While the Senate Appropriations Committee has sent 11 out of 12 spending bills to the floor, none have seen votes yet. Instead, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin are prioritizing judges over governance.
Schumer himself confirmed this troubling focus: “We’re not done. There are more judges to consider and confirm. We’re going to spend the rest of this week and the rest of this year focused on confirming them.”
For his part, Durbin suggested that votes during Thanksgiving and Christmas breaks are very much on the table. The rush to confirm these nominees isn’t just a matter of procedure; it’s a matter of partisanship. Democrats are pushing through judicial candidates with records and philosophies that are wildly out of step with mainstream American values, and their determination to stack the judiciary with radical ideologues is concerning.
Take, for instance, Judge Mustafa Kasubhai, who stated during his tenure as a magistrate judge, “We have to set aside conventional ideas of proof when we are dealing with the personal and interpersonal work of equity, diversity, and inclusion.” This statement alone raises serious questions about his ability to impartially interpret the law, particularly when it comes to contentious cultural and social issues. The justice system should be anchored in fairness and evidence—not ideology.
Then there’s Brian Murphy, whose record is downright alarming. As a member of an organization that advocated for leniency on crimes such as assault and battery, breaking and entering, and other offenses, Murphy also supported a bail fund that once released a registered sex offender awaiting trial for the rape of a woman in a McDonald’s bathroom. Are these the decisions Americans want from someone tasked with upholding the law?
Finally, Sparkle Sooknanan’s history raises serious ethical and ideological concerns. She served on the board of an organization that issued anti-police statements during the 2020 unrest, opposed the presence of police in schools, and misled the Senate Judiciary Committee about her work collecting debt from Puerto Rico’s financially strapped government. Her record reflects a pattern of evasion and extremism, characteristics unfit for a lifetime appointment to the bench.
This last-minute judicial sprint isn’t just a reflection of Democrats’ priorities—it’s a glimpse into their values. Instead of engaging in bipartisan negotiations to ensure that the NDAA and other critical spending bills are passed, Schumer and his colleagues are focusing on locking in lifetime appointments for nominees whose records are deeply troubling.
Schumer himself confirmed this troubling focus: “We’re not done. There are more judges to consider and confirm. We’re going to spend the rest of this week and the rest of this year focused on confirming them.”
For his part, Durbin suggested that votes during Thanksgiving and Christmas breaks are very much on the table. The rush to confirm these nominees isn’t just a matter of procedure; it’s a matter of partisanship. Democrats are pushing through judicial candidates with records and philosophies that are wildly out of step with mainstream American values, and their determination to stack the judiciary with radical ideologues is concerning.
Take, for instance, Judge Mustafa Kasubhai, who stated during his tenure as a magistrate judge, “We have to set aside conventional ideas of proof when we are dealing with the personal and interpersonal work of equity, diversity, and inclusion.” This statement alone raises serious questions about his ability to impartially interpret the law, particularly when it comes to contentious cultural and social issues. The justice system should be anchored in fairness and evidence—not ideology.
Then there’s Brian Murphy, whose record is downright alarming. As a member of an organization that advocated for leniency on crimes such as assault and battery, breaking and entering, and other offenses, Murphy also supported a bail fund that once released a registered sex offender awaiting trial for the rape of a woman in a McDonald’s bathroom. Are these the decisions Americans want from someone tasked with upholding the law?
Finally, Sparkle Sooknanan’s history raises serious ethical and ideological concerns. She served on the board of an organization that issued anti-police statements during the 2020 unrest, opposed the presence of police in schools, and misled the Senate Judiciary Committee about her work collecting debt from Puerto Rico’s financially strapped government. Her record reflects a pattern of evasion and extremism, characteristics unfit for a lifetime appointment to the bench.
This last-minute judicial sprint isn’t just a reflection of Democrats’ priorities—it’s a glimpse into their values. Instead of engaging in bipartisan negotiations to ensure that the NDAA and other critical spending bills are passed, Schumer and his colleagues are focusing on locking in lifetime appointments for nominees whose records are deeply troubling.
