They didn't care about blue slips for Bounds. So why care when it comes to Hawaii?
Sorry, what were you saying about Mark Bennett and blue slips? My recollection is that he has the support of his home-state senators.
-
-
Then when unjust blocks occur, as was the case with Bounds, the WH has credibility when they state that consultation is occurring.
-
Totally - but that's also another reason to be okay with Bennett, because situations like Hawaii and Illinois allow the White House to point out how it is totally consulting and cooperating with blue-state senators.
-
So-called blue state nominations is where the rubber really meets the road. CA(3), NY(2), WA. I am very interested to see the extent to which the WH tries to reach accommodations with D Senators and when they decide to draw a line in the sand on a pick. Any thoughts?
-
A complex process, hard to generalize about or discuss concisely - a combo of what you want and what you can get.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Correct. I was speaking to criticism that he wasn’t a “home run pick”. My take is that some compromising is necessary to expedite the process. Every pick can’t be made over the objections of Democratic Senators. Process is smoother when Senators are on board as in Illinois and HI
-
Ah, got it - yes, you're right. But another thing in Bennett's favor is that after Mike Purpura declined, there weren't really many home-run nominees LEFT in Hawaii; it has a very small legal community.
-
If he uses the Ikuta model and serves as a break to the unmoored views of some of his colleagues, highlighting cases for SCOTUS to review, I would be satisfied.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.