One of the oldest judicial vacancies in the country is on the Northern District of New York, open for approximately six years. After the two prior presidents failed to fill this seat, President Biden is taking a shot with Anne Nardacci.
The 45-year-old Anne M. Nardacci got her Bachelor of Arts from Georgetown University in 1998 and, after a year on the staff of Congressman Michael McNulty, went on to earn her J.D. from Cornell Law School in 2002. After law school, Nardacci spent three years at the New York office of Skadden, Arps, Slate Meagher & Flom.
In 2005, Nardacci joined the Albany office of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, where she still works.
History of the Seat
Nardacci has been nominated to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. This seat opened on January 1, 2016, when Judge Gary Sharpe moved to senior status. While the seat opened with a year left in the Obama Administration, the Administration never extended a nominee for the vacancy and it was carried over into the Trump Administration. In October 2018, upon the recommendation of two Republican Congressmen in New York, Lee Zeldin and John Faso, President Trump nominated New York Judge Thomas Marcelle for the vacancy. Marcelle had also been nominated for a federal judgeship by President George W. Bush but was blocked by Senator Charles Schumer. Robert Gavin, Marcelle Seen in Line for Federal Judgeship, Houston Chronicle, May 4, 2018, https://www.chron.com/local/article/Marcelle-seen-in-line-for-federal-judgeship-12889507.php. This time around, Marcelle was blocked by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand over his record on abortion, and Marcelle withdrew his nomination in August 2019. Robert Gavin and Mike Goodwin, Gillibrand Blocks Area Judge’s Nomination, Albany Times Union, Aug. 30, 2019, https://www.pressreader.com/usa/albany-times-union/20190830/281535112661040. On August 12, 2020, McAllister was nominated in a second try to fill this seat. His nomination was also not processed before the end of the Trump Administration.
In November 2021, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer recommended Nardacci to fill this seat on the Northern District of New York. See Marco Poggio, Schumer Puts Forward Boies Schiller Partner for NY Court, Law360, Nov. 15, 2021. Nardacci was nominated on April 27, 2022.
Nardacci has spent her entire career in private practice, starting at Skadden Arps, and then working at Boies Schiller in Albany. At Boies, Nardacci works primarily in antitrust litigation, both in defending companies, and on the affirmative side, working as outside counsel in state investigations and enforcement actions.
The notable cases that Nardacci participated in include antitrust litigation over cathode ray tubes in the Northern District of California. See In re Cathode Ray Tube Antritrust Litig. (N.D. Cal.) In another notable case, Nardacci represented AngioDynamics, a medical device manufacturer, in a suit alleging anticompetitive behavior by C.R. Bard, a rival company. See Caitlin Stefanik, AngioDynamics Lawsuit Alleges C.R. Bard is Violating Antitrust Laws, Harming Competition and Limiting Access, Financial Buzz, May 31, 2017. An attempt by C.R. Bard to dismiss the lawsuit for failure to state a claim was denied by Judge Brenda Sannes. See AngioDynamics, Inc. v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 1:17-cv-00598 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2018) (J. Sannes).
Additionally, Nardacci represented a debtor in a class action lawsuit regarding whether the discharge provisions of the Bankruptcy Code conflict with the Federal Arbitration Act. See Vince Sullivan, High Court Won’t Hear Bank’s Bid to Arbitrate Ch. 7 Debt, Law360, Mar. 8, 2021. The suit ended in a Second Circuit judgment in the debtor’s favor and a denial of certiorari by the Supreme Court. See id.
Nardacci has been a frequent political donor, having given to the Presidential campaigns of Obama and Biden, as well as the Senate campaign of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand.
As a commercial and antitrust litigator, Nardacci has attracted little controversy over her career. Barring the unexpected, she should see a comfortable confirmation before the end of the year.
Looking at her record this should be a fairly conventional nominee that strikes no controversy to either the right or left like other New York nominees. I’ll assume since she is a partner at David Boise law firm she probably is more progressive then her record shows.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I expect the fireworks with be with the Utica vacancy, as some of th names I’ve heard to replace David Hurd are ugh, especially Anthony Brindisi.
Thanks for the info. I checked all day yesterday & nothing was posted on the SJC website. They usually post a week in advance but I will take back SOME of the bad things I was saying about chairman Durbin yesterday… Lol
It upsets me even more now knowing 2 weeks after that there will be no hearing because they will have run out of nominees from The White House…smh
I hope your not talking about the Anthony Brindisi that got a 100% rating from the NRA. I really hope none of the 50 Democrat senators not in a purple state would ever sign off on somebody like that. That would be worse then some Trump picks in purple states we got.
Who are the names aside from Brindisi that you have heard?
TBH, I’m less concerned about Brindisi’s record in the NY state Assembly and Congress. He was representing districts that Trump won by double digits and that Romney and perhaps even McCain won. Gun safety laws were a total nonstarter in those regions.
But he has been a plaintiffs attorney for injury victims in his dad’s law firm, which is a huge plus in my book. That itself would justify substantial consideration (you do need to vet him on other matters obviously). It is very likely that Brindisi would be a considerably more progressive judge than he was a legislator.
I would care more about his record as an attorney and whether he engaged in Left-bashing. If he engaged in Left-bashing or blaming of any kind, he is a Judas and I would never support him for anything. If he just disagreed on certain issues, well you need to have a big tent on social issues to win certain states and districts.
I could see Anthony Brindisi being nominated as a compromise candidate if Republicans win control of the Senate.
Looks like we DO have a hearing next week!
Nardacci — Grade: A
I’ll take a mid-40s nominee on most days of the week (hint hint, Biden!), especially this one.
I seriously do not think that we have to worry about Anthony Brindisi being a judicial nominee. Talk about failing upward, you can’t win an NY supreme court seat so you get nominated to a federal district court seat.
With the spate of nominees finally getting setup for floor action by Schumer, I’m starting to think that there may not be enough votes to discharge Andre Mathis and (fanboy favorite) Dale Ho. Maybe they would be Manchin’s first judicial nay votes? That’s the only way I can make sense of the delay.
Even though it’s slightly different, Hector Gonzalez was a finalist for the NY court of appeals (That’s the highest court in New York) but didn’t get it. Then he was nominated by Trump & then nominated & confirmed under Biden. So there is a precedent for failing upwards in NY but Hector Gonzalez is much to the left of this would be horrible nominee of the reports are true.
I think Andre Mathis should be fine once bought you for a vote. Remember senator Kennedy voted for him in committee which is why he wasn’t dead locked.
As for Dale Ho, I actually mentioned last year on this site I thought there was a possibility this could be Manchin’s first no vote. That’s another reason why I thought he should have been nominated for a circuit court because I don’t think you are gonna get two bites at the apple with him. I do think in the long run Manchin will come around & vote yes. But it would be smart strategy to bring him up for a vote when one of the GOP senators are out of town & missing votes just to be safe.
LikeLiked by 2 people
(Annoying that we cannot edit our comments on here. I would just edit my recent to incorporate this reply to you, which I only saw after I posted my last comment.)
Yeah, forgot that Mathis wasn’t even deadlocked. Things are starting to blur with those earlier nominations. I think that fact makes his situation even more strange. He does not require an addition vote, so why skip over him? I will not compare him to Dale Ho because in Senate time, that’s apples to oranges (30 hours v 2 hours). But what about the other cir. noms that came after him? It’s inexplicable.
And no, I honestly don’t think that Kennedy will be a aye on final confirmation for Mathis (the SJC vote was confounding enough).
Also, as much as I love Lui, I think he’s aging out of SCOTUS consideration. (51 now but how old will he be by next vacancy?) DALE HO can be his replacement!
Also (sorry for keep going on about Dale Ho), if Dale Ho becomes this era’s Goodwin Liu I will be extremely pissed. Back them, I was judicially smitten with Liu. He eventually made it to the CA Supreme Court, but the 9th Cir. definitely lost out on his brilliance.
I think Goodwin Lui shows the brilliance of governor Jerry Brown. He put him on the California SCOTUS where he can still be a viable candidate for the first AAPI US SCOTUS directly from that court (Just like Justice Kruger for the Breyer vacancy was considered)instead of a nominee in his 60’s like governor Newsome did with his first pick.
But there’s no way a nominee from the majority leaders home state should fail getting confirmed. Mitch McConnell wouldn’t allow it. Chuck needs to get Dale Ho confirmed even if that’s by hook or crook & holding a vote when a GOP senator is out.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’ll be really honest here and it will ruffle some feathers. I do not believe that Biden should have promised a Black woman on the Supreme Court and I think he should have nominated Goodwin Liu.
Goodwin Liu is the brightest legal mind on the progressive side today. He literally could have been another Brandeis, Douglas, or Scalia, and would have laid out a progressive vision of the law in his dissents for a future Court to turn into opinions (the way that Brandeis did).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Goodwin Liu could likely be confirmed to the 9th or DC circuits now in my opinion…..Manchin did vote for cloture back in 2011 for Liu, and no reason why he wouldn’t now
I give this nomination a B-. There were others here who would have been better even if they were a little older. One option could have been Ava Ayers, who would have been the first transgender judge.
Yea it sucks when you realize you made a mistake or omitted something & can’t edit it. Don’t worry, I’ve done it plenty of times myself… Lol
I don’t think you really need to waste the time & confirmation putting Lui on the 9th circuit anymore. He can be elevated to SCOTUS directly from the California SCOTUS.
While I disagree Biden shouldn’t have made the pledge for the first black women, I actually agree with you on everything else. I am almost an unabashed, unashamed progressive solely when it comes to the courts (Pretty moderate or left of center on everything else) & I would vote no solely on age. However as you have mentioned on past post, Goodwin Lui is so solid, him being in his lower 50’s can be overlooked. I would support the next SCOTUS vacancy going to either a member of the AAPI or LGBT community. Sadly with Dale Ho eventually only being a district court judge, I don’t believe he will be a viable candidate even though he would be my personal number one pick. That realistically leaves Lucy Koh (Hell no)Jennifer Sung (Who is good but needed to be discharged so it would depend on the senate majority) & Goodwin Lui for an AAPI justice. I actually think the next justice will be (I’ve correctly guessed the last three in a row) Alison Nathan and will be the first LGBT justice.
As for Anthony Brindisi, while you could be right about him just playing to his district & I believe in a big tent party, I am all for that except for judges in blue states. I just find it hard to believe there isn’t at least a dozen better candidates for that seat.
And I have heard Ava Ayers name mentioned before. She sounds like an outstanding choice for such a ground breaking nomination if she had been picked.
As for Anne Nardacci herself, I initially agree with @Shawn & would also give her a B. However I expect her to have some upside upon me looking more into her & would probably give her a higher grade upon review much like Ana Reyes.
@Dequan on your Alison Nathan prediction – I think that’s unlikely simply because it would need to either occur in the next few months before the midterms (very unlikely) or the Dems hold the Senate in the fall (equally unlikely). If there is another vacancy before the midterms, I think Sri Srinivasan is more likely because he’s seen as more experienced (though if Thomas kicks it, I could see Biden nominating Paul Watford).
If the Dems lose the Senate, Nathan likely to be too old by the time they win it back and hold the presidency (2024 is a horrible year for Dems, 2026 would also be bad if Biden or another Democrat is still president). It would then take a couple election cycles to win back the seats lost this year/in 2024 and 2026 (if a Republican president wins in 2028, Dems could maybe win a decent number of Senate seats in 2030), and I would hope Dems think Nathan is too old in 2032.
In terms of future SCOTUS candidates assuming Dems lose the midterms, it would have to be someone in their early 40s now. That’s why I think Candace Jackson-Akiwumi could be likely (though I doubt Dems would have the resolve to put two Black women on the court).
I think it is more likely than not that the Democrats will retain the Senate. The Democratic candidates are surprisingly strong while GOP candidates that are being nominated are looking very much like the duds that were put up in 2010/2012 and candidate quality absolutely matters for the Senate. Right now I think the seat most in danger is Nevada (where the GOP is likely to nominate a standard conservative rather than these ultra Trumpified morons). I wouldn’t be surprised at all if the Democrats hold all their seats.
I can see easily a scenario where the Democrats lose 15-20 in the House (where candidate quality matters less) and still retain the Senate.
Oh yea I should have specified. I was talking about it an unexpected vacancy occurred on the SCOTUS before the midterms I believe Allison Nathan would be the nominee. I will have to give you my updated prediction based on the midterm results.
For instance while I hate to even think of J Childs as a possibility, if a vacancy occurred early in 2023 after the Republicans gained a 1 vote majority, there’s always a possibility a senator Collins could make a deal that she will support Childs but not anybody I would want to see nominated. So I’m that case I would change my opinion to Childs being the front runner. But for now I’m saying Nathan.
Wouldn’t happen. Remember, if Republicans have a majority, McConnell will block all Biden judicial nominees no matter how much Collins voices her support. McConnell knows Collins won’t switch parties just to confirm a nominee. If they get the majority, they will turn against J Michelle Childs as fast as Orrin Hatch turned against Merrick Garland.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yup, most likely your right. J Childs would be my number one pick if Republicans had a one seat majority but with the understanding it’s probably less then 1% chance of even her getting confirmed. With Collins getting re-elected last year & Murkowski up this year, the pressure would be off the two most likely to flip & force a vote for the rest of Biden’s term.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You really have to think though, does being up for re-election make a Senator more liberal or more conservative? It really depends on where they are from. Collins definitely wants to look moderate when she’s up for re-election, while Murkowski needs to look moderate enough to win over some Democrats but also not too liberal because her biggest threat is a TFG-backed challenger. Ultimately, the swing Senators will want to look moderate if they aren’t in a state that’s deep in their party’s hands.
I just read senator Sherrod Brown was sent to the hospital. His office released a statement stating he should be back to work next week. I swear the Democrat senators in states with Republican governors need weekly check ups at this point. I wonder if this is the reason why there’s no senate in session Monday since it’s not showing as a scheduled day off on their calendar.
There’s a possibility that Biden could choose Liu or Kruger for Chief Justice, The leak at Supreme Court (rumored to be on the conservative side) has tarnished the reputation of Chief Justice Roberts, Has anyone noticed how Thomas and Alito are poised to take over the court?
I think it’s safe to say that there has never been a Chief Justice who has been discarded and disrespected as John Roberts, Justice Thomas has taken to speaking out against the court leak. Thomas has suggested that the Rehnquist era court had more collegiality,
When Chief Justice Rehnquist led the court there was infighting but not from fellow conservatives. Even though Wiliam Brennan the leading liberal despised Rehnquist; the first Black Justice Thurgood Marshall thought he was a “great guy,”
At this point, Roberts can assign the opinion to himself and tone down the harshness of the decision on Roe that will be issued next month. Or, he can retire having preserved what’s left of his dignity.
We actually had a conversation about wat if John Roberts stepped down unexpectedly earlier this year on this site on another nominee’s page. While I like the sound of Chief Justice Goodwin Liu, I think it would be highly unlikely.
First, I think there’s almost no chance Biden would pass up nominating the first female chief justice. I would give the nominee being a female a better then 80% chance & maybe even that is a little low just based on the percentage of women he himself has appointed to the circuit courts & all of the liberals on the SCOTUS being women once Breyer retires.
Second, I think the pick would be somebody Biden himself interviewed with for their current position (Meaning a current circuit court judge he nominated or a SCOTUS that was nominated by Obama when he was VP & would have been in the interview).
I personally would guess he would go with upgrading justice Kagan, although I hate to think of the time a second confirmation to backfill her seat would take up. Depending on when the vacancy occurred & how many senators the Dems had, KBJ might get strong consideration as well.
At least for now, Roberts retiring seems like somewhat of a pipe dream. It would make Lin Wood seem prophetic but not in the way he wanted (In December 2020, with a Republican president and senate, Wood demanded that Roberts and Breyer step down after the Court dismissed Texas v. Pennsylvania.
I think if Roberts does vacate for whatever reason, the nominee to replace him will likely be Kagan or KBJ. I’m not really scared of Manchin blocking someone too close to the 2022 midterms; he voted to confirm Kavanaugh in October 2018. However, even moderate justices make it pretty clear where their party loyalty lies. Despite voting to keep Roe v. Wade, Justices O’Connor and Kennedy made their party loyalty clear in Bush v. Gore, and subsequently both retired under Republican presidents. On the other hand, Byron White decided his loyalty to the Democratic Party outweighed his desire to have Roe v. Wade overturned, and retired in Clinton’s 1st year. (Byron White was also quite liberal in voting rights cases, a key bellwether to party loyalty. John Roberts’s party loyalty is definitely NOT to the Democratic Party, and I expect him to either die in office or retire under a Republican president in 10-15-20 years.
Also, I think that a key component of Manchin’s refusal to fill a late 2024 vacancy has to do with HIS OWN re-election prospects given in 2024 he needs to get a bunch of Trump voters to split-ticket between Trump (or whoever the nominee is) and Manchin.
I was saying that I was in favor of Liu getting a high profile circuit court seat, not necessarily for elevation to SCOTUS….Of course, if he was elevated to SCOTUS great, but if he could get on a circuit court seat and stay there, that’s not too bad either..
Then again, he might be very happy being on the CA Supreme Court, which is probably the most prestigious state Supreme Court seat, and would not accept any federal court nomination unless its SCOTUS..
Most recently, Liu was seeking an appointment to be State Attorney General. The position was vacated when Xavier Becerra became Health and Human Services Secretary.
It’s uncommon for a California Supreme Court Justice to move over to the 9th Circuit. Not in recent history that I can remember,
I really appreciated Jerry Brown finding a place for Goodwin Liu on the Supreme Court. However, the types of cases that come before the CA Supreme Court i.e. city ordinances and land use matters are not challenging enough for someone of his stature. Also, the same would hold true for Leondra Kruger. Indeed, Tino Cuellar left the court after 6 years.
The only real Judicial advancement would be SCOTUS. Even though the 9th Circuit is federal it actually pays less than it state counter part almost 1 mile away.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The White House has finally submitted that last batch to the Senate. Merriam nominated to the Carney seat.
And they submitted Merriam to the Carney seat. I swear they can mess up a wet dream…smh
ikr… I think there are 3 possibilities to why she got the Carney seat… 1) since the Cabranes seat is between NY and CT, the NY senators might have demanded the Carney seat be filled first so they have some leverage over the Cabranes seat… 2) by far the most likely possibility, Biden either does not know or does not care that Cabranes is a conservative; after all, he was appointed by Bill Clinton, and Biden might have assumed that Cabranes is liberal from there, and 3) this still seems like an offshot possibility, but Cabranes might be trying to influence who his successor is, i.e. Cabranes is threatening to rescind his senior status if Biden picks someone too liberal.
Did you all see Grassley wants Choudhury back for a 2nd hearing?
What a bunch of BS….I hope Durbin has the vote next week, if shoe was on other foot, you know Republicans would never grant a 2nd hearing
Click to access 05-19-22%20Grassley%20Statement.pdf
This smacks of the treatment of Sarah Bloom Raskin:
First, ask a lot of written post-hearing questions AND claim that they weren’t answered by the nominee.
Second, demand a second hearing.
Third, boycott the committee vote, thus sinking the nomination.
Let’s see if the Dems will let this happen again.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, Grassley’s request is complete BS – but since the Dems couldn’t recognize competence if it punched them in the face, I’m sure they’ll waste time with a second hearing. I sincerely hope I’m wrong, but this is how I’m imagining things will go down:
Republicans spend the entire second hearing attacking her, while the Dem senators on the SJC will do nothing to defend her (or point out the utter BS Trump nominees said before they confirmed them anyways). Then the GOP will continue faking outrage, and Manchin will use that as an excuse to block Choudhury (when we all know he thinks that tanking the first Muslim woman would win him points among the racists of West Virginia), and we’ll both lose valuable time that could have been spent confirming another nominee and still not confirm Choudhury (who I think is great) anyways. I’ve always thought that it would be a tooth and nail fight to confirm a nominee who is both Muslim and a woman (the GOP’s worst nightmare), and I can’t remember the last time Dems put up a fight for anything.
If this is how things are going to go down, then Demand Justice or one of the other orgs needs to step up and make this a big damn deal – no more of this “oh Biden’s done better than previous administrations” BS. At the very least, AOC should tweet about Dem’s failures to defend women of color from slander from these white Republican men so it’ll get Schumer’s attention.
On a similar note, we should’ve had AOC or someone on the left challenge Schumer in a primary. Had there been someone constantly railing about how little Schumer has done for Democratic voters, maybe he would’ve felt more pressure to actually do something (about both the judiciary and legislation) instead of just wasting time.
On a less frustrating note, at least Davis’ cloture vote was as bipartisan as things get these days – I guess she’ll be the one COA judge confirmed this month. https://twitter.com/SenatePress/status/1527361997092065280
You see… This is exactly, exactly, EXACTLY why you don’t skip a week or in this case WEEKS of putting nominees on the executive calendar for a one week hold over then vote. Had they held the executive vote the very next week, we would have heard this bs last week which would have been the second week after the hearing. Then even if they planned on entertaining this crap, she could have been added to next weeks hearing (No way am I taking somebody scheduled for next week out, it would be six nominees).
The basic issue is Dems need a plan for boycotts. I asked this question last year as to what can Dems do when there is a boycott as I fully expect them to start for judicial nominees by October, if not sooner. I’m ok with delaying Nursat so we can get the other nominees through without unified opposition & discharge votes for the rest of the year. But Dems need a plan because assuming Republicans are going to play nice the rest of the year is idiodic at best.
Grassley’s request is second worst only to senator Sullivan’s request that he wants a sit down interview with every 9th circuit nominee, even those not from Alaska. I almost coughed up a lung laughing when senator Hawley said that at a hearing last year.
Chowdhury should only be given a second hearing if when Manchin is asked about whether he will vote for her, he gives an ENTHUSIASTIC yes. I feel like when Manchin was asked about Build Back Better prior to the infrastructure bill, he may have given a half-hearted “yes” because he felt under pressure and wanted BIF passed.
Also, this is super unrelated, but I believe Dems have 2 chances to use budget reconciliation this year, given that 0 were used in 2020 and 1 in 2021. USE THEM. A COVID relief bill on Thursday failed 52-43, with 5 Republicans in favor. Surely having 5 Republicans in favor will make Manchin more comfortable using budget reconciliation?
If they want a second round I think they should get it. In return Democrats should get floor votes for Ho and Mathis.
I’m sure you know Biden was committee chair when Clinton was President. In fact, Cabranes was considered as a replacement to Justice Blackmun that went to Breyer. It was a few months later that Cabranes was nominated to the 2nd Circuit.
I think someone mentioned AOC for Senate. She has the sense to know better, She’s has not earned the right to run as a statewide . candidate. I really wish she would so she be out of the congress.
I wouldn’t under any circumstances have a second hearing just to avoid setting the precedent alone. What I would have considered is setting up a private conference call with her & any senator that wants to ask additional questions. If the Republicans sincerely just want to get their questions answered, then they could do so in that format. No audience, no cameras, no political stunts followed by a quick check of your Twitter account, just a video call. I would set the call for either a Friday, weekend or Monday before 3pm when the senate usually gavels in. This calls the Republicans bluff but either way it should be completed with plenty of time for her not to miss Thursday’s executive vote.
There’s no need to cut a deal for a vote on Ho or Mathis. Schumer can do that without Republican support. That is strictly a Schumer problem rooted in time due to a 3-day work week & possible push back from a Democrat senator or two but more of the former then the latter I believe.
Thank God Clinton went with Breyer & not Cabranes for the SCOTUS. That would have just been a disaster of a decision.
I actually think the threat of an AOC primary has pushed Schumer to the left. Despite a couple nominees from New York not as progressive as I would want, overall Schumer has done a phenomenal job recommending judges to Biden.
I know there are valid reasons to be upset with the pace of judicial nominees etc. but Durbin has never entertained Republicans on their crap before and there was never a reason to think they were going to do it with Choudhury.
She will be deadlocked, that much is certain but a far cry from the garbage some people seemed to think Democrats were going to allow to happen to her.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s outstanding news. I thought Durbin may fold or at least delay her vote. Great news. Sad to say but between him, Schumer & Biden, it’s Biden doing the worst job right now on judicial nominees. Anything short of a large batch in the next week will pretty much ensure he will remain behind the other two for the rest of the year. Sad after the great start he had.
Does anybody know why the senate is out this Monday? It’s not on their schedule they put out at the start of the year & I don’t believe it’s any federal holiday for Monday. But they are not back in session until Tuesday. If they are going to randomly reduce the week to a 2 & a half work day then we are in much worse shape then even I thought.
They are probably out for the weekend raising campaign money for the seats they hold. That’s part of the job.
Your answer is probably right. I wish it was wrong since they have every week Friday, Saturday & Sunday to do that but unfortunately your probably correct…smh
Off topic a bit…We all know in early Aug the senate usually takes its recess…..
But lookeee here, in 2018 (a midterm election year) Senate Republicans held a hearing on Aug 22 rather late in the month
Any chance Senate Democrats will keep senate in session most of Aug 2022
That’s not off topic at all. We have been saying Republicans will hold hearings on back to back weeks, vacation weeks, recess weeks & even after their president loses the election. Democrats absolutely needs to respond in kind. Your spot on with your analysis. Sadly I have more confidence in you if you were the SJC chairman then Durbin to hold at the very least ONE hearing during the 5 week recess (Let me not even commit blasphemy & suggest Schumer cancel one of the recess weeks).
But I will say I have had to give chairman Durbin some props twice in the past week so I hope I will end up being wrong on this. Of course nothing he does matter without nominees & the rate we are going there may not even be any nominees to hold hearings for in August…smh
And check out this one in the same month, nomination hearing for not five, but SEVEN nominees.
Then in Sept 2018 started the Kavanaugh hearings….
Somehow, Republicans always find time to confirm judicial nominees
SEVEN in one hearing. And we have had a hearing with THREE in it. At this point I just laugh to keep myself from crying
So are we assuming 2 panels next week–one CCA, the other Cartright, Wang, Hanes, Nardacci, and Reyes?
I would doubt that we would see that many nominees in one hearing, but we shall see next week.
What is going on with all these non-COVID illnesses with Dem senators?
Just goes to show that January 3, 2023 is the best case scenario for the expiration of the Democratic senate majority. With all these serious medical emergencies, Dems may lose the majority waaaay sooner. I don’t know what Shawn and others are smoking thinking that Dems are likely to hold the Senate. I try to never let wishful thinking or undue optimism get the better of me, it just leads to bitter disappointment. I’d rather be pleasantly surprised…
Take a look at the infamously split senate in the 83rd Congress (1953–1955) with see-sawing majority changes:
How’s that whiplash?
Speedy recovery to Sen. Sherrod Brown. And hopefully Biden can finally have a sense of urgency about judicial nominations.
“I don’t know what Shawn and others are smoking thinking that Dems are likely to hold the Senate.”
This is really uncalled for. You lay down a personal attack without giving any sort of an argument than your own personal negativity. The negativity at this site is almost becoming DKE level toxic.
Judge Roy Dalton from the Middle District of Florida has announced he is taking senior status on July 9th. He’s an Obama appointee. There will still be four Bush appointees on that same court after he leaves including one from GHW Bush. Just another example to show you the difference between Democrats versus Republicans when it comes to the age of their appointments.
I doubt this, or any of the Florida district court vacancies will be filled this year.
Sans Alaska and Idaho, I don’t see any district court vacancies with one or two Republican Senators being filled this year.
Biggest place that will be an issue is PA, where the Eastern District is dealing with crippling vacancies but Toomey isn’t budging.
Shows why blue slips for district court seats sucks but in the same breath, it did stop some really bad folks from getting on district court seats in blue states under Trump, including the seat Anne Nardacci will fill.
I know some on this site disagree with me but I truly hope none of the Pennsylvania district court seats get filled this year. Even though the midterms look grim for the Dems, I actually think they have a decent shot at flipping the Pennsylvania senate seat.
If they do & Dems some how good on to the senate, we won’t have to negotiate any of the seats & can get all 8 or so seats filled with Democrats instead of just 5 or 6.
I truly don’t believe Dr. Oz or the other guy that’s a 2020 election denier but all of a something wants to wait to count the mail in ballots now that he’s running & behind know any more then senator Toomey about judicial nominees. Therefore they will likely be getting their recommendations from the same organizations Toomey gets his from. So worse case scenario we just get the same deal next year we would get now. But the up side is HUGE if we flip the seat & hold the senate. So I for one am happy we have not seen any nominees yet. But let’s fill that remaining circuit court seat with Adriana Freedman part 2 as soon as possible please.
The gamble you take with not filling the PA district vacancies is losing the Senate. I fully agree that if the Democrats hold the Senate (which again I consider it a greater than 50% chance to hold it), most likely the PA Senate seat flips.
I think Oz is a likely loser. Even with Trump’s endorsement, I see him bleeding a considerable number of GOP base voters. Frankly even with the insane GOP nominee for Governor Doug Mastriano, I still see a non negligible number of Mastriano/Fetterman and Mastriano/blank voters in rural PA. I think Oz underperforms the GOP baseline by a considerable margin.
Yes if the political environment is bad enough for the Democrats, he could win. But in that circumstance, the Democrats would be losing a minimum of 2-3 seats anyway.
Beating McCormick is going to be considerably tougher. Still I see it likely in the scenario that the Democrats all their seats, PA would flip too.
We also need a nominee for the other PA vacancy, which would be a flip and make the 3rd Circuit equally split between Democratic and Republican nominees.
Pingback: The Unexpected Opportunity – Assessing the Landscape of Judicial Vacancies | The Vetting Room