Our New York State Senate will soon be called upon to "advise and consent" with respect to Gov. Kathy Kochul's nomination of Justice Hector LaSalle to be New York's next Chief Judge. Given the expressed disapproval of at least 14 of those Democratic state senators, and based on counterfacuals which have been concocted by those who argue that Judge LaSalle is "too conservative," one wonders if Justice LaSalle will be treated the same way the Republicans in the U.S. Senate treated Judge Merrick Garland by giving him no hearing at all. Or perhaps our New York State Senate will give Justice LaSalle the same sort of confirmation hearing given to Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson where interrogators seemed unconcerned about her fitness and abilities and more concerned with pleasing their "base" by misrepresenting her judicial record. Judge Jackson had served as a public defender which led to her being characterized as "too progressive" and a coddler of child sex abusers. Judge LaSalle had served as an assistant district attorney which has led to his being characterized as "too conservative" and "anti-union."

When it came to the selection of judges to sit on our nation's highest court, The United States Supreme Court, our constitutional forebears felt the choice should not be made by a "legislative body." They felt that judicial appointments should be made by one person: The Chief Executive. Our founders did not trust any legislative body or "assembly of men" to make such an appointment, believing that such an assembly would, as Alexander Hamilton put it: "display all the private and party likings and dislikes, partialities and antipathies, attachments and animosities, which are felt by those who compose the assembly." However, it was agreed that the Executive's appointment should be subjected to the "advise and consent" of the Senate.