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

      That’s good news I guess. But doesn’t rule out 2026 either.

      I hope that Thomas’ pursuit of the longevity record ends up biting him in the ass like it did for RBG. There would be a certain level of poetic justice if he was replaced by Justice Candace Jackson Akiwumi or Justice Andre Mathis.

      Liked by 2 people

  3. Joe's avatar

    I just watched the Business Meeting. Park was reported out along party lines. Overall the tone was very cordial and Durbin talked about how the committee would soon be changing hands (he confirmed Grassley would be SJC chair).

    On Park, Durbin pointed out the long history of the Trump admin not consulting home state senators. Tillis was once again very worked up because he still felt he wasn’t properly consulted. He mentioned that the WH gave him and Budd a list of four nominees to choose from and they declined. He also confirmed his story from this summer that he had the votes to stop it if there is full attendance and that Schumer was trying to bank on Republican absences to confirm him. He also made a lot of empty threats on how he might vote on nominees next year if Democrats continue with their plan to confirm all nominees. After that they took a vote and Park was voted out along party lines.

    Sharad Desai also got voice voted out, so that nomination may once again be in line for a fast track confirmation.

    The other five nominees were held over.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. tsb1991's avatar

    I guess Tillis said he’d threaten to walk on future package deals if they vote Park out. Kind of an empty threat given that Trump will be able to fill every NC district court vacancy with Tillis and Budd’s wholehearted support. Tillis also may very well not be a Senator the next time there’s a Democratic president should he lose re-election two years from now.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Joe's avatar

    Yeah, it struck me as pretty pathetic too. Obviously he couldn’t work it out with a very conciliatory Biden WH, so why are we worried about what he might do in the future? What else is he going to do, vote for bad Trump nominees to spite Democrats? Ok buddy.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Rick's avatar

    Tillis really came across as an angry SOB at Thurs mtg. Should have been in a good mood considering it will be all Federalist Society kooks going thru the SJC come Jan. 2025.

    He must have a real fear that Schumer will keep the senate in session waiting for GOP absences

    Liked by 1 person

  7. tsb1991's avatar

    I was also surprised that Grassley is returning as SJC chair next Congress, I thought for sure it would go to Graham. Not that it would matter with a Republican President, but had Harris won with a Republican Senate Graham would have been the preferable option as SJC chair IMO. I’d feel he’d give a decent chunk of Harris’ nominees a fair shake while Grassley would revert to his 2015/2016 blockade.

    I think Republicans in both the House and Senate term limit their committee chairs to three terms, so this would be Grassley’s third and final term as SJC chair (2015-2019 and now 2025-2027), Graham has only served one term as SJC chair so he’d have two left (2019/2020). After Graham, Cornyn I think would be next in line before you would get to Lee/Cruz/etc in seniority which would be outright horrifying.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Joe's avatar

    I agree, Graham is the preferable option. He is probably the more committed of the two to preserving the blue slip tradition. Although I suspect if Trump really starts foaming at the mouth about it at some point it will disappear regardless

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Joe's avatar

    Good news….Not only three more judges but these were some of the more controversial ones too.

    Once Kidd plus these three are confirmed Biden will be at 219 Article III judges with the possibility of 21 more before the end of the year (assuming that Kanter, Netburn, Jackson, and Shaw Wilder are not viable).

    Liked by 2 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      We will see about Kanter very soon. If she isn’t at the SJC hearing then it was political malpractice on the Biden administration not to pull her nomination & get a replacement earlier.

      As for Netburn, she’s most likely done but not impossible to get her confirmed if Schumer wants to play hardball (Yes I know that’s not likely but just dreaming since she is a New York nominee). Schumer could just discharge her from the SJC even with Ossoff voting no if enough Republicans are out. But again that’s not likely.

      Like

  12. Joe's avatar

    We also don’t even know who Weinstein will be replacing so we? It’s possible she’s a last minute swap for Netburn (or it could be for the new vacancy that was announced last week).

    I’m with you on Kanter though. They should just put her in the SJC and see what happens. Her resume looks good on paper, which tells me there’s some sort of other scandal, though.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      That’s really good news Manchin voted for Kidd’s cloture. Sinema must be hedging her bets to get Sharad Desai fast tracked. I wouldn’t be surprised to see him confirmed before the Thanksgiving recess. She also could be looking for a Democrat pick in a Trump administration as well.

      I notice Cardin missed some votes this week. With him being from Maryland, I hope he doesn’t plan on taking more time off before he retires.

      Like

  15. tsb1991's avatar

    Russell was the biggest surprise for cloture being filed IMO, I thought her nomination was cooked. I know cloture had previously been filed on Kasubhai and Pennell in the past but were pulled due to attendance issues.

    If they have the voted to confirm Russell then the remaining district court nominees (including both DDC nominees) shouldn’t be an issue. If they spend all of next week on judges we should also get another round of cloture motions sent out Monday for Wednesday votes.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. Joe's avatar

    Sorry, Manchin was against, not for. I wish it were otherwise. Still, he should be on track for confirmation on Monday.

    I am more than fine fast tracking Desai because he’s such a good nominee. Hopefully Sinema will keep playing nice at least for a little while.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. aangren's avatar

    Its been an absolute privilege to find this website and get on here to talk about judges, i still remember nearly four years ago when biden nominated kentanji brown jackson and candace jackson akiwumi to the circuit court seats and how excited i was. Thank you to manchin as well if he is willing to support democrats without GOP support that’s a huge vote and its very possible democrats will confirm nearly all judges, mangi still has some hope.

    In terms of the future trump administration which district courts do you guys believe will be the liberal version of the democratic Northern district of texas? who will be the new democratic kascmaryk to issue prompt injunctions against trump policies? Biden really did an excellent job for the Washington district courts so i am really optimistic there. I am a survivor fan as well , and their new AG nick brown was on the second season of the show(made the merge and jury) and he vowed to hold trump accountable so i am expecting a lot of law suits and injunctions against trump from Washington district courts. I think there will be alot of biden judges blocking trump policies

    Liked by 2 people

    • Joe's avatar

      Good question Aangren. I’m not sure I’ve given it a ton of thought. The district of Massachusetts is almost exclusively liberal judges and appeals go to the all Obama/Biden First circuit. Perhaps that could be a candidate. Washington would be a good possibility as well, as you mentioned.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        @aangren

        I have two answers to your question depending on exactly what your question is. If you are only asking about district courts specifically, I would have to agree with you & go with the WDWA simply because all seven judges are appointed by Biden. Not only that, but 5 out of the 7 i gave an A-, A or A+ grade to. Even the remaining two judges are good.

        But if your question is overall which court, I would have to say the district court of Massachusetts. I say that only because not only had Biden put some rock star picks on that court (I am including Murphy assuming he will be confirmed), but the appeals go to the 1st Circuit. That is the only circuit that has all Democrat appointees (Again I am assuming Lipez will be confirmed in my answer).

        None of the judges on the 1st are going anywhere under Trump barring any unexpected issues. On the other hand, the WDWA appeals to the 9th. Right now, Democrats only have a 16-13 advantage. I am afraid Trump can cut into that deficit over the next few years & he was able to put some very conservative judges out of his 10 picks on the court in his first term.

        Like

    • Frank's avatar

      I don’t see a clear Kascmaryk-lite judge on the left right now, primarily due to the fact that Kascmaryk is the only judge based in Amarillo and as such every case filed there goes to him, while there is no clear judge on the left with that same status. I’m sure there will be multiple judges filing injunctions though against certain Trump policies.

      Liked by 1 person

  19. star0garnet's avatar

    Dems have a few places to look to see if they have a Kascmaryk. Looking at the Dem-leaning circuits, here are the duty stations that currently only have Dem-appointed judges (number of judges in parentheses):

    1st: Springfield (2), Worcester (1)

    4th: Abingdon (1), Anderson (1), Charlottesville (1), Greenbelt (6), Huntington (1), Lynchburg (1), Martinsburg (1)

    10th: Casper (1), Grand Junction (1), Santa Fe (1), St. George (2)

    9th: Billings (1), Boise (2), Eugene (2), Fresno (2), Great Falls (1), Missoula (2), Richland (1), Riverside (3), San Francisco (13), San Jose (4)

    2nd: Albany (3), Burlington (3), Hartford (6), Rutland (1), Utica (1)

    If you exclude senior judges, you could add the following:

    1st: Portland (2)

    4th: Greenville (1)

    10th: Las Cruces (2)

    9th: Anchorage (1), Las Vegas (5), Oakland (3), Reno (2), Sacramento (4), Seattle (5), Spokane (2), Tacoma (2), Yakima (1)

    2nd: New Haven (2), Rochester (2), Syracuse (1)

    Of course it’s a lot more complicated than that: few judges are as political as Kascmaryk; appointing party doesn’t dictate ideology; an unfriendly chief judge could reassign duty stations; an en banc panel on the 9th could be unfriendly; etc.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. tsb1991's avatar

    I was thinking also with cloture filed on Russell, maybe it gives newfound hope on Mangi? I feel like Russell’s issues at her hearing were far more lethal than Mangi’s, and she’s getting a vote next week.

    I know with Mangi it was more than Manchin/Sinema and Jacky Rosen I know was vocally opposed. Since she just won re-election and has extended her political career by six years, maybe there’s a change of heart there? She won’t be up until 2030 which will be the midterm election of whoever the next president is, even if it’s a Democratic president’s midterm she’d face attacks for 100 other things other than casting a vote for an appeals court nominee from 6 years ago (I feel like voters don’t care about your votes on nominations unless they’re either SCOTUS nominees or egregiously bad cabinet nominees). Tester and Brown wouldn’t have any reason to oppose now, if Casey was also opposed he’d have nothing to lose either.

    Liked by 2 people

  22. Rick's avatar

    Democratic senators who are opposed to Mangi should realize that if Mangi is not confirmed this Congress. he’ll 100% be replaced by a MAGA extremist nominee who will likely be in his/her early 30’s. in the next Congress

    Liked by 2 people

  24. star0garnet's avatar

    Just noticed that Governmental Affairs held the hearing yesterday for the two final DC superior court nominees. So it seems there may still be effort to confirm them. They are among eight pending DC superior nominees; I’m hoping but doubting they’ll get voice votes. There are also still two pending nominees for DC appeals; I’d be surprised if they get voice votes, but they’d certainly be worth the floor time needed to confirm them.

    Liked by 2 people

  26. Mike's avatar

    Realistically, how many judges could Trump confirm in 4 years considering him and Biden over the last 8 years they have or Biden soon will confirm:

    101 / 179 Circuit Judges

    354 / 678 + 190 from Obama.

    If Trump replaces ALL currently empty vacancies and district judges appointed by Bush or earlier that’s only 151, I feel like that means they’re definitely gonna need to get rid of the blue slip just to break 3 digits of confirmations.

    Harris winning was almost entirely for the chance at the SC seats and to pad Bidens numbers with deals for red state vacancies.

    Supreme Court is a disaster but nothing we can do about that for about 30 years.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      With the number of judges Trump & Biden have put on the bench, Trump would be lucky to get even half the number of judges he got in his first term. The biggest problem is Republicans were already in the lead. So sadly even if he only got 100 judges, that’s just padding their lead. We needed a Harris term to try & even things up or take a slight lead, specifically on a some of the circuit courts. Now the 5th & 8th will be lost for a generation & Trump might actually flip the 9th with a little luck.

      Like

    • Joe's avatar

      I think 100-150 is probably about right. He’ll inherit about 30-35 district vacancies plus the 3rd Circuit seat.

      There are 21 active Reagan/HW judges and 82 GWB judges. But not all will go senior.

      You got to figure there will likely be some Clinton/Obama vacancies as well (though hopefully most will stick it out).

      Liked by 1 person

      • Mike's avatar

        Yes but remember probably half of those Bush district judges are in blue states that need the blue slip.

        Almost all judges being replaced will be red state judges (or Obama nominated but red state senator + McConnell approved) judges who couldn’t or wouldn’t leave in Trumps first term will start getting another hard nudge again for the next four years.

        They’ll just start back where they left off in Dec 2020 and refreshing their judges but this time not able to expand their totals by more than a few seats because this time they don’t get 2 years of judges going senior under a Dem and the GOP senate not confirming a replacement.

        All I can say is thank goodness Senate Dems kept the Senate in 2022 even if that was the reason Biden tried to run for a second term and put us into this whole mess.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      I so look forward to Manchin being gone. I’m fine with a politician being principled but he’s not. He says he will vote against any nominee that doesn’t get at least one Republican vote, completely disregarding his independent vote his constituents sent him to the senate for. Then he says he will vote for nominees if they are qualified.

      After reversing his dumb stance, he goes & votes against Kidd. I would love to hear why Manchin doesn’t think Kidd is qualified. Give me a break. I thank him for his votes & holding that seat for as long as he did by good bye.

      Like

      • Rick's avatar

        I use to think Manchin was only against nominees who said mean things on twitter, but he’s come out against people who had no provocative posting history.. He’s against people merely because they get all NO votes from GOP senators. But does he realize most nominees start with 45 NO votes no matter who they are. And every circuit court nominee in recent memory is getting all no votes from every GOP senator.

        On side note, what grade did you give the SDNY nominee Tali Weinstein? She certainly has an excellent background, Ivy league education and clerked for Garland and Sandra O’Connor.. I’m sure GOP will go after her for her failed run at Manhattan DA, but she is CLEARLY against defunding the police.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Tali Weinstein seems like a fine nominee. She’s in her late 40’s & seems fairly progressive. I have her an A- off the bat & really haven’t done a deep dive with everything going on but I wouldn’t be surprised if I upgraded her to an A upon further review later.

        Like

      • Joe's avatar

        I am with Dequan on Weinstein. She seems like a very good nominee to me. To be honest, I’ve been more focused on the ones who are already in the pipeline. I’m a little skeptical that there will be enough time to confirm her, but I appreciate that the WH is taking a shot on filling that vacancy.

        My guess is that she and the Guam nominee will go before SJC on December 11. Normally that would mean a holdover date of Dec 19 and a Dec 26 vote. Obviously that isn’t going to happen the day after Christmas and there would be no time anyway. So, do they try and hold her over maybe the day after or the Monday after her hearing? This happened with KBJ I think, so there’s some precedent. But, that would allow her to get voted out possibly as early as Dec 19.

        Another option would be following the 28 day tradition to the letter and holding a hearing on Friday December 6. That seems unlikely to me, but maybe they can get away with holding it that Thursday instead? That would move the process up a week too and leave time.

        Lots of options and at this point it’s still a little unclear to me how it will work.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        There’s precedent for everything you mentioned. And if Durbin is smart, he would go all in to get both her & the Guam nominee confirmed. But after seeing the senate recess yesterday on yet another Thursday until Monday, I’m not so sure this senate majority is capable of doing the bare minimum to get all other pending nominees a vote, these two.

        Like

  28. Joe's avatar

    Yes, there’s some precedent for it. We’ll see if they’re willing to break it all for 1 district and 1 territorial judge. Weinstein is a Schumer pick all the way, so maybe that helps her cause too haha.

    Personally I am all in favor of pulling out all the stops to get them across the finish line, but we will see.

    Liked by 1 person

  30. Frank's avatar

    Huge news in NC as Democrat Allison Riggs is now ahead by 106 votes in her race to retain a seat on the North Carolina Supreme Court. A recount will almost certainly be coming with the close margin, but this is a positive development for the Democrats as it stands.

    Liked by 2 people

  31. Lillie's avatar

    The more I think about it the more I hope senate confirms all judges that they can then Biden appoints everyone not confirmed with recess apointments.

    Or even with the adjournment of congress would that recess not be enough?

    I’m not sure how that works.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      There is no more recess appointments. The Supreme Court has already spoken on this issue. The senate is allowed to interpret their rules as they wish. They consider “Pro Forma” sessions as being in session despite a couple of senators being present & gaveling the session in & right back out.

      Trump wants to get rid of that. In order to do so, that would require either Republicans to get rid of the filibuster or senate Democrats to simply not show up to object. Neither are likely to happen.

      Like

    • Ryan J's avatar

      Even if this Senate declined to hold pro forma sessions for the rest of the year, Senate Republicans would absolutely meet on January 3, 2025 to cancel all of Biden’s recess appointments.

      I don’t think the Senate will let Trump make recess appointments, but (except for judges) Trump can still have acting officials — all he needs to do is find prototypes of his proposed Cabinet members and give them roles in an acting capacity.

      Liked by 1 person

  32. Ryan J's avatar

    Sadly, I just realized a BIG complication in confirming these late term nominees.

    Adam Schiff is set to join the Senate as soon as the election results are certified. Laphonza Butler will then have to leave the Senate. Butler is 1 of 11 Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, and due to stupid committee rules, there is zero chance that the GOP allows the Dems to fill her seat on the committee. Meaning that any nominee who isn’t voted out of committee by the time California certifies the results is screwed.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      Wait, I know in New Jersey, Andy Kim was supposed to take his seat in the lame duck. I hadn’t heard the same in the case of California. That’s absolutely nuts if Democrats are so stupid to let Schiff come in before the SJC votes all nominees to the floor. I mean Schumer could still discharge all remaining nominees on to the floor but why do something that’s not needed. If Schiff wants the seniority over all new senators, they can just wait until the SJC votes Weinstein & the Guam nominee to the floor & then swear him in the next day. I swear Democrats can’t be this dumb.

      Like

      • Ryan J's avatar

        Unfortunately, I’m not sure if Senate Dems have the power to delay allowing Schiff to take his seat (though “wink” they could definitely schedule SJC votes on 12/5 so Butler can vote on the nominees before California’s certification deadline on 12/7)

        As a California voter, I (reluctantly) voted for Schiff in TWO separate races: full term and partial unexpired term. The partial unexpired term is considered a special election (since Butler is appointed, not elected) and begins upon certification of the results, while the full term begins in January 2025.

        I hope that California’s special way of holding Senate elections does not get in the way of confirming judges from California, but sadly that might be the case. Butler (+ Padilla) needs to push for the 2 California nominees to be voted out of committee before Schiff takes office.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Joe's avatar

        Schiff was indeed elected to fill the remaining term. It was actually a separate race on CA ballots.

        I hadn’t thought of this, so I’m not sure how it’ll play out. For reference, In 2020, Mark Kelly was sworn in Dec 2. Perhaps they will simply run out the clock and only swear him in the last few days of the session?

        Liked by 2 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      He said the same thing about circuit court vacancies too. Just like Graham said if he was chairman of the SJC & a SCOTUS vacancy occurred in a presidential year while a Republican was president, he wouldn’t vote for the nominee. I believe Benedict Arnold at a family reunion in Philadelphia over either of there word.

      Like

      • Ryan J's avatar

        That’s a good point. But this does mean that least for the first part of the next Congress, blue slips will be in place, until Grassley “changes his mind” after all of the red state vacancies are filled.

        Also, I’m not sure how many more seats would have been filled had blue slips been abolished WITHOUT any change in pace or urgency. Given the number of blue state vacancies remaining, I wouldn’t be surprised if GOP senators would be able to keep half of their state’s remaining vacancies open even without any blue slip.

        Liked by 1 person

  35. tsb1991's avatar

    We’ll see if any more cloture motions get sent out for today for Wednesday votes. There are eight district nominees who were party-line SJC votes, so maybe we can get another combination of three of them? I’d hope at a minimum we get Ali and Sooknanan filed, since that’d be two less district seats (on a pretty important court too, that is) that Trump could fill without needing to consult any Senators.

    Given Desai was a voice vote in the SJC I hope to god there’s no cloture filed on Desai today, and you can get some agreement to just even have a confirmation vote without cloture. If I recall the last SJC voice vote was Brailsford to Idaho (who was then confirmed on a voice vote?

    I’d hope we’d also get cloture filed on an appeals court nominee today or tomorrow for Thursday, next one I’d imagine is most likely Lipez? I’m still curious on how her vote plays out, I’d think if Collins was opposed to the nominee we would have known by now and she would have mentioned how she wasn’t at all consulted on the pick (and I’d think of all of the Republican Senators Collins would be the one or two that Biden would absolutely not sidestep for an appeals court judge), although I don’t think Durbin mentioned Lipez having Collins’ support at her hearing.

    I also realized for Senate attendance, Vance could help Republicans by resigning from the Senate now and allowing DeWine to appoint somebody who’d provide Republicans a constant vote between now and the end of the year, so Vance being absent and staying as a Senator for now would help Democrats out.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      I was thinking the same thing about Vance resigning now. Let’s hope he wants that government check all the way through & decides to keep collecting right up until January 20th. At the very least until the Electoral College meets & makes the election results official. Schumer should absolutely be teeing up the most liberal of all nominees now while Democrats have full attendance & at least Vance (Possibly soon Rubio) are all out. But of course he won’t because he’s Schumer & math doesn’t seem to be one of his strong points.

      Like

    • Joe's avatar

      Yes, I would expect cloture motions for 2-3 district/other nominees plus an appeals court nominee for Thursday afternoon. Lipez seems most likely, but perhaps it’ll be Campbell.

      In fact, now that I’m talking about it, Campbell probably will be the harder confirmation of the two so perhaps they’ll want to take advantage of the likely absences caused by the Thanksgiving recess and knock her out first.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Mike's avatar

      So glad there’s no less circuit seat for Trump to fill with a FedSoc hack.

      I swear if Charles R. Wilson goes senior in the next 4 years…

      That’s basically the only way unless the 3 much younger Obama nominees or the Bush nominee who is only 62 go senior.

      Pryor might but he’ll have to wait for at least 3 more years.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Absolutely spectacular news on Embry Kidd’s confirmation. I will take a point of personal privilege as he is the first nominee out of the three I wrote an article on to be confirmed. And as a Black man, I’m happy to see only the second Black man confirmed to any circuit court in the past ten years. Trump appointed none in his first term & I wouldn’t be surprised if he appoints none in his second term, particularly when I see no Blacks appointed to his cabinet as of yet.

        I see Republicans are forcing a vote merely to proceed to legislative session. I guess this will be the first of many hissy fits they throw between now & them taking over the majority. I sure as Hell hope Schumer has a backbone & keeps the senate in session as long as it takes regardless of their shenanigans.

        Liked by 1 person

  41. tsb1991's avatar

    Fetterman was the only Democratic absence today (surprise), Rubio and Vance were two of the Republican absences, hoping Rubio has more absences now that he’s effectively the nominee for Secretary of State.

    I did hear an “I ask for the yeas and nays” on the motion to proceed to legislative session, so assuming three cloture motions are sent out today, that’s six votes they’d need to hold on that (legislative session, proceed to executive session to consider calendar #XXX, send the cloture motion out, and then repeat twice more). That doesn’t include anything wrap-up related either, if they block any consent to that.

    Liked by 1 person

  45. tsb1991's avatar

    Schumer at least got UC to make these series of votes 10 minute votes lol. Now voting to proceed to executive session for calendar #539, which I know is Ali, so once this vote passes cloture will be filed on him.

    Schumer didn’t seem too pleased about having to go through this.

    Liked by 2 people

  47. Mike's avatar

    You know, I didn’t push back much about how the judicial nominees being held back most seemed to be the Muslim nominees but very interesting that the first two batches of clotures after the election include the Muslims.

    Now I wonder if the Thurs vote will be for Mangi.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a reply to raylodato Cancel reply