Jennifer Rochon – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

New York’s Democratic Senators share a split in recommending candidates for the federal bench, with the more junior Kirsten Gillibrand getting one pick for every three or four that the more senior Chuck Schumer gets. After nominating four Schumer picks to New York District Courts, the White House has chosen Gillibrand selection Jennifer Rochon.

Background

Born in 1970 in Michigan, Jennifer Louise Rochon received her B.A. from the University of Michigan in 1992 and, after volunteering with the Peace Corps, a J.D. in 1997 from New York University School of Law. After law school, Rochon clerked for Judge Maryanne Trump Barry on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, before joining Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, where she became a Partner in 2006. Since 2013, Rochon has been general counsel for Girl Scouts of the USA.

History of the Seat

Rochon has been nominated to the vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York vacated on May 1, 2021 by Judge George Daniels’ move to senior status. Rochon was recommended for the vacancy by Gillibrand and was nominated on December 15, 2021.

Political Activity

Rochon has made occasional political donations throughout her career, including donations to Biden, Reps. Antonio Delgado, Anthony Brindisi, and Max Rose.

Legal Career

Rochon spent the first thirteen years of her post-clerkship career at Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, where she served both as associate and as a litigation partner. Early in her career, she represented immigration organizations as amici in constitutional challenges to the Immigration and Nationality Act. See Patel v. Zemski, 275 F.3d 299 (3d Cir. 2001); Phu Chan Hoang v. Comfort, 282 F.3d 1247 (10th Cir. 2002); Welch v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 213 (4th Cir. 2002).

Among her more prominent cases, Rochon represented a dental floss manufacturer in a false advertising suit against Pfizer for claims that its mouthwash was as effective as flossing, securing a preliminary injunction against the challenged advertising. See McNeil-PPC, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc., 351 F. Supp. 2d 226 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).

In 2013, Rochon, a third generation girl scout herself, was appointed to be the first general counsel for the Girl Scouts of America, where she currently serves.

Overall Assessment

Coming from an in-house environment, Rochon would come to the bench with a slightly different background that most federal judges. Additionally, her affiliation with the Girl Scouts, an organization that is widely praised across the political spectrum, is also likely to garner Rochon bipartisan support for confirmation.

84 Comments

    • For some reason, I’m not surprised by that. Gillibrand has seemingly been continuing to recommend the same types of candidates seen often under previous administrations while Schumer, as the Senate majority leader has recommended candidates that follow the criteria Biden set for the home state senators closely. Thus is how one senators candidates are slightly more progressive than the other.

      Like

      • I think it just highlights that Gillibrand is moderate to left of center in real life & plays a progressive on TV. That’s why I was hoping for a more progressive replacement for Hillary Clinton but governor Patterson went with upstate representation instead.

        She acts very progressive but her judicial recommendations show otherwise. Sad part is this ain’t even the worst Jennifer she has recommended to Biden.

        Like

  2. My home state senator, Gillibrand, is still sabotaging Dems on judges.
    Firstly, with her gratuitous and demagogic demand for Senator Al Franken to resign, for which I have never and will never forgive her and since which I have not and will vote for her. Sen. Franken was a liberal lion in the SJC and showed that one need not be an attorney to care about the federal judiciary, a whole third of our government.
    Secondly, with these middling and older nominees.
    This is why we can’t have nice things.

    Like

    • @Gavi,

      OMG you hit the nail dead on the head. I didn’t even get into the senator Fraken issue but I completely feel the same way. He was not given the opportunity to have due process yet when Republicans are accused of touch worse they get lifetime seats on the Supreme Court or get to be president.

      I live in Broward County Florida but if I was a New Yorker I would never vote for Gillibrand in the primary & I would have a hard time voting for her in the primary. I’m sure Tina Smith is a nice, competent senator but I couldn’t pick her out of a line up & wouldn’t know her if she was standing behind me in line at Publix. I really miss senator Fraken questions at the SJC nomination hearings. He was the direct rebuke to senator Kennedy except.

      Like

    • I think this is where progressives should focus a primary threat. AOC should hint at a potential primary to Gillibrand in 2024. Gillibrand has always been a corporate lackey from the days when she defended tobacco companies at Davis Polk Wardwell as a Big Law attorney.

      That said, I put the blame on Biden for these nominees. He should tell these senators that he will not nominated horrible nominees like Jennifer Rearden.

      Like

      • @Shawn

        I said the exact same thing to friends back in 2016 when the talk of AOC going after a primary first came up. While I think it may have pushed Schumer to the left which is good, I always thought the talk was about the wrong senator. It should (And still should) be Gillibrand that is threatened with a primary.

        Like

      • @Dequan

        The truth is that Schumer has always been a liberal who pretended to be centrist to get elected to the Senate. The opposite is true with Gillibrand, she has always been a centrist who pretended to be progressive to ward off a primary and to run for President.

        Gillibrand is an obvious phony and it really comes out. I suspect that a good campaign targeting her extreme phoniness could defeat her.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Yes I agree. Schumer came up in a time when a Republican could still win statewide in NY while Gillibrand knows the more to the left she acts, the better it is for her politically. I would actually be fine with her being a phony if she was solid on judicial nominees but just based on her recommendations with the first name Jennifer alone, she should be primaried.

        Like

      • So let’s face it, the reason why Franken was pushed out without due process or a hearing was partly politics. I’m sure that Gillibrand believes in what she did. But what changed was the revelations about Roy Moore. Suddenly it looked possible to win a Senate seat in Alabama, and because of that throwing Franken under the bus became a real priority to set a standard. If the race in Alabama didn’t happen, my guess is that Franken would have stuck around for a few more months.

        At the end, yeah Franken had to go. He should have gotten the opportunity to make his case and/or the results of the investigation, but I strongly suspect the end result would have been the same, Franken resigning in disgrace. I mean it’s pretty clear that he did do what he was accused of. Frankly resigning before the investigation was complete probably makes him look better than he would have if he didn’t. Look at how that total scumbag Andrew Cuomo looks now.

        Like

  4. As someone who is decidedly non-progressive (especially not in the vein of AOC) I still want very liberal and progressive judicial nominees. I have said in previous posts that in order to counterbalance the rightward capsizing of the ship of the judiciary, you need judges left of left. Centrist judges will not stop the listing of this ship.
    Relatedly, it stupefies the senses that Jennifer Rearden will ultimately be a democratic nominated, confirmed, and appointed judge. What? Why hasn’t progressive senators come out against these horrible travesties? I think in a 50-50 senate, public objections (not mere grumbled displeasure) would likely put a stop to these kinds of nominations. How I wish to wake up one morning to the news headline: Sanders and Warner to Object to Possible Childs Nomination.
    Carrie Severino of the darkest of dark money group JCN has a regular spot unironically called “Judicial Winnings” where she highlights conservatives judges and their rules. She should be sure to highlight the confirmation of Jennifer Rearden.

    Liked by 1 person

    • @Gavi,

      That’s exactly how I feel. I too am a left of center Democrat & no fan of everything the extreme left does but I too want a judiciary even more left than myself. It’s the judiciary that has given this country many of the advances & rights we have gained. Unfortunately, we cannot count on politicians to always do the right thing with them having to get re-elected, so lifetime tenure takes that problem out of the equation.

      I wrote on a past post as much disdain I have for senators Cruz & Cotton, they both said something at the SJC vote for Dale Ho last month that I very much agree with. Senator Cruz said he actually gives Democrat’s credit. They vote in unison & never fall out of line when it comes to judges. Senator Cotton said Republicans stopped many of Trump’s bad possible nominees before he even nominated them.

      Just on this site take for example me & @Shawn. We disagree on many of the nominees. Many that I feel are very good such as Andre Mathis & Gabriel Sanchez, @Shawn thinks aren’t. So, if both he & I both agree nominees such as J. Michelle Childs, Christine O’Hearn & Jennifer Rearden are horrible, it amazes me that not ONE of the fifty Democrat senators can’t also see it & come out publically against them.

      I’m all for Democrats moving nominees through swiftly, even nominees that don’t thrill me such as Regina Rodriguez & Florence Pan. But the above three names I mentioned have no business being nominated to the courts there were nominated to by a Democrat.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Well I’m pragmatic left politically. I don’t for example, support stupid things like primarying Joe Manchin when he’s the only Democrat who could win there or tone deaf things like “defund the police” (which even if it weren’t unpopular is a really stupid thing to do in an urban area).

      However, we have far more leeway regarding the judicial picks (subject to the restrictions of Manchin). And here we should appoint strong progressives to counteract the conservatives who already sit there. And as such, I do not think we should be selecting nominees who are already well represented on the bench. There are plenty of high quality lawyers who have worked in the public interest and now is the time to make them judges.

      Big Law partners and AUSAs (except a very few who mostly worked in prosecuting white collar crimes or civil rights) should not be appointed to the bench now to the extent possible. They already are heavily overrepresented. I’m not going to say that it should be zero, but there should be a very good reason and evidence of a strong progressive background to justify the appointment. For example, someone like Judge Pamela Harris would be ok even though she was a Big Law partner at some time.

      I also disagree with lifetime appointments, personally I would support term limits for the judiciary as well. 18 years for SCOTUS (followed by a return to the circuit court after the term is up), mandatory senior status after 20 years for the circuit and district courts.

      BTW, Carrie Severino is extremely far right, and probably wouldn’t like Rearden (who is liberal on social/cultural issues like abortion). Rearden is beyond awful, but she isn’t Clarence Thomas.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Schumer filed cloture on 2 executive nominees before adjourning…..So it’s unlikely (in my view) that there will be any judicial confirmations this week……Why don’t we just wait until Xmas….I knew this was going to happen, they won’t focus on any judicial nominees but the SCOTUS vacancy…..They can’t walk and chew gum, too difficult a task

    Like

      • The names are out :

        Kenly Kiya Kato, to be United States District Judge for the Central District of California

        Jennifer Louise Rochon, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York

        Sunshine Suzanne Sykes, to be United States District Judge for the Central District of California

        Only 3 names unacceptable. Schumer should at least allow some of the district judges to be done this week. They can be done on the the same day now it’s only 2 hour timeframes.

        Like

      • Those are just the names for the executive vote Thursday. It’s their first time yo so they will be held over then voted to the floor next week.

        We are worried about how many names will be at the hearing Wednesday. We need at least five.

        Like

      • @joshir73102

        I agree with you. The thing is we want both. Schumer should at least once a month work a full week, Monday 5pm to Friday 8PM. He should use that one Friday a month for all pending discharge votes & vote on cloture on all pending circuit court nominees. That should setup the circuit court votes for the following Monday when they return.

        The problem is not only are they working no Friday’s, but the one or times they do, they end up taking off more days then was originally scheduled. For instance when They worked Monday to Wednesday for the scheduled MLK recess week, they took the entire next week off. So we actually lost a day in session.

        Liked by 1 person

    • It’s absolutely ridiculous at this point. Even if your just doing district court nominees, Evelyn Padin was nominated December 15th, William Pocan was nominated the same (Unless senator Ron Johnson is now withholding his blue slip)& seven other nominees were nominated January 19th. Survey we could have had at least five in this hearing. This is idiotic. I’ve seen taco stands in Tijuana run better then the senate judiciary committee is being run right now…smh

      Like

    • Well to be honest I won’t lose any sleep if William Pocan nomination has to be pulled. He was born around 1960 & out of the 4 nominees recommended, Krista Ann Halla-Valdes is a much better choice. She’s much younger & just as, if not more progressive.

      Even if the seat goes unfilled I’m fine with that. Hopefully Ron Johnson loses his re-election. If he wins but Democrats hold the senate they should seriously think about ending blue slips all together then fill the seat.

      Like

      • No way Johnson would support Halla-Valdes. In addition, based on the comments that Democrats in the SJC have made during the Mathis hearing, I would be shocked to see blue slips go away for the district courts even if the Democrats win a majority.

        Like

      • Johnson probably wouldn’t support Halla-Valdes but a white male in his mid 60’s is the best he can expect form a Democrat president & he isn’t even turning in his blue slip for him. I honestly wish Durbin took @Shawn’s advice after the insurrection & said no blue slips for any senator that voted to over turn a free & fair election. Then we wouldn’t be in this mess. I’m still mad senator Johnson held the circuit court vacancy open during the Obama presidency & then Trump got to fill it.

        As for ending blue slips if Democrats hold the senate, I absolutely think they should only if they gain seats. If it’s still 50/50 then I wouldn’t do it.

        Like

      • Johnson voted against overturning the election even though he initially supported attempts to do so.

        I remember one of you gave 3 categories for denying blue slips, and based on Johnson keeping the 7th circuit seat open for 8 years, I think that he would fit into the 2nd category, Senators who don’t want to compromise but rather just want to hold the seat open.

        There’s some chance that a 2nd vacancy will open up on Wisconsin’s Eastern District (Lynn Adelman is 82 and Joseph Stadtmueller is 79), in which case there could be a package deal? Adelman, who sharply criticized the Roberts court and it’s 5-4 conservative majority, seems like someone who would make his vacancy Ron Johnson-proof by agreeing to go senior upon the confirmation of his successor but rescinding if a Republican takes office again (Rudolph Randa of the same court rescinded his intention of senior status after Obama took office and his seat wasn’t filled). If Adelman does make such a move (even w/o threatening to rescind it if it’s still vacant when a GOP president takes office again), Johnson might accept Halla-Valdes to succeed Adelman’s seat provided he gets to pick a conservative for the Griesbach seat.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I think it should also depend on how big a Dem majority would be. It’s pretty risky to end blue slips in a 50-50 Senate, where it could flip at any moment. But if we get 52 or even 51 Senate seats, Senate Dems should get rid of blue slips (also a 51st seat means that Dems get a majority on the Judiciary Committee instead of one that is evenly split)

        Like

      • @Dequan

        “As for ending blue slips if Democrats hold the senate, I absolutely think they should only if they gain seats. If it’s still 50/50 then I wouldn’t do it.”

        Strongly disagree with this. The only reason why I wouldn’t do it now is that we simply don’t have time to confirm judges in red states. But if it’s 50/50 again in 2023? Absolutely nuke the blue slips or at the very least ignore them for problem senators.

        And oh BTW, Schumer should tell Durbin to step down and replace him with Whitehouse.

        Like

      • I just read Johnson’s statement closely. It’s a regional thing. Ron Johnson says that the judgeship is in the Green Bay courthouse, so the nominee should be from the Green Bay area. Pecon is from Milwaukee.

        Two of the applicants are Brown County judges. I don’t know where Krista Ann Halla-Valdes is from.

        Like

      • Johnson will make up any excuse to block a nominee made by a Democrat president. His blue slip should be made irrelevant based on the fact that he held a 7th circuit seat open for 8 YEARS. He didn’t just prevent one nominee from being confirmed, Obama had several nominees to that specific seat and Johnson came up with excuses to block them all.

        Like

      • Halla-Valdes is apparently from Green Bay. A quick search find her address in the Green Bay area.

        https://www.linkedin.com/in/krista-halla-valdes-9a3550b4

        She should have been nominated from the beginning. I think it was Mark Pocan (and Baldwin) that insisted on Judge Pocan.
        This is another example why political patronage should be entirely removed from the judicial selection process.

        And it is just not true that it was a regional thing. This scumbag pro-J6 insurrectionist Johnson added additional crap to his statement beyond being a regional thing. Plainly, I do not think Johnson should have been given any blue slip or hold privileges for his support and downplaying of the J6 insurrection attempt.

        Like

      • What I’m saying about that is if Durbin created a rule banning those who voted to overturn the election from blue slipping, Johnson would certainly bring up that he didn’t actually vote in favor of it, and Durbin would let the loophole slide because if he didn’t let it slide he might as well get rid of blue slips altogether.

        Liked by 1 person

      • AUSA and Big Law partner. Primarily defended environmental polluters, and I see no evidence of pro bono background from her Big Law page. Can do a hell of a lot better than this in California.

        http://lw.com/Attorneys.aspx?page=AttorneyBio&attno=02759

        Probably give this a D. I can’t give a grade higher than that when she is considerably worse than her predecessor, who was a progressive (unlike his wife). At least Martin Jenkins will leave the bench soon. We may be stuck with this awful nominee for decades.

        Like

      • @Shawn,

        I have read multiple articles showing Justice Patricia Guerrero with extensive pro bono work, particularly in the immigration field. I agree she is not the best possible candidate, even Latina from California but I would give her a B-. Hopefully other possible nominees like Monica Ramirez-Almadani are being saved for the 9th circuit.

        (https://news.yahoo.com/california-nominates-first-latina-judge-223550985.html)

        I do agree Halla-Valdes should have been the nominee from the start. I don’t agree with you that political patronage is always bad. For example, political patronage was used by LBJ to open up the SCOTUS seat that him appointing Thurgood Marshall. But when it produces horrible outcomes like J. Michelle Childs, I agree it is bad in those cases.

        As for ending district court blue slips if the Democrats hold the senate exactly at 50/50, the reason I would hesitate is because senator Manchin may not be on board. That’s why I’m all for only if the Dems net 1 or more seats, because he has no more sole veto authority. Only if he gives his ok prior would I end it in a 50/50 senate & my gut tells me he would not be ok with it.

        Liked by 2 people

      • @Dequan

        Unless Manchin vocally objects or threatens to vote down nominees solely because of this, I would nuke blue slips in a 50/50 Senate. And my guess is that he won’t do that, at most he grumbles that he disagrees with the new policy. And you can always do a hybrid policy, e.g. blue slips will be retained in states if you have a fair bipartisan commission whose results you stand by and send at least X number of people with public interest backgrounds.

        Regarding political patronage, yes it is always bad for judicial nominees. Let’s face it, LBJ was a crook. That he put an excellent nominee on the Supreme Court doesn’t change that. Neither does Eisenhower’s quid pro quo nomination of Earl Warren, who was also fantastic. Saying that these examples make political patronage ok is like saying that Hugo Black’s nomination shouldn’t disqualify KKK members in the future.

        Like

      • @Shawn

        I mostly agree with your first point. I completely disagree with the second point, however. If Clarence Thomas went to Biden & said appoint his (Fill in the blank) to Attorney General & he will step down from the Supreme Court, I would take that deal every day of the week & twice on Sunday.

        Now obviously that would never happen, just saying I would totally take a quid pro quo if it was for the greater good, which sometimes it is. Unfortunately, that has not been the case over the past 13 months, however.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Correct. I was just giving an example to show why I will not agree that political patronage is never a good thing. I do agree with @Shawn that in theory it’s a bad thing, I just won’t go as far as him to say it is always bad or that somebody should be impeached if they engage in it. If it leads to young progressive judges then I’m all for it. I’m tired of losing when it comes to the judiciary. Win at all cost at this point… Lol

        Liked by 1 person

      • @Dequan

        Well all rules have slight exceptions. I’ve said in the past that I supported Harriet Miers, even though she was blatantly unqualified because I would have preferred her any day to Alito. But they should entirely remain exceptions. What LBJ did regarding Abe Fortas was absolutely atrocious. What Earl Warren asked for in exchange for his political support is something Ike should have said hell no to.

        Regarding this hypothetical Clarence Thomas situation, I actually don’t know if I would take that deal. Because whomever Thomas wants as AG would probably shut down the J6 investigation and that might be sufficiently unconscionable to reject that offer even if that means putting Goodwin Liu to replace him.

        Like

      • Haaaaaa… There is no way in Hell I reject Clarence Thomas stepping down from 1 of 9 lifetime seats on the Supreme Court for an Attorney General that you can fire at any time or at worse serves for 4 years. I would literally agree to appoint Donald J Trump if that’s what it took… Lol

        But I agree with your point that it should be the exception not the rule. I’m just very careful to use the word never because there are scenarios where deals lead to the greater good.

        Like

    • @Dequan

      “for an Attorney General that you can fire at any time or at worse serves for 4 years. I would literally agree to appoint Donald J Trump if that’s what it took… Lol”

      Thinking about this more, there is absolutely no way I would accept that hypothetical deal. Thomas would obviously demand that the AG nominated would stay there until 2025. It would be one thing if it were someone like Bill Barr, who as bad as he is, didn’t go down the J6 path. But Thomas would demand someone like his former law clerk John Eastman.

      What would AG Eastman do? He would fire everyone investigating the J6 insurrection. He would shut down the civil rights and environmental protection units. He would refuse to enforce anti-discrimination laws. He would hire a whole bunch of insane special counsels like Giuliani and Sydney Powell to investigate the most nutty right-wing conspiracy theories starting with claim that Democrats stole the election. He would do even more to trash our democracy and back every attempt to steal and overturn elections in the future

      Biden would look terrible for making this deal. He would have replaced a competent AG with Eastman in order to get an extra justice. That would also be a total disaster. Running on protecting democracy and then making a deal that would appoint a J6 conspiracy theorist as Attorney General?

      In total, the damage AG Eastman does wouldn’t be worth getting Thomas off the bench. it wouldn’t be worth it even if RBG had lived a little longer and Thomas leaving would actually flip SCOTUS. The potential damage is too great.

      Like

      • Thomas could demand the AG stay on until 2025 all he wanted to but the constitution over rules a back room deal. The AG serves at the pleasure of the president. So if whoever Thomas wanted as AG did any of the things you wrote, I would just fire him on the spot & deal with the backlash.

        But under no circumstances would I turn down a chance to replace the most conservative justice on the highest court of the land who was appointed at the age of 41 with any of the Biden appeals court nominees (Even J. Michelle Childs) just because I wasn’t a fan of political patronage. Like Thomas wouldn’t be able to finish the sentence before I agree to it… Lol

        Like

      • @Dequan

        Here’s how Thomas can enforce it. He can stay on the bench for several months after Eastman has been confirmed as AG and is able to hire his people including his special counsels. Heck he could refuse to leave until November or December. Basically leaving him an option of rescinding his appointment if you fire Eastman. And if the GOP takes back the Senate, that would prevent you from confirming anyone new.

        Like

      • Oh no that would just be pure dumb to agree to. I’m all for quid quo pro’s as long as they are exchanged at the same time. If Thomas agreed to step down the same day the AG was confirmed then I would be all for it. If what your talking about was the deal I wouldn’t accept it.

        Backroom deals are mostly bad as you indicated, but if the deal was a no nonsense good deal for the overall good then I would do it. What your talking about would not fall into that category.

        Like

      • @Dequan

        A deal would have be put in manner such neither party has an incentive to violate it. If your idea is to fire AG Eastman ASAP then Thomas will try to protect himself by not leaving until that cannot be done. So the idea basically is that Eastman will have to be allowed to serve for months and in the meantime the replacement for Thomas could be confirmed. But if you fire Eastman, then Thomas would stay on the bench.
        You may also have to get Manchin involved where he promises to refuse to vote for any replacement of Eastman if he is fired.

        Like

      • @joshir73102

        I completely agree with you on Garland, he really needs to pick up the pace. But the big mistake was to not appoint a special counsel for all of the J6 investigation.

        But there’s no way that appointing a J6 insurrectionist at Attorney General through 2025 is worth trading to replace even the worst SCOTUS justice. Doing the former is such a massive short term and long term disaster that even getting the retirement of two conservative justices for 5-4 liberal Supreme Court in exchange would not be a worthwhile trade.

        Liked by 1 person

  14. Can we talk about boycotting committee votes in the U.S. Senate? This is especially pertinent now. Yesterday, Republicans boycotted the scheduled votes for Fed nominees, denying the committee a quorum and thus, preventing a vote.
    Bouncing around in the rightwing media is the idea that in a 50-50 senate, Republicans can prevent committee nomination votes indefinitely by simply boycotting it. Dems tried this against Barrett in October 2020 but Sen. Graham simply changed the rules and reported her out of committee with Republican votes only.
    Republicans are successfully (so far) doing this with the Fed nominees. Could Sen. Sherrod Brown change the rules of his committee a al Graham and confirm the nominees if the Republicans remain obdurate? And, vastly more to my whole point, could Sen. Durbin follow suit if SJC Republicans boycott SCOTUS committee vote? Mind you, this question is asked specifically with regard to the even split of senate committees.
    What say you?

    For reference:
    https://www.politico.com/minutes/congress/02-16-2022/boycott-history/

    Like

    • I actually asked this question on another post from this site as I too was worried & didn’t know the answer….

      @Shawn did a very good job explaining it to me but basically the Republicans can not indefinitely block a vote on a nominee. I’ll let Shawn explain more in depth if he would like to.

      Like

    • So this question is a little different from the other one that Dequan asked before. Dequan previously asked what happens if the GOP doesn’t show up for a floor vote. Technically that denies the quorum of a majority in the Senate. But a senator would have to object and ask for a quorum call, and if there are no GOP senators, there would be nobody to object. If there was a GOP senator to object, you would have the 51 for quorum. So this gambit would certainly fail.

      I don’t actually know know what the committee rules are regarding quorum. Traditionally you needed one person from both parties to be at a committee meeting to proceed. But as you said, Graham changed those rules last year. Also it does not take a majority of the committee to advance a nominee, we have seen nominees advanced on a 10-9 vote this year.

      But the one thing I don’t know are the committee rules on quorum, whether a majority of the committee needs to be at a meeting to proceed. It’s also not clear what the discharge rules are. It may be possible to go straight to a discharge vote if the GOP continues this tactic.

      Liked by 2 people

  15. Chairman Durbin started today’s hearing trading senator Johnson’s letter stating he was with holding his blue slip for Pocan. He went through stats on how many blue slips Democrats turned in for Trump district court nominees. He said Pocan was scheduled to be in today’s hearing & he found out last night second hand about the blue slip not being turned in.

    I still say even with Pocan, only four nominees in today’s hearing was too little with all of the pending nominees. On a side it senator Feinstein missed the hearing again.

    Like

  16. I didn’t get chance to see too much of this mornings hearing but it looked like GOP focused soley on the NY nominee….

    By early March will probably have a SCOTUS nominee, if it’s Childs, then we’ll probably have a 7-2 court in GOP favor…..Perhaps that’s a stretch, but she’d be a lousy nominee for a Democratic president, even in a 50/50 senate

    And circuit and district court nominees will get held off until ???????

    Like

    • There were 53 GOP senators at that time so I’m not sure but I think the 50/50 senate changes the dynamic. I just can’t believe with committees not being in the constitution (And hearings weren’t even the norm pre-Bandis) that Schumer couldn’t just discharge to votes directly to the floor. I sure it’s the same concern regarding breaking precedent like the filibuster but I just can’t imagine it can’t be done.

      Like

Leave a comment