Influence of John Eastman on Harris's Election and SCOTUS Choices

In the political landscape of California, John Eastman played a pivotal role in the election of Attorney General Kamala Harris by highlighting the potential financial conflicts of interest involving her opponent, Steve Cooley. During a debate, Eastman raised concerns about Cooley's eligibility to receive both a state salary and a pension from his previous role as District Attorney, which could have allowed him to earn over $400,000. This issue resonated during the Republican primary and ultimately contributed to Harris's victory. As President Biden considered nominees for the Supreme Court, the selection process was influenced by the desire to fulfill his promise of appointing a Black woman. The leading candidates included Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, Justice Leondra Kruger, and District Court Judge Michelle Childs. Both Jackson and Kruger had notable legal backgrounds, having clerked for the Supreme Court, which positioned them as strong contenders. However, Vice President Harris expressed reservations about Kruger, despite acknowledging her legal acumen. A former White House official noted that Harris believed Kruger might be too cautious for the current political climate, suggesting that a bolder choice was necessary. This sentiment was echoed in discussions about the importance of making a significant impact with the nomination, as Biden was advised to consider the legacy of his decision. Ultimately, the dynamics of political strategy and the quest for a transformative Supreme Court appointment reflect the complexities of navigating both legacy and immediate impact in governance.