DeSantis Lashes Out at No-Show Republican Senators After Far-Left Judge Confirmation
Rubio and Vance were two of the five absent senators. You’re not in the Trump administration yet. Get to the chamber and do your job.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is furious at five Republican senators.
We should all be mad at them.
Because they didn’t show up, the Senate confirmed Judge Embry Kidd, a far-left judge in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, to the United States Circuit for the Eleventh Circuit, a lifetime appointment.
The 11th Circuit covers Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. It has nine district courts in those states, divided into Northern, Middle, and Southern districts.
- Sen. Mike Braun (IN)
- Sen. Steve Daines (MT)
- Sen. Bill Hagerty (TN)
- Sen. Marco Rubio (FL)
- Sen. JD Vance (OH)
*UPDATE 3:47 PM* Sen. Daines’ office graciously responded ASAP. They directed me to his X page. It turns out the senator had plane problems.
Started my Monday, like most Monday’s the past 12 years, at the Bzn airport at 4:45 am. Runway closed due to ice, then prolonged de-icing, then a medical emergency…then Delta flight attendants timed out. Landed DC at 10 pm and voting until ~ midnight.
— Steve Daines (@SteveDaines) November 19, 2024
Outgoing Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) voted no, and Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) did not vote.
DeSantis is ticked off.
This leftist judge would have been voted down and the seat on the important 11th circuit would have been filled by Donald Trump next year had Republicans showed up.
Now, the leftist judge will have a lifetime appointment and the people of FL, AL and GA will suffer the… https://t.co/7h8uyfvLUq
— Ron DeSantis (@RonDeSantis) November 19, 2024
Why is this bad?
Well, Kidd left off two cases on his nominee questionnaire. That’s bad enough, but his case decisions should raise red flags.
The first case is U.S. v. D’Haiti.
U.S. v. D’Haiti pertained to a case in which the defendant, a male who was a cheerleading coach at a central Florida High school, was arrested in 2022 for possession of child pornography, court records show. The defendant, in one instance, reached his hands up a minor’s sports bra and fondled her.
But Kidd, according to the court records, elected in July of that year to release the defendant based on his “high character,” “ties to the community,” and “lack of criminal history.” One month later, a district judge reversed that order based on further evidence and ordered the defendant to pretrial detention.
In 2023, Vigiland D’Haiti pleaded guilty “to coercing a minor victim to produce a visual depiction of sexually-explicit content” and was sentenced to 29 years in prison.
The second case is U.S. v. King:
The second case, U.S. v. King, related to a convicted sex offender charged with receipt and possession of child sex abuse material. In April 2023, Kidd issued an order restricting only some of the defendant’s usage of the internet and devices.
“All that’s been presented is that you downloaded images and that you had them on your phone, that you admitted to having them,” Kidd told the defendant. “While that does pose some danger, the danger that’s articulated is that the victims will be revictimized.”
“And I think that those will be sufficient to mitigate any risk of danger that you pose,” he added.
A district judge recognized the convicted sex offender posed a danger to society:
In May 2023, a district judge revoked Kidd’s initial order releasing the defendant based on the danger he posed to the community and the “compulsion of pedophilia that he cannot control,” documents show. An FBI special agent later testified about the defendant’s attraction to a child at a restaurant, with the district judge concluding there were no conditions “that can assure the safety of the community, particularly young children.”
The defendant was sentenced to roughly 24 years in prison.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I seem to recall when showing up for work was one of the fundamental responsibilities of a job. As someone who routinely worked around 3,000 hours per year (2080 is 52 40-hour weeks), I’d love to see how many hours our elected betters put in.
Showing up for work is no longer a requirement, as long as you are always pro-Trump. We will see a lot of this in the future.
I am pleased to cast the first down vote.
“We will see a lot of this in the future.”
No we won’t, doofus, “Build Back Better” is destined for the scrap heap.
Smokin’ hot take, bonehead.
That thumbs up assumes irony. I realize that assumption is unrealistig given the originator of the comment.
If you’re good for anything it’s comic relief, but not much else.
Whatever world you live in, it’s not the one of realism.
.
Use this to vet next cycle.
Maybe Trump needs to reconsider the Rubio appointment.
DeSantis is correct. That is a real disappointment. WTF.
Do McConnell/Thune have an excuse for allowing this to happen?
No, and I betcha that the other three will show up to vote against Trump’s appointees
The administration was too chickenshit to have Rubio vote against the black boy before his own confirmation hearings.
Can DOGE recommend the firing of elected officials that fail to show up for voting? That would seem right in line with making federal employees show up for work.
damned 17th amendment. wish we could get rid of that.
How would that change anything?
I don’t get people’s obsession with who elects senators. I think a lot of 17th-amendment critics are somehow under the impression that before it senators could be recalled. That was not true.
The 17th Amendment repealed the States’ ability to represent themselves in Congress as geopolitical entities. Once the States were unable to defend their prerogatives in Congress, history witnessed the largest increase in the size and power of the federal government since its founding.
So, for one thing, if the States ever decide they want their prerogatives back, the only way they’ll get it is by direct representation in the Senate.
Milhouse, do you think the authors of the Constitution created a bicameral Congress for nothing? The point of having a Senate constituted of State appointees was to serve as a check and balance on the excesses of “popular notions” that the authors were sure would arise (and that they were sure would result in an increase in the federal government’s power, if the “notions” went unchecked) in the House. Now that the Senate represents the same constituency as the House, it only serves its purpose as a check on the House when the two chambers are controlled by different parties. Back in the day, because the Senate represented different interests than the House, it could still be an effective negative on the House even when both chambers were controlled by the same party.
Don’t make me look this up in Madison’s Notes!
This is a fallacy. The senators represent the states exactly as they used to. Who are the states? The fallacy is to think the legislatures are the states. The constitution’s very basis was rejecting that.
The constitution starts out saying that it is enacted not by the state legislatures, as the articles of federation had been, and as the amendments the Philadelphia convention was supposed to come up with would have been, but by “the people of the united states”. It’s still a creature of the states, but the states as represented directly by the people who are those states, not by the legislatures whom those people elect to imperfectly represent their views.
Prior to the 17th amendment state legislatures were turning into electoral colleges for state senator; people would vote for their local legislator not on the basis of what bills he’d support but on the basis of whom he’d support for senator. But those people were still making all the local laws. Imagine allowing the electoral college to replace the congress and make our laws! Then there were all the private deals and vote buying. The 17th cuts that gordian knot by putting the election of senators in the hands of the states themselves, i.e. their people. Legislatures went back to being about making laws for the states, and there was slightly less opportunity for corruption.
But whether you think giving that power back to the legislatures would be a good change or a bad one, the point here is how could it possibly have affected the situation we’re discussing, where a confirmation went through because 5 senators couldn’t make it? How could having them elected by legislators change that? They’d still be on the same six-year terms, they’d still be as independent as they are now, so why would they function any differently than they do now?
If you say well, when they come up for reelection the legislators will remember the no-show, how is that different from saying that when they come up for election now the voters will remember the no-show — or be reminded of it?
While it kind of sucks, be realistic.
Just like he always does, Manchin ONLY voted against it because it was going to pass without his vote, so he could keep pretending to be ‘independent’. Or they would have just waited for Fetterman.
If the Republicans had all shown up, rest assured Manchin would have been the 50th vote and Kamala would have confirmed.
Correct. I’m not going to explain how I intimately know this (in general), but nothing at this level of politics happens by accident. A bunch of Republicans simply didn’t forget to show up. There are four alleged independents in the Senate. None of the four are conservative. Two voted for this clown and two sat out. Kamala is always waiting in the wings, she’s broken ties before on nominations.
It’s OK for Desantis to get mad but Republicans could not stop it, period, and he knows it.
I think you are right. I still want them to show up for every single vote. Outside of some family emergency, there is not a reason to miss any.
“He hid 2 previous decisions where he gave lenient sentences to child predators from the Senate.”
You may want to rephrase that, Mary…
Yesterday, while birding, I saw a pair of great tits.
Yesterday, while birding, I saw a great pair of tits.
Syntax matters.
If he lied to the SENATE in official proceedings, has he not commuted a federal crime?
*committed (I blame autocorrect!)
Lying by omission may not count, unless he was sworn in and had promised to tell “the whole truth.” If his testimony was sworn, does anyone know what oath was administered?
Would his omission be considered “bad behavior” (“good behavior” being a requirement to avoid removal from the bench).
Presumably he did swear to tell the whole truth, but what of it? He was never asked or expected to list every case in his entire life. He was asked to list relevant cases, he could easily say he didn’t think these two were relevant.
Rubio is 100% correct…He is also beginning his 2028 campaign.
Did you mean Desantis?
Vance-DeSantis 2028!
So dems are continuing to pack the courts. How many people have lost legitimate complaints when a dem is the judge? How many.
Vote was 49 for, 45 against. IF the 2 Rs who voted for it (who are they??) it would have tied. THUS only one of the five would have been needed to stop this questionable known behavior of a judge.
What are you talking about? No Republican voted to confirm. 46 Dems plus King, Sanders, and Sinema voted aye, 44 Reps plus Manchin voted no, 5 Reps plus Fetterman didn’t vote.
Rs voted AGAINST it, one of five; if Ds put in Kamala, it would have taken only 2 of the five to stop this. Rs got to get smarter.
Huh? I can’t make head or tail of this.