>

Good news!
Good riddance. >

This is great since LaSalle is a conservative judge who ruled against union workers and abortion rights proponents.
Also, this stood out to me:

while one Democrat and all six Republicans voted in favor “without recommendation.”

That seems to signal that even if his nomination had been approved, he probably wouldn't have had the votes in the Senate to actually get the confirmation.  

The governor has not ruled out taking legal action to force a vote of Justice LaSalle on the full Senate floor, raising the specter of a high-stakes constitutional showdown.

Wow, she really wants to fuck over the union groups that helped her win a race that was much tighter than it should have been. It's not a winning strategy. 

The State Constitution says that a governor must make judicial appointments with the “advice and consent of the Senate.” Ms. Hochul, and some legal experts, have interpreted that to mean that the entire Senate, not just a committee, must vote on her nominee.

That's literally what the US Constitution says as well but that doesn't mean that's how the system works. Not to mention the committee is part of the Senate and therefore could fit into the Senate cited in the New York Constitution.

Over the weekend, the governor was joined at a rally in the Bronx by a cohort of top Democrats, including Representative Hakeem Jeffries, the U.S. House minority leader, who spoke in favor of Justice LaSalle

And yet another reason to dislike Jeffries. >

LaSalle is not a conservative
He supports abortion rights. He has been smeared as "anti abortion" simply because he is also fine with crisis pregnancy centers having the right to exist. Crisis pregnancy centers are bullshit but they do indeed have the right to do their thing
And the "anti union" stuff has centered on him ruling that employers can sue unions for defamation. But why on earth should unions be immune from that? Anyone should be able to be sued for defamation - if they prove they did defamation, then the defamer will be held accountable, and if those suing can't prove it, the person they sue won't be held accountable. Why is that bad? Should unions just be able to say whatever they want without consequences that the rest of us would face?
But frankly this whole debacle seems to be more caused by the progressive wing of the state party just getting upset that the Democratic supreme court didn't rule in favor of blatant Democratic rigging of the vote via gerrymandering. Which shouldn't be controversial at all. Personally I'm glad some in my party have principles. Gerrymandering is bad, no matter who does it. And if a reasonable Democratic governor appoints a reasonable Democratic justice who won't accept gerrymandering just because their side does it, that seems pretty good to me >

Gerrymandering is bad.
Gerrymandering is worse if only one party does it.
There is no logical inconsistency in supporting gerrymandering for Democrats.