Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
In It to Win It
In It to Win It's Journal
In It to Win It's Journal
February 25, 2026
The Surest Path to a Federal Judgeship Is Being One of Trump's Lawyers - Prof. JP Collins @ Balls and Strikes
Balls and StrikesAlthough President Donald Trump has had to wait for new judicial vacancies to come in lately, he and Senate Republicans (and even some Senate Democrats) have been busy moving Trump’s nominees for existing vacancies smoothly through the Senate. Trump has already announced 11 nominees in 2026—including another one of his personal lawyers for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit—and seen seven more confirmed, several with bipartisan support.
In January, Trump nominated Chris Wolfe and Andrew Davis to the Western District of Texas, John Shepherd to the Western District of Arkansas, and Anna St. John to the Eastern District of Louisiana. Wolfe, 53, has spent the bulk of his career as a prosecutor before becoming a state court judge. Davis, 40, worked as an assistant state solicitor general in Texas before serving as Senator Ted Cruz’s chief counsel.
Shepherd, 39, was in private practice in Arkansas before becoming a state court judge. Shepherd’s father is Judge Bobby Shepherd, who currently sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. This is the second time in as many nomination announcements that Trump has tapped the child of a sitting circuit judge: Back in November, Trump nominated Megan Benton, the daughter of retiring Eighth Circuit Judge Duane Benton, to a district court seat in Missouri.
Concerns about hereditary judgeships aside, St. John, 46, has the most overtly troubling record of the four. She has spent most of her career working to undermine LGBTQ+ rights, authoring briefs arguing that businesses should be allowed to discriminate against LGBTQ+ people on religious grounds, and opposing the inclusion of transgender women in women’s sports and beauty pageants. St. John was also a visiting fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum, a right-wing think tank that has hailed Trump’s efforts to “end woke discrimination against white men.”
In January, Trump nominated Chris Wolfe and Andrew Davis to the Western District of Texas, John Shepherd to the Western District of Arkansas, and Anna St. John to the Eastern District of Louisiana. Wolfe, 53, has spent the bulk of his career as a prosecutor before becoming a state court judge. Davis, 40, worked as an assistant state solicitor general in Texas before serving as Senator Ted Cruz’s chief counsel.
Shepherd, 39, was in private practice in Arkansas before becoming a state court judge. Shepherd’s father is Judge Bobby Shepherd, who currently sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. This is the second time in as many nomination announcements that Trump has tapped the child of a sitting circuit judge: Back in November, Trump nominated Megan Benton, the daughter of retiring Eighth Circuit Judge Duane Benton, to a district court seat in Missouri.
Concerns about hereditary judgeships aside, St. John, 46, has the most overtly troubling record of the four. She has spent most of her career working to undermine LGBTQ+ rights, authoring briefs arguing that businesses should be allowed to discriminate against LGBTQ+ people on religious grounds, and opposing the inclusion of transgender women in women’s sports and beauty pageants. St. John was also a visiting fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum, a right-wing think tank that has hailed Trump’s efforts to “end woke discrimination against white men.”
If you are an ambitious conservative lawyer who wants to be a federal judge, the smartest thing you can do is get Trump to hire you on to his personal legal team
— Balls & Strikes (@ballsandstrikes.org) 2026-02-25T17:12:00.982Z
February 24, 2026
Kash Patel's use of jet delayed FBI team's mass shooting response, whistleblower tells top senator
Agents with the FBI’s elite evidence response team were delayed in reaching the scene of a mass shooting at Brown University in December because there was no FBI plane available to take them to Rhode Island, according to three sources and a whistleblower’s account newly provided to Congress.
FBI Director Kash Patel was in south Florida at the time with one of the FBI’s two available jets and had given an order to hold the other for another team that would not normally respond to the scene, according to the whistleblower and the sources. The evidence response team instead had to drive through the night amid a snowstorm to reach the university in Providence, Rhode Island, by 9 o’clock the next morning, according to the whistleblower’s account.
Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, obtained the whistleblower’s account. In a letter sent Tuesday to the Government Accountability Office and the Justice Department’s inspector general, Durbin accused Patel of harming the FBI’s critical investigations due to his misuse of FBI resources and aircraft and his inexperience.
“The Director’s misplaced priorities and poor management of the FBI’s resources — including its aircraft — also harmed the FBI’s ability to respond to the shooting at Brown University on December 13, 2025,” Durbin wrote.
Patel had been flown in one of the FBI’s two jets to south Florida and was there on Dec. 13, the day of the shooting, and didn’t fly back until the afternoon of Dec. 14, according to sources who spoke to MS NOW confidentially in order to speak candidly and avoid potential retribution.
FBI Director Kash Patel was in south Florida at the time with one of the FBI’s two available jets and had given an order to hold the other for another team that would not normally respond to the scene, according to the whistleblower and the sources. The evidence response team instead had to drive through the night amid a snowstorm to reach the university in Providence, Rhode Island, by 9 o’clock the next morning, according to the whistleblower’s account.
Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, obtained the whistleblower’s account. In a letter sent Tuesday to the Government Accountability Office and the Justice Department’s inspector general, Durbin accused Patel of harming the FBI’s critical investigations due to his misuse of FBI resources and aircraft and his inexperience.
“The Director’s misplaced priorities and poor management of the FBI’s resources — including its aircraft — also harmed the FBI’s ability to respond to the shooting at Brown University on December 13, 2025,” Durbin wrote.
Patel had been flown in one of the FBI’s two jets to south Florida and was there on Dec. 13, the day of the shooting, and didn’t fly back until the afternoon of Dec. 14, according to sources who spoke to MS NOW confidentially in order to speak candidly and avoid potential retribution.
All my life, Democrats have bent over backwards to run scrupulously scandal-free administrations, while Republicans have wallowed publicly and unapologetically in crime and corruption ... and Democrats have gotten zero advantage for it. Zilch.
— David Roberts (@volts.wtf) 2026-02-24T21:16:24.546Z
February 24, 2026
https://ballsandstrikes.org/nominations/trump-judges-confirmed-running-out-of-time/
We're About To Find Out Whether Trump's Judicial Confirmation Machine Is Going Boom or Bust - Balls and Strikes
Reshaping the federal judiciary has been the singular success of President Donald Trump’s political project. Throughout his first term, Trump and the Republican-controlled Senate—with the help of the conservative legal establishment—worked non-stop to leave no vacancy behind, stacking federal courts with movement conservatives ready and willing to impose their worldview across the country.
Trump seemed poised to do the same thing during his second term, this time guided by those more loyal to the man himself than to any particular legal philosophy. But Trump can’t fill vacancies unless judges create them, and for most of Trump’s second term, new ones have been few and far between: Before last week, only one new district court vacancy had arisen since December, and there hadn’t been a new court of appeals vacancy since October.
But starting on Friday, when Trump raged against the Supreme Court over its tariffs decision and attacked the justices personally, three appeals court judges have sent letters to the White House stating their intent to retire. With the midterms rapidly approaching and control of the Senate up for grabs, the question is whether these three new vacancies are the last drips of a well that’s running dry, or the warning signs of a dam about to burst. We’ll know the answer in the next few weeks.
Since Trump won re-election, only 34 judges—six appeals court judges and 28 district court judges, 27 Republican appointees and seven Democratic appointees—have created vacancies. (A judge creates a vacancy when they leave the bench or assume “senior status,” a form of semi-retirement in which judges take a reduced caseload.) And new vacancies have been scarce, particularly of late. In the 11 weeks before last Friday, only one district judge had decided to go senior: Western District of Wisconsin Judge James Peterson. Peterson was appointed in 2014 by President Barack Obama, and will assume senior status when a successor is confirmed.
Trump seemed poised to do the same thing during his second term, this time guided by those more loyal to the man himself than to any particular legal philosophy. But Trump can’t fill vacancies unless judges create them, and for most of Trump’s second term, new ones have been few and far between: Before last week, only one new district court vacancy had arisen since December, and there hadn’t been a new court of appeals vacancy since October.
But starting on Friday, when Trump raged against the Supreme Court over its tariffs decision and attacked the justices personally, three appeals court judges have sent letters to the White House stating their intent to retire. With the midterms rapidly approaching and control of the Senate up for grabs, the question is whether these three new vacancies are the last drips of a well that’s running dry, or the warning signs of a dam about to burst. We’ll know the answer in the next few weeks.
Since Trump won re-election, only 34 judges—six appeals court judges and 28 district court judges, 27 Republican appointees and seven Democratic appointees—have created vacancies. (A judge creates a vacancy when they leave the bench or assume “senior status,” a form of semi-retirement in which judges take a reduced caseload.) And new vacancies have been scarce, particularly of late. In the 11 weeks before last Friday, only one district judge had decided to go senior: Western District of Wisconsin Judge James Peterson. Peterson was appointed in 2014 by President Barack Obama, and will assume senior status when a successor is confirmed.
https://ballsandstrikes.org/nominations/trump-judges-confirmed-running-out-of-time/
February 24, 2026
Oh ffs: Tenth Circuit Judge Timothy Tymkovich will assume senior status on the confirmation of a successor
JP Collins
@profjpc.bsky.social
Oh ffs: Tenth Circuit Judge Timothy Tymkovich will assume senior status on the confirmation of a successor. Tymkovich is the third circuit judge in four days to create a new vacancy for Trump to fill.
@profjpc.bsky.social
Oh ffs: Tenth Circuit Judge Timothy Tymkovich will assume senior status on the confirmation of a successor. Tymkovich is the third circuit judge in four days to create a new vacancy for Trump to fill.
This fetal personhood creep currently working in Trump’s DOJ is a former Tymkovich clerk
Coming soon to an OLC opinion near your womb
— Mike Sacks (@mikesacks.bsky.social) 2025-07-10T17:29:25.213Z
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
h/t @susanrinkunas.com
A bit unseemly that these judges are racing for the door now to ensure that Trump can replace them while Republicans hold the Senate. Though this kind of political calculus is inevitable when we give judges life tenure.
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) 2026-02-24T18:53:14.210Z
It does seem to point growing concern that Republicans will lose the Senate...
February 24, 2026
Republican Judges Are Using Imaginary Voter Fraud to Empower Real Voter Suppression - Balls and Strikes
Balls and StrikesLast Tuesday, early voting began in the primary elections to choose nominees for Texas’s upcoming U.S. Senate race. One of the Republican candidates for that Senate seat, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, marked the occasion by publishing a “legal advisory” informing Texans that a host of normal election activities are actually crimes.
Texas effectively makes it illegal for you to encourage people to vote for a particular person or proposal if you’re in the vicinity of a ballot. Under state law, any in-person interaction that occurs “in the physical presence of an official ballot or a ballot voted by mail” and is “intended to deliver votes for a specific candidate or measure” constitutes “vote harvesting services.” If you offer or receive “compensation” or some “other benefit” in exchange for such “services,” you face up to ten years in prison, and up to $10,000 in fines.
“Other benefit” is a broad term, and local civic organizations fear that the law may cover a broad array of interactions. If a campaign gives its get-out-the-vote volunteers free t-shirts to wear while door-knocking, both the campaign and its volunteers may have broken the law. If a voter gives those volunteers a few glasses of water so they can keep knocking on doors in the Texas heat, that voter may have broken the law, too. “Vote harvesting is a felony,” Paxton’s advisory warns, in bolded text.
Texas’s ban on canvassing voters is one of a slew of measures that Republican legislators enacted in response to President Donald Trump’s repeated false claims that widespread fraud cost him the 2020 election. Local civic organizations filed a lawsuit in 2021 arguing that the law infringed their free speech and was impermissibly vague, violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments. In September 2024, federal district court judge Xavier Rodriguez agreed and struck down the law, noting that the canvassing restriction didn’t solve an “actual problem.” Rodriguez, an appointee of President George W. Bush, also found that Texas “failed to offer any evidence” that canvassers were confusing or improperly influencing voters, and that there was no evidence that existing limits on mail-in ballot assistance were insufficient to root out the “few alleged instances of misconduct” in the state.
Texas effectively makes it illegal for you to encourage people to vote for a particular person or proposal if you’re in the vicinity of a ballot. Under state law, any in-person interaction that occurs “in the physical presence of an official ballot or a ballot voted by mail” and is “intended to deliver votes for a specific candidate or measure” constitutes “vote harvesting services.” If you offer or receive “compensation” or some “other benefit” in exchange for such “services,” you face up to ten years in prison, and up to $10,000 in fines.
“Other benefit” is a broad term, and local civic organizations fear that the law may cover a broad array of interactions. If a campaign gives its get-out-the-vote volunteers free t-shirts to wear while door-knocking, both the campaign and its volunteers may have broken the law. If a voter gives those volunteers a few glasses of water so they can keep knocking on doors in the Texas heat, that voter may have broken the law, too. “Vote harvesting is a felony,” Paxton’s advisory warns, in bolded text.
Texas’s ban on canvassing voters is one of a slew of measures that Republican legislators enacted in response to President Donald Trump’s repeated false claims that widespread fraud cost him the 2020 election. Local civic organizations filed a lawsuit in 2021 arguing that the law infringed their free speech and was impermissibly vague, violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments. In September 2024, federal district court judge Xavier Rodriguez agreed and struck down the law, noting that the canvassing restriction didn’t solve an “actual problem.” Rodriguez, an appointee of President George W. Bush, also found that Texas “failed to offer any evidence” that canvassers were confusing or improperly influencing voters, and that there was no evidence that existing limits on mail-in ballot assistance were insufficient to root out the “few alleged instances of misconduct” in the state.
Another day, another Fifth Circuit voting rights opinion that sounds like a copy-paste from a conspiracy theory message board
— Balls & Strikes (@ballsandstrikes.org) 2026-02-24T17:12:16.381Z
February 24, 2026
On January 8, 2023, thousands of supporters of Brazil’s right-wing former President Jair Bolsonaro stormed federal buildings in the country’s capital. Their goal? Overthrow the results of an election they claimed was rigged, despite no credible evidence of fraud.
If that sounds familiar, that’s because it is. Brazil’s January 8 looked a lot like the January 6 attack on the US capital, just two years earlier: mob violence, an insurrection, and a defeated leader who refused to concede.
But the aftermath could not be more different. Jair Bolsonaro is now serving a 27-year prison sentence, while Donald Trump is president, again.
So how did two democracies, facing similar threats, end up with such different outcomes? This video explains how Brazil’s democratic system worked to hold “the Trump of the Tropics” accountable and what the US could learn from the aftermath.
To fight authoritarianism, America should look to Brazil - Vox
On January 8, 2023, thousands of supporters of Brazil’s right-wing former President Jair Bolsonaro stormed federal buildings in the country’s capital. Their goal? Overthrow the results of an election they claimed was rigged, despite no credible evidence of fraud.
If that sounds familiar, that’s because it is. Brazil’s January 8 looked a lot like the January 6 attack on the US capital, just two years earlier: mob violence, an insurrection, and a defeated leader who refused to concede.
But the aftermath could not be more different. Jair Bolsonaro is now serving a 27-year prison sentence, while Donald Trump is president, again.
So how did two democracies, facing similar threats, end up with such different outcomes? This video explains how Brazil’s democratic system worked to hold “the Trump of the Tropics” accountable and what the US could learn from the aftermath.
February 24, 2026
NEW: Judge Eric Tostrud, a Trump appointee, issued civil contempt sanctions against DOJ today
Chris Geidner
@chrisgeidner.bsky.social
NEW: Judge Eric Tostrud, a Trump appointee, issued civil contempt sanctions against DOJ today for moving a man out of Minnesota against an order, not releasing him under the timeline ordered, and not returning him to Minnesota.
@chrisgeidner.bsky.social
NEW: Judge Eric Tostrud, a Trump appointee, issued civil contempt sanctions against DOJ today for moving a man out of Minnesota against an order, not releasing him under the timeline ordered, and not returning him to Minnesota.
NEW: Judge Eric Tostrud, a Trump appointee, issued civil contempt sanctions against DOJ today for moving a man out of Minnesota against an order, not releasing him under the timeline ordered, and not returning him to Minnesota.
— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) 2026-02-24T03:36:19.597Z
[h/t @kyledcheney.bsky.social ]
Tostrud finds all the government officials named jointly and severally liable, but notes that he did so because the court still doesn't know who is to blame for the contemptuous actions.
— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) 2026-02-24T03:39:39.498Z
Tostrud says he'll amend the order if DOJ "file[s] a motion identifying the responsible Respondent."
Here is the order: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) 2026-02-24T03:41:06.003Z
Here is:
— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) 2026-02-24T03:53:58.725Z
- the Jan. 20 order not to move the petitioner: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
- the Jan. 23 order after he was moved: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
- the Jan. 24 habeas grant: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
February 23, 2026
Kate is joined by Friend of the Pod Steve Vladeck (One First) to break down last week’s legal news, including developments around noncompliance in the lower courts and SCOTUS ethics. Then, Leah and Melissa join to preview upcoming arguments before the Court where the Justices will consider important asylum and Second Amendment cases, among others. Finally, Kate speaks with Elliot Williams about his new book, Five Bullets: The Story of Bernie Goetz, New York's Explosive '80s, and the Subway Vigilante Trial That Divided the Nation.
00:00 Introduction & Episode Overview
00:54 Tariff Ruling Breakdown: The Court Strikes Down Trump's Tariffs 6-3
04:07 Kavanaugh Is Trump’s Most Loyal Justice
07:27 The Remedy Question
11:31 Lower Court Defiance: Judge Fines Government Lawyer $500/Day
18:34 Judicial Conference Advisory Opinion: When Can Judges Speak Out?
23:45 Supreme Court Ethics Update: The Stock Ticker "Fix"
27:01 Trump Administration Drops UCLA Case
29:31 Ad Break
34:28 February and March Preview
35:58 United States v. Hemani. Guns and Controlled Substances
45:52 Other February Cases Roundup
51:04 The Asylum Case Flying Under the Radar Noem v. Al Otro Lado
55:38 Ad Break
01:01:55 Interview with Elliot Williams, author of Five Bullets: The Story of Bernie Goetz, New York's Explosive '80s, and the Subway Vigilante Trial That Divided the Nation
01:26:08 Our Favorite Things & Closing
How Kavanaugh Became Trump's Most Loyal Justice (with Steve Vladeck) - Strict Scrutiny Podcast
Kate is joined by Friend of the Pod Steve Vladeck (One First) to break down last week’s legal news, including developments around noncompliance in the lower courts and SCOTUS ethics. Then, Leah and Melissa join to preview upcoming arguments before the Court where the Justices will consider important asylum and Second Amendment cases, among others. Finally, Kate speaks with Elliot Williams about his new book, Five Bullets: The Story of Bernie Goetz, New York's Explosive '80s, and the Subway Vigilante Trial That Divided the Nation.
00:00 Introduction & Episode Overview
00:54 Tariff Ruling Breakdown: The Court Strikes Down Trump's Tariffs 6-3
04:07 Kavanaugh Is Trump’s Most Loyal Justice
07:27 The Remedy Question
11:31 Lower Court Defiance: Judge Fines Government Lawyer $500/Day
18:34 Judicial Conference Advisory Opinion: When Can Judges Speak Out?
23:45 Supreme Court Ethics Update: The Stock Ticker "Fix"
27:01 Trump Administration Drops UCLA Case
29:31 Ad Break
34:28 February and March Preview
35:58 United States v. Hemani. Guns and Controlled Substances
45:52 Other February Cases Roundup
51:04 The Asylum Case Flying Under the Radar Noem v. Al Otro Lado
55:38 Ad Break
01:01:55 Interview with Elliot Williams, author of Five Bullets: The Story of Bernie Goetz, New York's Explosive '80s, and the Subway Vigilante Trial That Divided the Nation
01:26:08 Our Favorite Things & Closing
February 23, 2026
NEW: Judge Aileen Cannon permanently forbids the Department of Justice from releasing Volume II of Jack Smith's report
NEW: Judge Aileen Cannon permanently forbids the Department of Justice from releasing Volume II of Jack Smith's report on his prosecution of Trump. Also bars DOJ from sharing "any information or conclusions" from the volume. A sweeping, perpetual gag order. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) 2026-02-23T14:15:37.265Z
Cannon scathingly suggests that Jack Smith violated her order dismissing the criminal case against Trump when he continued to prepare his report on the prosecution from transmission to DOJ. Calls it a "brazen stratagem" meant to "circumvent" her authority. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) 2026-02-23T14:18:54.315Z
Cannon repeatedly says that Trump's request to permanently bury the second volume of Smith's report is "unopposed" because, of course, Trump's Justice Department agreed.
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) 2026-02-23T14:27:54.521Z
But free press groups opposed it! Cannon just denied their request to intervene. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Judge Cannon has just denied @knightcolumbia.org & @weareoversight.bsky.social motions to intervene and permanently barred DOJ from disclosing Jack Smith's report. She says (again) that Smith was appointed unconstitutionally, and that the report is the fruit of the unconstitutional appointment.
— Jameel Jaffer (@jameeljaffer.bsky.social) 2026-02-23T14:31:33.068Z
Here's the order permanently prohibiting DOJ from disclosing the report. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
— Jameel Jaffer (@jameeljaffer.bsky.social) 2026-02-23T14:32:36.803Z
NEW: Cannon accused Smith of "brazen" defiance by continuing to compile the classified documents report even after she ruled his appointment unconstitutional. It will remain secret unless an appeals court overturns the decision.
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney.bsky.social) 2026-02-23T14:44:34.456Z
w/ @joshgerstein
www.politico.com/news/2026/02...
February 22, 2026
Senate G.O.P. Faces Pressure to Force 'Talking Filibuster' for Voter ID Bill
Gift Link
NYT
Senate Republicans are coming under intense pressure from President Trump and right-wing colleagues to embark on an old-fashioned filibuster fight in an effort to ram through a voter identification bill that their party regards as crucial to salvaging their dimming chances of winning the midterm elections.
The move, which Senator John Thune, the South Dakota Republican and majority leader, has been reluctant to undertake, involves using tactics that haven’t been employed for decades, and could paralyze the Senate indefinitely with no guarantee of success.
But with 50 Republican senators now officially behind the legislation, its backers are escalating calls for their party to force Democrats who have promised to block the bill to wage a so-called talking filibuster. That process would involve occupying the floor continuously and engaging with Republicans in a procedural war of attrition, if they want to prevent the legislation from becoming law.
“It is literally a pressure cooker, and the ball is 100 percent in their court,” Representative Anna Paulina Luna, Republican of Florida and a leading proponent of the legislation, said of G.O.P. senators. “I think at this point in time, even Thune realizes this is kind of a political hand grenade if they don’t act.”
In a recent social media post, Mr. Trump insisted the bill had to pass “one way or the other,” even if it meant resorting to “a Talking Filibuster, à la ‘Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.’”
The move, which Senator John Thune, the South Dakota Republican and majority leader, has been reluctant to undertake, involves using tactics that haven’t been employed for decades, and could paralyze the Senate indefinitely with no guarantee of success.
But with 50 Republican senators now officially behind the legislation, its backers are escalating calls for their party to force Democrats who have promised to block the bill to wage a so-called talking filibuster. That process would involve occupying the floor continuously and engaging with Republicans in a procedural war of attrition, if they want to prevent the legislation from becoming law.
“It is literally a pressure cooker, and the ball is 100 percent in their court,” Representative Anna Paulina Luna, Republican of Florida and a leading proponent of the legislation, said of G.O.P. senators. “I think at this point in time, even Thune realizes this is kind of a political hand grenade if they don’t act.”
In a recent social media post, Mr. Trump insisted the bill had to pass “one way or the other,” even if it meant resorting to “a Talking Filibuster, à la ‘Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.’”
i say let them do it. if i were a senate democrat i would relish the opportunity to let the country know that republicans don't think you should vote if you are a married woman www.nytimes.com/2026/02/21/u...
— jamelle (@jamellebouie.net) 2026-02-21T19:08:18.994Z
Profile Information
Member since: Sun May 27, 2018, 05:53 PMNumber of posts: 12,586