatar

    Brown is about to turn 72, I doubt he wants back in.

    It’ll be interesting to see who Dewine appoints as Vance’s replacement. Dewine is no moderate, but he’s also an adult in the room (if a cowardly and probably corrupt one.)

    Also, now our supreme court is 6 to 1 conservatives.

    Liked by 2 people

  33. rob's avatar

    BENCH PRESS — Two months from now, Republicans will be in control of the U.S. Senate. They’ll have at least 53 seats. And as soon as DONALD TRUMP is sworn in on Jan. 20, they’ll be revving up the old conveyor belt of conservative judicial nominees, tilting the courts further in their favor for decades.

    For Democrats, this is a hair-on-fire moment. And though the discourse in the media is presently dominated by recriminations about how this all happened, another arguably more urgent conversation is blowing up largely outside of public view: whether to push for 70-year-old Supreme Court Justice SONIA SOTOMAYOR to step down while Dems still have the power to approve her replacement.

    This isn’t simply some flight of fancyhappening among progressive activists online. It’s a conversation members of the Senate are actively engaged in.

    One senator Playbook spoke with last night told us that the topic has come up repeatedly this week in talks with their colleagues. Inevitably, those conversations end up with a recognition of two realities: (1)It’d be a risky play with the party already trying to figure out how to handle a crowded lame-duck session, and (2) no senator seems to be offering to be the person to put his or her neck on their line publicly (or even privately) by pushing for Sotomayor to step aside.

    The conversations have gone far enoughthat a possible replacement has been bandied about: D.C. Circuit Judge J. MICHELLE CHILDS, who was on President JOE BIDEN’sSCOTUS short list. It’s obvious why: Childs has already been vetted, is seen as moderate and even received backing by conservative senators like LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-S.C.) last go round. (Though you can be damn sure that Republicans would do everything imaginable to stop a lame-duck confirmation.)

    But inevitably, this chatter runs into major logistical concerns.

    If Sotomayor were to resign, “she can sort of resign conditionally on someone being appointed to replace her,” the Democratic senator told Playbook. “But she can’t resign conditioned on a specific person. What happens if she resigns and the nominee to replace her isn’t confirmed and the nextpresident fills the vacancy?”

    Then there’s the abbreviated timeline. Democrats would have to convince her to retire immediately, Biden would have to nominate a successor, they would have to figure out how to bring enough senators on board, dodge whatever obstructions Republicans throw in their way and get a whole floor vote before the new Congress is sworn in. There would be no room for error or delay.

    “We would have to have assurances from any shaky senator that they would back a nominee in the lame duck, because what do you do if she announces she’s going to step down and then [independent West Virginia Sen. JOE] MANCHIN doesn’t support her and then [Republican Sens.] SUSAN COLLINSand LISA MURKOWSKI back off and say they’re not going to support a new nominee?” one senior Democratic source told us. “Do you just rescind that letter?”

    The logistics, the senator suggested to us, may be insurmountable. (The phrase they used was “Beltway speculative conversation.”) Better, perhaps then, to focus on confirming lower-court judges, filling vacancies Trump can’t later fill himself.

    But this isn’t the first time the proposal has been floated.

    Last year, Democrats — bruised by Justice RUTH BADER GINSBURG’s refusal to retire and give then-President BARACK OBAMA a chance to nominate her successor — began a quiet campaign to nudge Sotomayor out. The reasoning? Her age (70) and health (she has diabetes). That round of the conversation was met with accusations of ableism and even racism: How dare they suggest pushing the first Latina justice — a solid progressive vote — off the bench?

    But this time, with the reality of an impending Trump presidency, those objections have fallen by the wayside. And some of those who called for Sotomayor to step down earlier feel the conversation has changed.

    “I wish it were different, but I think that Democrats need to do a better job of holding on to the fear that they now feel the next time they are in a position of power, because we can’t shut down those conversations,” MOLLYCOLEMAN, the executive director of the People’s Parity Project, told us late last night.

    But barring a surprise announcement from Sotomayor, the best thing Democrats can do, she says, is to focus on those 30-odd district- and appeals-court judges still waiting to be confirmed and accept they may have missed their chance to do anything about the Supreme Court.

    “Democrats are not going to win elections forever,” Coleman says. “They’re not going to be able to nominate Supreme Court justices indefinitely. They need to act when they have power.”

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      This idea of Sotomayor announcing she will resign during the lame duck even today, November 8th, is only being floated by people who really don’t understand the confirmation process. Even if Biden nominated somebody a couple of days later, the November 10th announcement means the earliest the SJC could hold a hearing would be around December 8th, 28 days later. That is a Sunday so December 9th would be when the hearing starts.

      The last day of the hearing would be December 12th. Then 7 days later on December 19th, the nomination would be held over. Then 7 days later on December 26th the nomination could be reported out (Assuming they work on the day after Christmas. I believe the earliest Schumer could file for cloture is the day after on December 27th. Two days later on December 29th the senate could vote on cloture & 30 hours later on December 31st the senate could vote on confirmation.

      So yea, this is a pipe dream. Not to mention you would lose a circuit court seat for whoever the nominee was. And there’s no way Biden would replace Sotomayor with a on Hispanic leaving the highest court in the land with zero.

      This is panic strategy by people who mean well but isn’t being realistic. The time to prevent Trump from possibly replacing Sotomayor was the election. That time has gone & passed.

      Liked by 2 people

  34. Joe's avatar

    Logistically it’s just impossible. The time to do this was during the summer or far. It probably would have been good politics too and made the stakes a little clearer for low info voters.

    Now there really is nothing that can be done besides hoping that she’ll be fine for another 6-10 years.

    Liked by 2 people

  35. Mike's avatar

    folks im not saying this election was good for America but to me the result looks to be a pro trump and/or anti-Biden (and his VP) reaction. I think pundits saying it’s a repudiation of democrats being too pro LGBTQ or too woke and they should basically run as moderate Republicans is stupid.

    If the end result of the best Republican presidential performance in 40 years is 53 senate seats and at best a 5 seat republican house majority, I don’t know how anyone thinks 26 or 28 will be worse. You think 80% of rural areas and Joe Rogan bros will show up for Ron or Nikki much less their local congressman?

    the next two years will suck, I’ll try to read a lot less political articles and if there’s no blue wave in 26 I’ll join y’all in hopelessness.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      I actually can think of several reasons why 2026 & 2028 can be at least just as bad, if not worse. I’ll list some…

      1. Senator Ossoff is up for reelection. If Republicans don’t nominate somebody like Marjorie Taylor Greene, he very much so is vulnerable. And even she isn’t guaranteed to lose. On the flip side Democrats have to look forward to flipping a very resilient Senator Collins seat, whoever governor Dewine appoints, the always so close but never quite North Carolina & don’t get me started on Texas being flipped.
      2. MAGA will be emboldened after this victory.
      3. Misinformation will only get worse, not better over the next 4 years. A large swath of Americans have shown they don’t have the capability to do basic research & find out when they are being told something that isn’t true. Case in point, I have had multiple Trump supporting friends over the past few days tell me everything from Trump is solely responsible for the stock market gains (BTW I asked them if the Dow dropped 1,000 points the next day would Trump be responsible for that & got a unanimous no from all), to he is ending the wars in both Ukraine & Gaza, to the economy that they have been bashing the past 3 years & 10 months all of a sudden looks great thanks to Trump. Eggs costing $3 under Biden is the worst inflation in the history of mankind while eggs costing $3 under Trump is apparently normal. This is the reality we are faced with.
      4. Biden is handing Trump a good economy just like Obama did. He likely will have a good first year & a half or so even if he screws up like we know he will.
      5. As much as conservatives bash the liberal media, I actually think conservatives are dominating the political media right now. Fox News is the number one news outlet. Elon owns Twitter (X). Joe Rogan & other popular podcast are in the pocket for Trump. And that doesn’t even begin to get into the aforementioned misinformation.
      6. Republicans have the courts. So voter suppression & other tactics conservatives use to win will only get worse & make it harder for Democrats to win.
      7. I don’t know if I agree the election results aren’t in part of a majority of Americans being fed up with woke or extreme liberal positions. I see it as quite the opposite actually. I’m not talking about common sense progressive ideas such as raising the minimum wage, expanding health care, abortion rights, civil rights & gun restrictions. But when it comes to cities not prosecuting crimes under a certain dollar amount, even I think that’s dumb. And while the majority of Americans like myself agree with LGBT rights, most don’t agree girls & woman should be forced to compete with biological men. Now I think all Democrats unfairly get painted with this broad brush but sadly perception is reality in politics. I personally have friends who have never voted for Republicans who brought both of those issues (Along with the economy that supposedly Trump is good at) up as to why they either voted for Trump this time or didn’t bother to vote at all.
      8. Again, approximately 10 million less people voted for Kamala Harris that didn’t vote for Joe Biden. That is horrible.

      So yea, I’m not seeing any positives out of this election result when talking about national Democrats.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Mike's avatar

        **At the risk of turning this into a political forum I’ll make one last post regarding this specific issue.**

        I’m not saying any of what MAGA will do is good for America, it’ll likely be awful but it will be good for Democrats.

        The more extreme they go, the worse the backlash will be. Can you imagine how many seats Dems would’ve won post Roe in 2022 if Trump was President instead of Biden.

        Trump winning the popular vote will defang any real arguments in red states for big changes to voting laws and Dems control a branch of Gov in all swing states + up to 230 Biden judges to slow or stop the worst laws.

        Exit polls show that 54% of people said that Trump was too extreme but 1/9 of them still voted for him because they think he’ll lower prices.

        How do you think this majority of voters will vote in 2 or 4 years when he’s not on the ballot to draw out his base AND he doesn’t reduce costs for people who already think he’s too extreme.

        Like I said, if 2026 is not a blue wave election I’ll probably eat a gallon of chocolate moose tracks ice cream and give up on politics but until then, I’ll take a step back and wait for MAGA to step on every rack in the yard.

        Liked by 1 person

  36. Joe's avatar

    I don’t think there are many positives either as things stand today.

    However, Trump is an idiot and will be surrounded by idiots. He will likely make a lot of very unpopular mistakes and public perception will tilt even more against him. There may not be a 2018 level backlash, but I would expect some level of rebuke against him if he starts deporting millions and passing laws to increase prices and take away peoples healthcare.

    The information ecosystem is perhaps the most troubling issue here. I’m not sure what the answer is when Twitter and many other companies are controlled by people in the tank for Trump.

    Liked by 1 person

  37. Zack's avatar

    While we’re venting, let me just say how angry I am that Democrats dropped the ball on the 3rd Circuit, not just with the Delaware seat but with Mangi as well.
    Yes, the attacks on him were horrible but if the votes aren’t there, they aren’t there.
    He should have been cut loose and a new nominee put in his place.
    If nothing else, I would add something to go along with the point Dequan made.
    Some folks need to get out of their bubble and realize that issues that might make us angry don’t bother other people and that if we bring up valid concerns about a nominee etc., we’re not living in fantasy land.
    Jacky Rosen is on track to win reelection by over 15,000 votes.
    The fact she voted against Todd Edelman and announced she would be voting against Mangi didn’t hurt her in the least with voters in NV, contrary to some folks on here who thought it would cost her reelection.
    On the other hand, as I said, Bob Casey lost the endorsement of several police unions in part because of Mangi being linked to the group who had Kathy Boudin, linked to the 1981 Brinks shooting as a founding member.
    It might not matter to folks on here but it DID matter to the police unions in PA and that is a big deal.
    And yet I was called an idiot by some folks on here who said I didn’t know what I was talking about.
    I wanted to believe Harris would win but I had a bad feeling some of the issues Dequan mentioned among other things would bite us in the butt and they did.
    And now the courts will suffer for it.*

    Liked by 1 person

  38. Joe's avatar

    I do think there’s a decent change that Mangi, Park, and others get confirmed purely out of spite for Trump.

    As for the Delaware seat, I’m really not sure what the deal is unless Jordan was making it known he’d rescind if a nominee was made before the election. There’s no other explanation.

    Honestly, now that I’m thinking about it, it might even be good politics to make an announcement now (an announce a very progressive or liberal candidate), and at least hold a hearing before Christmas. There’ wouldn’t be time to confirm of course, but at least it would show some fight. Highly, highly doubt that actually happens though.

    Liked by 3 people

  39. Zack's avatar

    @Joe,
    If I had to hazard a guess, Jordan timed his retirement the way he did to ensure a greater chance the seat wouldn’t flip (which now it won’t) and would have taken his retirement back if they tried to nominate someone not like him.
    Sucks but unlike some of the other Republican retirements we’ve seen, he was never going to allow himself to be replaced by a liberal/moderate if he could help it.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Joe's avatar

      I think so too, Zach. Otherwise it’s a massive error on the part of the Biden admin.

      The more I think about it, the more I’m convinced the Biden admin should nominate a young Black or Latino man and have him go before SJC on Dec 11. It will ultimately be all for show because the clock has run out, but maybe it’ll be good politics and paint the new senate in a bad light. Doubtful of course, but you never know.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      Are you freaking kidding me. At this point I have to believe Jordan has rescinded behind het scenes or is staying loyal to his Party & privately told Biden he will change his retirement date until after January 20th. No way the administration can bet his incompetent to allow a circuit court seat go to Trump without a fight.

      Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        The California nominees haven’t been sent to the senate yet so I assume they will all be sent over Tuesday when the senate returns. I wonder if Tali Farhadian Weinstein will replace Sarah Netburn or will she be for Valerie Caproni’s apparent senior status. A Friday night batch. I guess desperate times calls for desperate measures.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Rick's avatar

        One of the nominees is for Guam !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        Why? All I know about Guam is that it’s a long flight and they hardly have any birds because brown tree snakes ate them all….

        We have 2 3rd Circuit Court seats that may not get filled and the WH focuses on Guam

        Liked by 1 person

      • Anthony Myrlados's avatar

        Yeah, maybe there was a concern over not being able to voice vote Wilma Lewis. I didn’t consider that maybe Lewis herself isn’t interested. The way I see it, the renomination of Tydingco-Gatewood means we’re in the “throw spaghetti against the wall” phase of Democrats’ grand strategy. If so, why not add Lewis to the list? If (by some miracle) every other judge is out of the way and they still have time, they can add Lewis to the list of judges appointed.

        Liked by 1 person

  42. Joe's avatar

    Hey, I’ll take whatever we can get at this point.

    My back of the napkin math says these nominees could get a hearing in Dec 6 and potentially be voted out of SJC the week before Christmas? Time is probably up but maybe Schumer can surprise us and sneak them in.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      You know what my biggest lame

      duck fear is? What if Schumer keeps the same lazy schedule for the remaining 5 weeks in session. Monday one vote, full day Tuesday & Wednesday then out by 4pm on Thursday. I swear if he does that, Democrats don’t deserve the majority.

      Like

  44. rob's avatar

    Some other good news Algernon Marbley of S.D Ohio has reportedly rescinded his senior status intention as there has been no nominee announced.

    I was also thinking that at least we will have no problem with tie breaking votes now as VP Harris will be available.

    Liked by 2 people

  46. Joe's avatar

    I don’t think the GOP will concede an inch of ground on the 28 days. It’ll be Friday December 6 I think or, more realistically, Wednesday December 11.

    They held the SJC business meetings hearings for KBJ very shortly after hearings, so perhaps there is room for maneuvering there so these two nominees can get voted out Dec 19

    Liked by 1 person

  50. Joe's avatar

    From what Ive read, Weinstein and her husband are very wealthy. I wouldn’t be surprised if this was the case and also that it was entirely legal.

    Donald Trump didn’t pay several years worth of income taxes either so I can’t imagine any Republican would object to this? Surely?

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a reply to Anthony Myrlados Cancel reply