Judge Camille Velez-Rive has served as a U.S. Magistrate Judge for nearly two decades. As such, she can be considered a fairly uncontroversial selection for a federal judgeship.
A Puerto Rico native, Camille Lizette Velez-Rive was born in San Juan on February 5, 1968. Velez-Rive received her B.A. from Washington University in St. Louis in 1989 and her J.D. from the University of Puerto Rico School of Law in 1993. After graduating, Velez-Rive clerked for Judge Francisco Rebollo Lopez of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico. She then joined Pietrantoni Mendez & Alvarez in San Juan as an Associate. In 1998, she became a federal prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Puerto Rico. She held that position until her appointment as a federal magistrate judge in 2004.
History of the Seat
Velez-Rive has been nominated for a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. This seat opened when Judge Francisco Besosa moved to senior status on January 1, 2022.
Velez-Rive started her legal career as a law clerk and then spent three years as an Associate in private practice. She then spent four years at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Puerto Rico, handling a wide variety of cases.
Notably, Velez-Rive handled a number of appellate matters before the First Circuit, defending the validity of convictions below. See, e.g., United States v. Hernandez-Albino, 177 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 1999) (affirming conviction for conspiracy to possess cocaine); United States v. Rivera, 171 F.3d 37 (1st Cir. 1999) (affirming denial of motion for new trial); United States v. Morillo, 158 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 1998) (reversing conviction for conspiracy for insufficiency of evidence); United States v. Hernandez, 146 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 1998) (challenging sufficiency of evidence for conviction for felon in possession). She also helped brief challenges to suppression motions on appeals from the district court. See, e.g., United States v. Acosta-Colon, 157 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 1998).
Velez-Rive later transitioned into handling civil cases, defending the federal government against claims brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). See, e.g., De Mangual v. United States, 131 F. Supp. 2d 263 (D.P.R. 2001). Notably, she successfully defended the federal government in a bench trial in a suit brought by a plaintiff who was injured by tripping on an uneven sidewalk. Sepulveda v. United States, 329 F. Supp. 2d 260 (D.P.R. 2004). She also, in that role, defended social security decisions. See, e.g., Cruz v. Barnhart, 265 F. Supp. 2d 173 (D.P.R. 2003); Chaparro v. Massanari, 190 F. Supp. 2d 260 (D.P.R. 2002).
Since 2004, Velez-Rive has served as a full-time U.S. Magistrate Judge with the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. As a magistrate judge, Velez-Rive wrote reports and recommendations for substantive rulings, handled pleas and arraignments, and reviewed warrant applications.
Among the most notable cases in which she issued recommendations, Velez-Rive’s recommendation to dismiss a political discrimination case against the Mayor of San German was adopted as time-barred. See Llantin-Ballester v. Negron-Irizarry, 353 F. Supp. 2d 206 (D.P.R. 2005). By contrast, Velez-Rive denied motions to dismiss in another political discrimination case, finding that the case should move forward. Torres-Heredia v. Lopez-Pena, 708 F. Supp. 2d 148 (D.P.R. 2008).
On the criminal side, Velez-Rive recommended that a defendant’s motion for a Franks hearing should be denied for failure to offer sufficient factual support. See United States v. Perez Velasquez, 488 F. Supp. 2d 82 (D.P.R. 2006). In another case, Judge Aida Delgado-Colon concurred with Velez-Rive’s recommendation to deny a motion to suppress, finding that the defendant had been validly stopped based on reasonable suspicion. See United States v. Garcia-Robledo, 488 F. Supp. 2d 50 (D.P.R. 2007).
Velez-Rive’s rulings have generally been upheld on appeal. For example, the First Circuit upheld her grant of judgment on the pleadings to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in a constitutional claim involving a farmer’s tax credit program. See Perez-Acevedo v. Rivero-Cubano, 520 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2008).
Nominations to the District of Puerto Rico have rarely brought the same degree of partisan fervor as those to other courts. Judge Velez-Rive’s nomination is unlikely to be any different. Given her extensive experience as a federal magistrate judge, she will likely get bipartisan support.
Sen Leahy needs hi surgery, no timetable for return…
There goes one to two months at least. I doubt many of the court of the appeal judges will be confirmed now.
Saw that news this morning too. Certainly wish him a speedy recovery.
Schumer should be able to continue moving forward on most nominees, however. Mathis and Freeman probably need to wait until all 50 senators are in town (or Cramer or another Rep is out) but Lee, Mendoza, Merriam, and Montecalvo all should get at least some combination of support from Collins/Murkowski/Graham and Childs should approach 60 total votes.
Absolutely, I hope he has a swift recovery….
He’s been in senate long enough to have voted for John Paul Stevens (his first Supreme Court vote) !
This nominee seems very qualified. I would have liked to see a younger & more progressive nominee but I understand Puerto Rico has a different dynamic when it comes to nominating district court judges. With that said, this nominee should be confirmed with resistive ease.
The Leahy news is another reminder of how thin our majority is and how annoying it is that we didn’t move on some nominees when we had everyone.
Here’s hoping Leahy has a swift recovery.
Looks like there’s a good amount of pressure being applied on Biden, Schumer and Durbin to speed things up. Hopefully it’s not too late.
Interesting to see every decision prediction in that letter turned out to be true. I wish the letter had been written 2 or 3 months earlier but I’ll take it. I’m particularly happy to see it addressed not only to Biden, but Schumer & Durbin too. Those two will need to break some norms or tradition to do what the letter is requesting unless they make an insane deal like the one we spoke about yesterday that was reported with McConnell to put an anti-abortion conservative on the bench.
I especially liked Chris Kang’s letter urging them to break from the traditions and norms of Senate procedure they’re so hung up on. All the committee hearing and floor time stuff we’ve been so annoyed by here. It’s time to fight fire with fire.
Senator Leahy kept an absolute blue slips rule in place. Senators Grassley & Graham ended blue slips for circuit court nominees.
Democrats confirmed Anthony Kennedy after the presidential primary election season started. McConnell didn’t even give Garland a hearing with 11 months left in Obama’s term. Then rammed through ACB in a month after votes had already started.
Democrats keep all norms & traditions in place for the SJC & floor votes… Republicans take back control of the senate & presidency then… Hmmmm, I wonder what I will write to finish that sentence off year as from now…smh
These people don’t know they are talking about. Get people to the polls and vote.This time not for republicans!
Let’s wish senator Leahy a speedy recovery.
Interesting article: https://ballsandstrikes.org/nominations/progressive-movement-judges-biden/.
I agree with some of its points (that Dems aren’t doing enough to confirm judges, obviously), and the Kentucky deal is definitely a sign of the Dems being “content to give away the bench to the other team” without a fight. That said, referring to Biden nominees as judges who “sit in solidarity with grassroots, liberationist social movements” and are “bold, radical abolitionists” seems counterproductive at best – especially when we have a 50-50 Senate (and maybe a 49-50 Senate for weeks because Leahy can’t seem to just retire right now already – hasn’t he already been hospitalized once this Congress?). I’d argue that labor lawyers and civil rights lawyers should be treated as just as “mainstream” as Big Law partners and AUSAs because their work prepares them equally well for the bench. I’m pretty sure the views of Sung, Perez, and others are more in line with the American people than that of Alito or Thomas for example, but I can’t imagine Manchin and Sinema being more inclined to vote for nominees that liberals ourselves are calling radical.
I think this is a wider issue with progressives where we push a maximalist message when it actually can be counterproductive. There’s certainly an argument for nudging the so-called “Overton window” to the left, but making Biden’s well-qualified, respected nominees out to be “radical abolitionists” hardly seems like the right way to get them confirmed now or at any point in the future. I’m just glad the author left out any pending nominees, as getting mentioned in an article like this would not help Dale Ho or Nusrat Choudhury’s chances.
I also hope that others on this site are right about our chances of keeping the Senate. I’ve just been burned too many times by Dems consistently underperforming polls in every election since 2012 (if not earlier) to believe polls anymore myself, but it would be a great thing to wake up to on November 9th. I agree with @Dequan’s comment on the other post that we can’t be taking anything for granted though, and Schumer should be using the remaining floor time during this Senate to get through as many judges as possible (and not making deals to appoint more Fed Soc hacks).
We got our butts kicked this week because “progressives” didn’t vote or went for Trump. Talk is cheap. The messaging needs to be left to candidates. That defund the police crap nearly killed us/
I think the Senate candidates are very good. Fetterman has an Oz ad that is hilarious. Then you running back Herschel Walker he’s an awful candidate with a personality disorder.
This is good opportunity so I hope these folks don’t ruin with infighting or turning on the people we elected.
My stomach still turns when I hear the phrase defund the police. Total unforced error. I swear for us having most of Hollywood backing us we seem to be horrible at messaging.
So I don’t agree with his definition of “movement lawyer” or “movement judge”. Carleton Reeves is by no means in that category. He is a good solid progressive judge for sure, but I wouldn’t put him in the same category when he was nominated as Myrna Perez, Jennifer Sung, Holly Thomas, Dale Ho, Nursat Choudhury, etc. Neither is KBJ.
I’m not even sure I would put Reeves in the same category as some party activist corporate law or AUSA nominees like Brad Garcia and Roopali Desai. But frankly neither Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito were “movement lawyers” for the right when appointed to the Circuit Court, they would probably be closer to Reeves, Desai, or Garcia.
And you don’t need to go far as far as names of “movement lawyers” either, we’ve been discussing them here for a while.
Yes, what I said is true. To allow governors , members of congress or other elected officials is a “courtesy” not a right. For the DC vacancies Eleanor Holmes Norton a non voting member of the House used to present nominees. The same courtesy has been extended to states without a senator in the majority party.
The democrats grasp on the senate is tenuous enough. McConnell isn’t just another senator. I know that you know that. Let’s keep the lines of communication open so we can get people confirmed. In the meantime democrats have every right to hold any GOP nominees feet to the fire. The SJC democrats are very week. Cory Booker has the demeanor of my Labradoodle.
I’m fine with keeping the lines of communication open & even with deals. But there simply isn’t a comparable deal to this that benefits the left. When I look at the Democrats Trump out on the bench, none argued in federal court on behalf of Planned Parenthood. Hell I doubt any even clerked, filed paperwork or even took out the trash for them. To put this guy on the bench has no equal in modern time from a Republican president.
The district court he would be on has all GW Bush & Trump appointees. Yet the one Biden judge would be the best out of them all if your a conservative.
I would ask anybody that’s ok with this deal & advocates for the same principles I do this. What if instead of this guy, McConnell said he wanted to put a guy who is openly a member of the Klu Klux Klan on the bench instead. Let’s say the guy graduated from Harvard, got a masters in law degree, never been in trouble with the law but just is a member of the KKK. Let’s even throw in that he is already 65 years old & probably will not serve for more then 15 years or so. Then let’s throw in to sweeten the deal that in exchange, the Republicans will allow every single federal judge from now until the midterms that President Biden nominated come up for a vote. Would you except that deal? If the answer is no then I would ask why not? If your answer is because a member of the KKK, no matter who the senator that recommended him is & no matter how smart & capable he is, is not acceptable, then I would agree. You clearly have principles you won’t compromise even when the deal is extremely sweet & a win for you.
Now I would respond that less then a week after Roe has been over turned, an openly anti-abortion lawyer is not an acceptable nominee from President Biden. When you throw in this guy is 41 years old & will most likely serve for many decades to come & all we get in return is two US Attorney’s that will probably not we’ve past the next administration, I will tell you that my principles won’t be compromised & this is an unacceptable & indefensible pick.
I would rather the seat go vacant & let the acting US Attorney’s be in the role before I give my consent for anybody like that to be put on the federal bench by a Democrat president, particularly in a time like now.
We don’t have a Senator for Kentucky anymore. I remember the last one Wendell Ford but that was over 20 years ago. I also remember Robert Byrd who was at one point in his life a member of the KKK. That was in his past, He was an effective senator.
We are not gonna have any court nominees in the near future. The guy running against Rand Paul doesn’t have any sense. Why would you trash the president in your own party? He’s immature. To get 2 us attorneys in Kentucky can be helpful for future political office.
I place a higher premium on those us attorneys over one judge. A us attorney can choose and bring cases a judge cannot. It’s a popular but unreasonable notion that judges are crusaders in robes. If you have PACER or are near a District Court look at the docket you won’t see cases that are political in nature.
At first blush I don’t care for this guy McConnell is trying to “make.”
However, historically senators and presidents of both parties have made deals like this. It’s not new!
If somebody came to the USA for the first time & asked me to explain the difference between Democrats & Republicans when it comes to the judiciary, I would tell them this…
The leader of the minority Republican party in the senate is working on a deal to put a 40-year-old, anti-abortion, conservative member of The Federalist Society in a lifetime district court seat that isn’t even vacant yet.
Meanwhile the Democrat president that has a majority in the senate still doesn’t have a nominee for 9 circuit court seats & 35 district court seats that are not in states that have a Republican senator where they can block a nominee with blue slips. And that same majority party has another 8 circuit court nominees that could be voted on at any time.
That pretty much sums up the difference between the two parties in a nutshell.
You should tell them to look at us history (presidents)the last 60 years .All presidents have done this. There’s not enough floor time confirm the nominees that are already there.
You can;t confirm anyone now on a party line vote. The people are complaining now can’t be bothered to vote in off election years.
The difference with the parties is that republicans vote in all elections, The congressional republicans will do whatever their president tells hem to do. They treat that person as their leader,
They had a president who endeavored to lead thugs armed with AR-15’s into the capital building to change the outcome of the election. How come people care little about that?
I actually think people do care about how horrible Trump was. I saw an article yesterday actually saying mega donors believe Trump may be the worst candidate for 2024. I think the reason why we have a president Biden,
Speaker Pelosi & Leader Schumer is because of how bad he was.
But that doesn’t eliminate the need to surpass what Republicans did to the judiciary. I just don’t buy there is not enough floor time to fill every vacancy. There isn’t enough floor time when you work 3 days a week & take 2 weeks off for a one day holiday. That is the truth. We need Democrats to get serious & deliver on things completely in their control. Most vacant seats on the federal judiciary is one of those things. Thank God that’s one of the few things all 50 Dems have not wavered on. Time to put the pedal all the way down & go full speed ahead.
The only thing that Trump did well was on judges, He didn’t attempt to fully staff the State Department , EPA, Dept Of Education,Dept of Labor, Dept Of Agriculture, EEOC and others. Sure there was plenty of time to do judges, That;s pretty much all they did, There are departments that are shells of their former selves,
Just to reiterate the rank and file demorcrats and the so called “progressives” didn’t care about judges until Hobbs was handed down last week. Your’re an honest guy with a decent memory. How did democrats(not the senators) react when republicans refused
to give Merrick Garland a hearing ? He was white man over 50 so they didn’t care!
You don’t need to be in session to work on nominees. Okay you think people are going to be on floor 24/7 for cloture and roll call votes on all nominations? I would like these folks who like to complain sit down and watch this process unfold c-span all day.
Roe is gone folks you have to get over it. No one wants to admit their role in voting for Trump,Stein and Nader et al. It’s your fault not Biden, Schumer or Pelosi.
Since Leahy is out it’s going to be out it will be difficult to get business of any consequence done on the Senate floor. One judge from Kentucky isn’t worth shutting the Senate down.
I think looking at the upside of the McConnell deal is clear. We presumably get most of our judicial nominees confirmed much quicker & easier. And all it will cost us is one district court seat which happens in every administration.
I am looking at the downside. There are voters like myself who will vote Democrat no matter what right now because the alternative is not a viable option for our country. I am not the voter you have to worry about with a deal like this. Like it or not but there are voters who even before this deal were saying what’s the point to vote for Democrats if once you wait in line for 5 hours to vote, drive your friends & family to the polls, all during a global pandemic, they get into power & still don’t pass criminal justice reform, cancel student debt or protect a woman’s right to chose. You, myself & probably most of the people that participate on this site understand the filibuster, the disproportionate disadvantage Democrats have in the senate, blue slips & other barriers that prevent the things I mentioned from happening but a lot of people that voted for Joe Biden either don’t understand or don’t care about those obstacles. They are frustrated, mad, pissed & not pleased with the results of what they are getting for their vote. Then they go to the gas station & have to pay $5 a gallon for gas. Then they drive that car to the grocery store & pay 30% more for the groceries they bought a couple of years ago despite them having the same salary. Then they go to a home where their rent has increased substantially over that same time period.
Now as frustrated as that voter is, the Roe reversal made them willing to put that anger aside & get fired up once again to stand in that 5 hour line to vote for Democrats once again because they are the only party you can trust to protect a woman’s right to chose. If that voter wakes up a few months or even weeks before the election, picks up a newspaper or turns on their tv & sees president Biden just nominated a 40 year old, white male, anti- abortion, hard right conservative, Federalist Society nominee for a life time appointment to a federal judgeship, I just don’t have the same confidence that you have in that voter still waiting in that 5 hour line to vote for Democrats. I don’t have the same confidence you have in that voter understanding why this party is worth my vote when this is the kind of judge they are going to nominate.
Does it take a lot of time to confirm federal judges, especially to the circuit courts? Hell yes it does. Does it make it much harder to tell Mitch McConnell to take his deal & go screw himself & still confirm judges? Yes it does. But that’s the point. We are asking voters to cast aside their frustrations they have with things they were promised not getting done to still come out & re-elect Democrats. If the way you ask is by working 3 days a week, taking 2 weeks off to celebrate one day holidays & nominating 40 year old anti-abortion white men, I’m afraid when I go to the polls to vote for every Democrat on my ballot this November, there will be a lot less of those frustrated people that voted for Joe Biden in 2020 in line with me. But don’t worry about me being lonely. Almost every one of the people that voted for Trump will still be in that line to keep me company.
@Kevin in hindsight Obama probably should have nominated KBJ or another black woman to the Scalia seat. They wouldn’t have been confirmed either but perhaps it would’ve activated independents and the base a little bit more to vote in 2016.
That’s what James Clyburn said several weeks ago. If Obama had chose someone different it would have helped HRC in 2016.
Hindsight is 20-20, These progressives give up quickly. They ghosted Obama and congressional democrats in 2010. So, how could have he known that another nominee would have made a difference?
No one suspected that McConnell would do what he did with Merrick Garland. They stole a seat and people still sat out.
Also, even with Leahy out Schumer should still be able to hold votes on Childs, Lee, Mendoza, Merriam, Montecalvo, and most of the district nominees. Graham voted all of them out of committee and Collins and Murkowski should be yes votes as well.
Freeman, Mathis, Vera, and Clark might have to wait but no reason Schumer can’t at least get the ball rolling.
LikeLiked by 1 person
More on that Kentucky vacancy….
Even if Biden nominates that conservative, doesn’t mean Sen Schumer has to bring him to the floor for a vote…
I actually think Biden nominating him & Schumer not bringing him to the floor for a vote makes it worse. If Republicans win back the senate, McConnell will say Democrats lied & use that as justification for not allowing any judges not approved by virtually every Republican to get a vote. Plus there’s no guarantee just the nomination alone doesn’t lose Democrats votes in the midterms plus make Biden look weak.
I actually think this is a perfect opportunity for Democrats. Biden can reject the deal, nominate some Kentucky Planned Parenthood general counsel type instead. When McConnell fumes & obviously doesn’t turn in his blue slip, you get two wins out of it. For one, you use the nominee as a national campaign rallying cry that if you elect two more Democrats, that is the type of federal judges you Biden can nominate with the increased majority. And two, Rand Paul’s opponent can also use it as a rallying cry in his campaign that if you elect a senator Booker, this kind of obstruction will stop in Kentucky.
Like I truly don’t understand why these guys don’t think rallying their base in an mid term year is important, especially when there are so many other things they can’t pass to rally the base. Trump stuck with Bret Kavanaugh under worse circumstances then if Biden did what I suggested & he gained 3 senate seats in the midterms. People like politicians with convictions & principles. This is a great opportunity for Biden to stand up to McConnell at the perfect time. I’m not a lawyer or a political strategist. They, not me should be thinking this way… Lol
I would have to see the deal first, but if we can get a bunch of young progressive district court judges in red states and get some help in the SJC then I think it’s probably fine. The bad news cycle didn’t help though.
It appears the deal is that Biden will get to nominate 2 attorneys from KY in exchange for the anti-abortion judge getting confirmed.
Yeah then that’s a no for me. If we were getting some progressive judges in the rest of the south I’d be all for it
Imagine this scenario, the anti abortion KY nominee gets to the senate floor and the vote is 50-50 with Manchin voting AYE, and Collins voting NO….What a situation VP Harris would be in, does she vote AYE on the nominee or sink it?
In that scenario I’m sure VP Harris would vote to confirm in a tie breaking vote. But I don’t see it getting to that point. More then likely at least 3 Dems would vote to confirm.
Here are the details of the deal: Biden gets to nominate 2 attorneys in exchange for the anti-abortion judge.
Biden was correct when he said nothing will fundamentally change
Wait, WHAT??? I thought the deal was going to be this one judge in exchange for no more blocking of any currently announced federal judicial nominees. I was still against that deal but could at least understand the consideration of it.
But if the deal is one lifetime appointed 41 year old, ultra conservative, anti-abortion, Federalist Society federal judge in exchange for two US Attorney’s that can be replaced on day one of the next president, you have got to be fucking kidding me. That deal would be grounds to go on record & not support Biden for re-election. It’s that serious of a disastrous deal. It’s indefensible. Like I can’t even wrap my mind around that being the deal. It would be the absolute worst decision to date Biden has made as president if he goes through with that deal.
LikeLiked by 2 people
To be frank, these deals will happen during any administration. The fact that the judicial pick is specifically known for being anti-abortion is the only reason that the deal is a bad idea in terms of helping to rally the base in the wake of the Dobbs decision.
It’s a horrible deal and deserves an F-. Still not as bad as the appointment of J. Michelle Childs. Frankly appointing Meredith for free would still be not nearly as bad as putting a center-right nominee to the DC Circuit.
Things like this are why so many progressives disapprove of Biden and the Democratic leadership, and refuse to vote for Democrats. As I’ve said many times, I would rather be stabbed in the front by Clarence Thomas and be stabbed in the back by these kinds of party leaders.
These party leaders lost multiple elections because they spit on progressives and they still do not learn. The GOP wins because they understand one very clear lesson, don’t spit on your base. Even when they lost 5 Senate seats due to extreme candidates in 2010/2012, they still understood that the path to winning was to keep your base happy and not spit on them. And even if they lose several more seats this year due to extreme candidates, they still will still retain that principle. I admire that.
No it would be a bad deal even if the proposed judge was not an anti-choice extremist. Trading a judge for two US attorneys is a horrible deal without something else useful as well.
2 US attorneys ?, not even judges……You have got to be #$%$# kidding…And on top of that the controversial judge is controversial because of ABORTION……If it was a run of mill conservative judge perhaps conservative on corporate or criminal law that would be one thing…..But ABORTION, given how this issue can be a big winner for Democrats in Nov….You don’t make a deal for an anti abortion judge even in normal times, let alone a week after Roe is overturned…
This deal is an F-
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s funny that this article mentions Michael Bogren but doesn’t realize that was the Republican part of the deal. Republicans (or really Hawley) tanked their own nominee
What an insult to every democratic voter and a slap in the face, a lifetime appointment for a federalist society hack isnt worth us attorneys who stay for four year terms. Its pathetic.
Its like they wont to lose intentionally, how else do you explain this negligence or incompetence, if i did not know better i would say its sabotage.They let the clock run out because they chose to do so, they have yet to nominate anyone to the open kansas seat for over a year and the fifth circuit vacancy, they are the worst leaders for this time, biden should not run for re election. His incompetence is astounding.
Well, those seats are in states with 2 Republican senators and this administration wants to negotiate in good faith before selecting a nominee, even without blue slips (and there is definitely a want from Biden to go back to having blue slips on the circuit courts, so having anyone confirmed who doesn’t have the support of the Republican senators in red states should be seen as a huge victory by the progressive legal community).
This is just nonsense. Its better for a district court seat in a red state to be vacant for 4 years or more if biden wins re election, than for a 40 year old federalist society hack to be confirmed using democrats already valuable senate floor time, its nothing short of a disgrace. Whats so shameful , is its only for U.S attorneys who will get fired the very second a GOP president gets in.
Biden shouldnt run for re election, i strongly support a primary challenge. He should be disgraced like jimmy carter, his chances of re election where already abysmal let this put a dagger in it.
Again just because a troll may express sentiments you agree with doesn’t mean we are not dealing with a troll.
This is an obvious troll.
Like I said before this is nothing new. Brashear and Yarmouth technically don’t have a right to present prospective nominees to the senate. If you want to have a voice in the senate then run for the office. I would take the deal . Having two us attorneys of own choosing is very important in a red state.
It doesn’t make any sense to say that democrats are trying to lose intentionally. The only people who have done that are “progressives” who voted for Trump, Sanders,” Stein and Nader. Or who sat out of those elections. Having blown opportunities in previous elections these “progressives” rise to bark like junkyard dogs at each and every adminstration policy decision.
You say that Biden shouldn’t run again? Ok, give us a name of a viable candidate. I’ll have voluntarily remove California Gov Gavin Newsome because you won’t like him either. You’re not gonna find the perfect President because no such person exists.The “progressive” left is totally clueless.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually the first paragraph is not entirely true. It was actually pretty common for states with two senators of the opposite party to have other state elected officials present potential nominees. I can think of it happening during the Obama administration in Kentucky then as well as Alabama for instance. And even during this administration, Rep. Deborah Wasserman Schultz formed a commission & released a handful of Southern district court nominees for two vacancies.
But that’s not the point. A reasonable Republican is fine to consider in exchange for the right deal. An ultra far right conservative like this should not be considered for any deal, let alone for two US Attorney’s. I hope he suffers the same initial fate David Porter did when senator Toomey tried to pass him off for a district court nominee during the Obama administration.
LikeLiked by 2 people
As a “progressive” who did vote for Biden, Clinton, and Obama (twice) but is experiencing disenchantment with the continued failures of the Democratic Party to get its shit together… the open disdain and condescension people like you spew at anyone to the left of Kyrsten Sinema only exacerbates my irritation.
I don’t care for Manchin and Sinema. I never tsaid that I did. It doesn’t matter how far left you are if you can’t get elected in your own right. That’s my point .The people out there “progressives” talk alot shyt but can’t get elected to anything.
We had the wind on our backs in 2020 but dumbass “progressives” came out with “defund the police.” They are responsible for the predicament that we are in. They are like pidgeons that crap all over your car and fly away.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Defund the Police” is a misunderstood concept and should probably have a different name since it doesn’t actually defund the police.
This is the exact point. These party line jihadists like Kevin Collins or DKE’s filthy scumbag pademocrat who spit on progressives are the ones who are losing the Democrats these elections. The fact is that most progressives consider themselves independents because they believe that the Democratic Party is basically run by these neoliberal trash. And if you insult and spit on people, don’t be surprised when they refuse to vote for you. Democratic Party leaders keep losing and still never seem to learn their lesson.
I would rather be stabbed in the front vote for Clarence Thomas than stabbed in the back by these kinds of people. As I’ve said before and will say again, I would vote for Clarence Thomas over Kevin Collins, pademocrat, or anyone else who engages in left-bashing.
More “dumbass” name-calling, sneering, and blaming. If centrists did less of that garbage and more outreach to find and implement common goals, maybe progressives would be more inclined to work together at the ballot box and beyond. That’s MY point.
lol back atcha. Can’t make a point without an ad hominem attack. So mature.
I make no apologies about what I believe. I don’t have a problem with most republicans over the years that I have encountered. The republican party of today that some on here admire is a cult of Trump. There’s nothing about them that any person with any sense or values should respect.
If this nomination is made I can’t wait to hear if the “horrible” Michelle Childs loses her title. The people who are complaining about Biden aren’t democrats. The “real ” democrats are people who stuck with party through three consecutive terms of republican presidents.
When we finally find people who can win we get people like these “progressives” who turn on us after we win. It’s maddening. People not voting but complaining and blaming.
The GOP treats its base respect ? They don’t have platform anymore. The GOP is party of wanna be dictators.That’s all that I perceive of them.
Bingo. Every major presidential candidate in this era will face opposition from at least one wing of the party.
Honestly I think Kevin Collins is basically here just to pick a fight, not to comment or argue in good faith. I always see this user show up to prop up bad decisions by Democratic leadership or to prop up and defend horrible nominees like J. Michelle Childs and Florence Pan. And not much outside of it.
Regarding your general point, take a look at how the GOP treats its base with respect, even if they have to squirm inside to do so. There’s a lot to learn there.
For the life of me I can’t imagine two Wednesday’s from now getting up from my bed, going to The White House website, seeing an announcement Biden has released his 21st batch of nominees & getting all excited. Then opening up the link & seeing some left of center circuit court nominee from New Hampshire in their 50’s, some state judges for the district court with no progressive background whatsoever for the district courts in California, the 3 New York district court nominees that Schumer recommended which are all bland & then look all the way down & see a 41 year old, anti- abortion Federalist Society nominee for a seat that just opened up 12 days earlier. My God we can’t be this bad, we just can’t be…smh
The GOP made similar deals with Democrats regarding judges during the Trump administration (which is why Trump nominated several Obama nominees right out of the gate from his first batches of nominees or nominated plain Democrats for several blue state district court seats), and while you can argue that the deal today is worse than those other ones since the Democrats don’t get a lifetime appointment in return (and even I might make that argument), there has to be some give and take with these seats in Republican held states if you want to fill vacancies, just has existed in administrations of previous presidents. While we don’t know everything else in the deal besides the judgeship nominee and the attorney seats, the Democrats may have the option of leaving the confirmation to the last minute and only confirming the nominee on the floor at the end of this Congress without reneging on the deal at all (especially if the Senate Democrats are lame ducks, and while I know you differ on that, that is a possibility) in return for getting to confirm unprocessed nominees in blue states, perhaps without even a cloture vote, before the Congress ends in January 2023.
I know there has been criticism regarding long waits for certain blue state district court seats, but without knowing the details of the nominations processes for each of them, I can’t criticize Biden not having nominated anyone from any of them.
So if part of the deal was to speed up other blue state nominees allowing more such nominees to be confirmed than otherwise, then this deal becomes far more palatable. However, there is no indication that it is part of the deal, and there is no guarantee that McConnell would actually abide by that, whether through being disingenuous or simply incapable on delivering (i.e. Cruz and Hawley refuse to go along with voice votes).
I want to make it very clear again, Chad Meredith would be the second worst nominee that Joe Biden puts on the federal bench. The worst is still J. Michelle Childs, given that it is to the DC Circuit. Which Meredith is objectively a far worse nominee than Childs, it is also to a district court, not the second highest court in the land.
I completely disagree with that. J Childs is a horrible nominee for several reasons. But even still I don’t see her voting record ending up being much different then KBJ on the DC circuit at the end of the day. There were many better options then her & certainty much younger but she is a black woman that even people on this site disagree on if she’s a good or bad pick, let alone the worst.
Chad Meredith is a 41 year old ultra conservative, anti-abortion advocate that will lose Democrats votes if he is confirmed. As many things that you can criticize Biden on since taking office, I have never seen so many Democrats as upset as they are over this potential pick as I have in the past 48 hours, myself included. There are some loyal supporters on Twitter & other sites openly calling for the 25th amendment to be invoked if this nomination is made. This nomination has the potential to lose votes which in a 50/50 senate with numerous close senate faces up for grabs this November has the potential to cost us a senate seat or two in an election decided by less then 1%.
I personally don’t even think J Childs is the worst nominee so far but I can at least accept the argument he is worst then Christine O’Hearn. But it simply isn’t even close. Chad Meredith would be the worst nominee by Biden by far & will lead to votes lost because of it.
I think Childs will be slightly more conservative than KBJ on several issues if you care about that above all else, but she is still a exceptionally well qualified nominee who won’t let politics get in the way of the job.
I just strongly disagree that Childs will be anywhere near as progressive as KBJ. I see her as something close to Roberts or Kennedy in ideology given her past record.
And Dequan, I’m talking only about the judicial selection alone, not the politics. The politics of this selection is pretty terrible on its own.
If you’re talking strictly ONLY about the nomination & not taking anything else such as politics into account, then I would probably agree with you Childs is the worst Biden nominee so far. I mean, it’s hard to argue a horrible nominee on the second highest court in the land isn’t worst then a horrible district court nominee.
But it’s hard for me to separate all other issues with a nominee, which is probably why I put J Childs second worst (Soon to be third worst if Chad Meredith is nominated).
As for what could get me to agree to the Chad Meredith deal, this is like me defending J Childs because it’s so hard for me to give any reason to say I would agree to this but let me try.
If the deal was speed votes like the one December 16th last year for all remaining nominees, no SJC boycotts from now through the end of the calendar year regardless of the midterm results & Chad Meredith being the absolute last nominee to be confirmed in December right before the end of the congress to make sure all terms of the agreement were met, I would probably support that deal. I still don’t know how McConnell could deliver that deal because all it takes is any one senator to deny consent & fast tracking of nominees. But I would guarantee a VP Harris tie breaking vote on Chad Meredith as long as Mitch can deliver all of his 50 senators.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Disagree with this although I at least see where you are coming from. This is the worst nominee if you are a Democrat (or even an independent) since he adds no new perspectives to the court he is to be nominated on, and is a member of the Federalist Society. While Childs is being nominated to the D.C. Circuit and that is a more important court in the federal judiciary, Meredith is only in his early 40s if I heard correctly which will make him a prime candidate for a promotion to a circuit court and even SCOTUS seat under future Republican administrations, especially considering who is backing him.
This argument would be more relevant if (a) Trump had not already filled the three Kentucky seats on the 6th Circuit with fairly young nominees and (b) Mitch McConnell were not 80 years old.
The former is one reason why Justin Walker was selected to the DC Circuit, there is no way for him to advance in the judiciary. Unless Amul Thapar is picked for SCOTUS soon, the earliest a seat opens up is 2031. And Thapar would be 56 in 2025, which would be the earliest he could be nominated. I have my doubts that Thapar will be nominated at 56 or older.
McConnell is more likely than not serving his last term in the Senate, and if the GOP doesn’t win back the Senate in 2022 I suspect he won’t even finish his term (now that his replacement would be picked by the state GOP).
At least with Chad Meredith we get explanation based on positions on issues where he was involved. On the other hand, with Judge Childs’ all we get is a job she had earlier in her career.
You have a federal judge with 12 years on the bench and no one can find one litigant who had a legitimate complaint.
This over emphasis on age is despicable. You have people openly
discussing that women over 50 are too old. These sentiments are sexist if not misogynistic.
Do some of you not know that women’s careers in law are effected by having children? How people can be so insensitive is beyond me. Even KBJ said she felt guilty by not be able to attend all of her daughter’s events but that they still encouraged her. That’s a real human being that’s the type of person that I would want as a judge,
You are the only person who has brought gender into the age discussion. Commenters here said Gustavo Gelpi and John Lee were too old as well. Disagree on age considerations, fine, but there is absolutely no need to make up disingenuous claims of sexism to bolster your point.
Maybe no one else cares or notices. This age thing has “disparate impact” on women. Please consider this when age of nominees in bandied about.
Let me help you out… Gustavo Gelpí, John Lee & Jerry Blackwell are all too old too. I didn’t include Charles Flemmings because he’s a district court nominee from a purple state where blue slips are in play so him being so progressive is acceptable to make up for the age factor.
I didn’t include Hector Gonzalez because he is also very progressive & also I have given deference to Obama nominees that were not given a vote when nominated back then. Also I didn’t include William Pocan because his blue slips will not be turned in.
I don’t think emphasizing youth & nominees in their 40’s or even late 30’s over nominees in their 50’s & 60’s is sentiments of sexist if not misogynistic. Especially when you do it equally to nominees who are men & women.
We can pretend she doesn’t matter all we want but these are lifetime positions. Clarence Thomas just put reversing decades old precedent protecting LGBT rights & the right to contraceptives in a concurring opinion that itself reversed Roe. He was confirmed in 1991. Two justices that got put on the court AFTER him have already retired.
I can’t say this enough. AGE MATTERS when it comes to the federal judiciary. Republicans know this. Conservatives know this. They are winning. They will be winning for years to come. I am sure there are plenty if 60 year old lawyers that would make great federal judges but I’m sorry, we need to find something else for them. I fight discrimination in all forms except in this case. Yes I discriminate when it comes to age & the federal judiciary. I’m tired of losing but I damn sure don’t want the next generation to still be losing decades from now as well.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Unlike you, I don’t think these agist attacks by several posters here have anything to do with gender, rather they simply see Trump nominating a bunch of unqualified 30s and 40s candidates and want Biden to do the same thing. If the younger candidate for any seat is more qualified, then by all means that person should be the nominee. Biden won’t choose a younger nominee just because they are younger, and that is a good thing in my opinion.
Also, even though Beth Robinson is older than 2 of the 3 men I just named as being too old, I still defended her pick. Feel free to look back at multiple post on this site over the past year in which I have said she was probably the best person for the 2nd (Vermont) seat despite me looking for youth.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Again I think Kevin Collins just here to pick a fight, not to have any real discussion or debate.
They asked whether “the horrible Michelle Childs loses her title”, and I gave an answer. If you don’t like it, well tough shit. I don’t think anything he says is really worthy of a response any longer.
We’re just talking here. I don’t care that you don’t care, However , I am completely satisfied my the nominees from Biden. They are choosing the kind of people I would so I am good,
LikeLiked by 1 person
I simply have a different definition of “more qualified” than you do. For me, legal background and ideology factor much more into that definition than simply years of experience. For example, I personally think many law professors are by far the most qualified for appellate court positions because they do the type of research that comes up often for these cases rather than simply advocacy.
Kevin Collins is grasping for straws in defense of center-right judge J. Michelle Childs. They have engaged in a great deal of outright racial baiting here, suggesting that I “take off my hood” along with other disgusting comments. Now they are moving to this kind of bogus claims of sexism.
It also ignores the outright fact that there is no shortage of high quality progressive and younger women that could have been nominated to that seat. One is DC District Court judge Jia Cobb.
Yes, as one of the very few women who visit this comment section on a semi-regular basis, it’s a true joy to have sexism explained to me by a man who is unaware that “disparate” and “disproportionate” mean different things.
You are very clever. What I said was correct and appropriate. In the legal context you obviously don’t know the difference.
I guess I learned a new legal term today. Not a lawyer here. At least there’s that!
Very well, then: a man who earlier today said we need to “get over” Roe.
I’m not a lawyer either. I never said that I was.
You are a “progressive:” and don’t know what the concept of “disparate impact” means?
You can google it and learn something about people who belong to protected classes .
I did look it up; that is why I said I “learned.” I was familiar with the concept in general but not with the usage of that specific terminology to describe it. So thanks for that single useful contribution you made to my day, dripping though it may have been in your usual contempt for anyone with the audacity to disagree with you.
I don’t have a
I don’t have a problem with people who disagree me. This is virtual a community not a workplace.
Chad Meredith should not be given a hearing until 2023. If the GOP does take the Senate, that would make Meredith one of the only Biden judges in 2023-24. Fortunately, at the rate senate is currently going, the chances that Meredith gets confirmed before the end of the year are close to 0.
A deal is a deal. Give the man a hearing and ask all of the questions you want and withhold your vote if you are not pleased with the answers. Then, we can move on to other nominees before the next election.
A deal is not a deal until he is nominated. Before then it’s just negotiations. Besides McConnell once said he couldn’t give a hearing to Merrick Garland because it was a presidential year with 11 months left in Obama’s term. Then 4 years later he proceeded to expedite ACB even though early voting had already begun for the 2020 presidential election. So he of all people should understand a change of heart.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Let’s not get into Semantics. Biden has agreed to do it. The actual nomination has not yet been sent to the Senate. We wouldn’t be discussing it if it weren’t so.
Everyone on here knows about what happened to Merrick Garland. What. I have said about Garland is that many “progressives” were less than satisfied with his nomination. When the Republicans stonewalled his nomination they sat on their hands/
At that point it wouldn’t have mattered but then these same “progressives” voted for Trump and Stein instead of HRQ.
So, now we are stuck with Neil Gorsuch for God knows how long, It’s maddening.
There’s no Semantics here. The White House Counsel’s office discussed perspective nominees for various positions all the time. Until the nomination is made it’s not official. Judge Michael Kanne announced he was going to step down with an agreement as to who his successor was. Trump didn’t nominate that person so he backed out of his retirement. This type of thing happens in every administration.
Just like you can say every administration works out deals with senators from the other party, that’s just as frequent as names agreed to at one point or another not ending up being the eventual nominee.
What’s the worst Mitch McConnell will do once the nomination is not announced nor agrees to, force a cloture vote on every nominee. He already does that. Mitch literally has no leverage here. He took his ball & went home years ago when it comes to bi-partisanship. Biden needs to worry about his base. Nominating a 41 year old anti-abortion, right wing, Federalist Society conservative will lose Democrats votes. Screw McConnell & this so called “deal”. Leave the district court seat & two US Attorney’s vacant for all I can’t but he can not make this nomination.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t think the arrangement with Trump and Kanne involved a senator. This deal is different because it involves McConnell and he is the minority leader in a 50-50 senate. I’ve seen several different articles that suggest that the Governor and the Dems sole rep were informed of Biden’s intent to nominate Meredith.
I’ve said this many times before it’s not unusual for a President to make a deal like this. I believe Bill Clinton did the same with Barbara Durham to the 9th Circuit and Ted Stewart for the District of Utah.
I think nominees are safe to say they didn’t like Roe and will follow Hobbs. From now on Roe cannot be used as a “Sword of Damocles” on prospective nominees. The previous confirmed nominees were forced to say that they would follow Supreme Court precedent. There’s not much they can do now.
I personally dislike McConnell more than you. The only way to get to him is through the ballot box. There are several members of the Republican conference who don’t care for him either.
At the end of the day, I am inclined to go along with the “deal” I have seen them before. There are 870 authorized federal judges. I will not quibble over one or two judges who I don’t approve of.
If more people vote we can lessen the need horse trade for undesirable nominees.
I actually agree with you, this deal is different. You can’t find a Republican president that nominated a lawyer who argued for Planned Parenthood or any other pro choice group to the federal bench. There were 870 authorized judges when Trump & GW Bush were in office. They could have just let one slip away & do the counter of what is being asked of Biden but they didn’t.
Let me ask you this… Do you think, even for one minute Mitch McConnell would reverse the deal & go through with it? Do you think he would let Biden nominate the Kentucky legal counsel for Planed Parenthood in exchange for McConnell picking anybody he wants for the US Attorney’s? I mean ANYBODY. He could pick John Eastman & Michael Flynn if he wanted. McConnell would probably pass out from laughing if you offered him that deal.
So yes it’s worth it to quibble over one or two judges because Mitch McConnell damn sure would & guess what… HE’S WINNING.
As for your last sentence “If more people vote we can lessen the need horse trade for undesirable nominees.”, I 1000% agree with you there. That’s even more of a reason NOT to do this deal. This deal will lose Democrats votes. Like that’s not hyperbole. I mean there are people that would have voted for Democrats the day Dobbs was released that will not vote for them if this judge is nominated. And I don’t mean people like us on this site that follow the judiciary closely. I mean people that probably can’t even name all nine SCOTUS justices. This has been on news shows & in news articles that almost never speak about the judiciary except for a SCOTUS decision or vacancy. It’s that big of an issue.
Believe me, I am not against deals. I have said on this site I think J Childs is a horrible nominee for the DC Circuit & I would vote NO on her confirmation if I was in the senate. But if she was nominated to the 4th circuit (SC) instead, not only would I vote for her, but I would do so enthusiastically to please senator Graham & keep him happy to reward him for his yes votes in the SJC. I would also give senator Murkowski almost anybody she wants for the vacant district court seat in Alaska as long as they are within reason.
Those are deals. Nomination Chad Meredith is not a deal, it’s getting your ass kicked & lending the guy your fighting your shoe to get your ass kicked even more with.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you’re asking if McConnell would accept the deal if the roles were reversed I guess I would say no.
The Republican base cares more about judges than the Democratic base. They have endeavored to reverse the excesses of the Warren court. Even though Warren wasn’t a member of the court that authored Roe they wanted it gone.
The Democratic senators who are there know what the stakes are but the rank and file democrats and others have other priorities.You can’t force your constituents to care It’s clear that they do not/
I think it would have been better if Roe had been struck down in Casey, Perhaps that would have fired up the base but I am unsure.
At least now we know protesting without voting is a waste a time. Did you ever hear of Martin Luther King or anyone else in the civil rights movement not voting while marching? Of course not!.
I’ve digressed.,,No, McConnell isn’t winning so long as he is the minority leader . He wants as many judicial nominees as he can undera republican president r. Did you notice how many blue state lower court vacancies there was when Trump left?
The midterms will be here shortly. We ought to focus on getting the un-registered ready to vote. We can’t let displaced anger change our destiny.
Given how often you on shit on progressives, I don’t think you personally dislike McConnell much at all.
Progressives don’t owe people like you our votes, and we are not going to give them to people like you. As much as I hate McConnell, I hate him less than I do backstabbing left-bashing “Democrats” like yourself.
For everyone else, if you want more of base to come out vote, then you are going to have to give them a reason to do so. Reversing Nominating a piece of shit like Meredith before the election would be a good way to convince people that the Democrats are not much better. Even if there’s a deal to be had here there is no way that I would nominate Meredith before mid-November.
I’m not defending anybody. I live in California so I don’t know Michelle Childs .I have only seen one person on here who has real knowledge of her. He said that she is well liked in the community,
But then people started trashing James Clyburn and I am not having it,
It’s a “black thing” you wouldn’t understand it.
I advise you to ignore shawn he is a known troll and im suspecting a sexist bigot, he has an unhealthy obsession with michelle childs and have constantly kept on thrashing her beyond the pale, just see him as a troll and nothing more.
On the topic, biden still has a chance to make it right, mcconell just came out saying that if dems do any reconciliation deal with manchin he will tank the bipartisan chips act the senate is working on together to counter china, the good faith is already not there in the first place, biden should release a statement saying he wont go along with this. its political malpractice otherwise.
On the Biden-McConnell deal
This deal is so outrageous, it breaks new ground. From some of the comments I’ve read, some would like us to believe that there is nothing extraordinary about this deal. I beg to differ:
1: This is an unequal deal
For the lifetime appointment of a staunch anti-abortion FedSoc lawyer, Biden will get… two US attorneys. I would rather send in two monkeys to represent the interest of the US government in Kentucky’s 2 federal courts.
2: Are the two attorneys legally omnipotent?
These courts and the 6th Circuit are so conservative anyway, that I don’t think Biden’s two would-be attorneys would have better luck than the monkeys.
3: Judge Karen Kaye Caldwell has given Biden an ultimatum
THIS alone should be the number one, trice underlined, bold, italicized reason to not even entertain this deal, let alone go through with it. How many times do we here on this site talk about how absolutely awful a practice it is when judges do this? The precedent it sets makes it a nonstarter. So, as far as I am concerned, as with Judges Kanne/King/Rawlinson so with judge Caldwell: She can stay on the court until she’s ready to die or unconditionally retire.
4: Biden’s unforced error
Does Biden really want progressives to harangue him into 2024 about being the president who added anti-choice judges to the bench in the wake of Dobbs? REMEMBER: Biden is already vulnerable on the abortion issue, given his record.
5: Biden would be burdening vulnerable senators or/and VEEP
What an awful situation to put vulnerable Dems in, voting either way on such a nominee. Even if this vote comes after the elections, progressives or Republican challengers could use it as a live wedge issue leading up to the mid-term. And let’s say that there is indeed a 50-50 tie (say due to absences, because I am sure Manchin would support this), do you know how destructive this would be to force the VP to vote for this? It would be the equivalent of Clinton-Voted-For-The-Iraq-War. Yes, she may still end up as a party nominee in the future, but she’d be so damaged with a wing of the party that they can’t bring themselves to take her over the finish line.
6: Biden damaged even if nomination isn’t made
I have never seen this reaction to Biden by coalition-voters since his presidency. It may very well doom the prospects of the deal, and thank goodness for that.
7: What a way to kneecap home state Dems
Rep. Yarmuth is retiring but Gov. Andy Beshear will run for re-election in 2023, against AG Daniel Cameron (if he wins GOP nomination), the guy who did nothing to bring justice for Breonna Taylor. Despite what some on here think, local party leaders usually DO have a say in judicial nominations when there isn’t a senator from the same party. For example, President George W. Bush got his NY recs from GOP George Gov. Pataki. It seems like Beshear and Yarmuth have a system in place for making recommendations, which this awful deal would be short circuiting. Biden going forward with this nomination over the objection of Beshear does the governor no favors.
8: A one-week vacancy v yearlong
How embarrassing it is that there’s a deal for a seat in a red state that just became vacant as opposed to the year+ old vacancies in blue states? There are 6 district Court vacancies in the 1st Circuit jurisdiction. A circuit with only 1 GOP senator. Even with a Dem WH and a Dem senate, Republicans still mean business when it comes to getting their ideologues on the courts.
I’ve written on here before about my hopes and fears of the Biden presidency. I think he’s pretty maxed out on my hope — him beating Trump. He’s now turbo-charging my fears. Maybe I just need to accept that he simply isn’t the man for this moment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Incredibly well said. I too would rather two monkeys represent the US then this deal going through. I truly can’t believe this deal got this far. Even when we initially assumed the deal was to fast track all remaining judicial nominees for the rest of the year, the tone deafness of the ink not even being dry on Dobbs alone was enough for me to say no to THAT deal. But my God, two US Attorney’s. I’ve seen contestants on Deal or no deal have more difficult choices after the banker hangs up the phone.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Does the screenshot here make anyone else think that the next batch might actually be a big one? Also, nuts that Biden was ready to nominate this guy so quickly, but hopefully that’s on pause now!
What screenshot? I don’t see any.
Ah, I see what you mean. The email labels Meredith with an 8. It’s possible. Or it was a list of various other items of note for Gov. Beshear. Hard to say.
I think the fact they were originally slated to announce him last Friday and knew to back away once the Dobbs decision was out could mean this is totally dead. Hopefully so.
Oh your talking about him being listed as number 8. No I don’t believe that was the batch of nominees. This email was sent to Kentucky officials so they wouldn’t be sending him all of the nominees that are going to be announced from other states as well.
Plus the nominees are always listed in alphabetical order starting with circuit court then district court nominees. The other district court nominee was F. Kay Behm. So there would have had to have been five other nominees who’s last names started with B to M. That’s unlikely as well.
It may also be a list of nominees for various positions, of which only some are judicial nominees.
This was on another post but I’d thought I’d post it here. It would be awesome to keep track of rulings from Biden’s judges.
Heytens has had some very solid, liberal rulings so far. He has ruled against insurrectionists and he has ruled against unreasonable searches by police (both times reversing District Court rulings). He has ruled in favor of race based admissions.
Rossman has had some noticeable liberal dissents from the majority. She has dissented in a denial to hear en banc a case to define a controlled substance. She dissented from a panel decision that vacated an injunction preventing Denver from conducting homeless camp sweeps.I can’t find any majority opinions she has written but her noted dissents above are great sign of the Justice she will be.
In CJA’s only written ruling/opinion, she vacated an order for deportation/reduced a conviction in which a state law was more broad than the federal law. In other rulings, she has unfortunately agreed with the majority that, if, arrested on a Friday, detention without a bond hearing within 48 hours is not unconstitutional. She has voted to hear a case en banc that held there was no standing to sue an FDCPA case. The en banc hearing was denied by the conservative majority.
If anyone would like to add to this, feel free.
Gelpi has been rather disappointing. He has ruled against immigrants in Diaz Ortiz. I can’t find any other specific examples but in the majority of cases he has voted with the more conservative/less liberal bloc.
Very nice analysis. I did a similar analyst on another post on this site but nothing as detailed as yours. Basically what I wrote was Candace Jackson-Akiwumi didn’t write her first opinion until about a month ago despite her being confirmed about 11 months ago & that Gustavo Gelpí had joined a disappointing opinion.
Sorry I’m at work & don’t have all the details right now about the opinion. But I wrote it on one of the past post when re-evaluating the grades I gave to each circuit court nominee based on the information we have now, instead of my previous grade which was based on what we knew when they were nominated.
Yeah my opinion of Heytens has skyrocketed. His background did concern me a little when he was appointed. Not anymore.
Rossman has always impressed me so it’s good to see that has been validated. If only she was closer to 45 instead of 50 I would be over the moon.
I haven’t been exactly discouraged by CJA but haven’t been floored like I had hoped either. She was my #1 at first because of her age and the fact that she replaced a Republican judge. I simply can’t say that anymore.
Even if means dissenting in the bond detention case that would show me a lot about her mindset. I’m afraid she doesn’t want to publicly dissent for whatever reason. That’s unfortunate. I applaud Rossman for her two very fiery dissents against the majority. That’s shows me a lot. It’s also concerning how she didn’t hear a case for so long but I guess that’s a separate problem.
My opinion about Tony Heytens was always high. I only gave him an B+ for his grade because of three reasons. First, I wanted to see a little bit more pro bono or progressive work in his background. Second, because he was a white male being placed on the 4th circuit which is in desperate need of more woman to balance out the court. And last, because I hated the process in which he was selected. Nothing to do with him, but when senators Kaine & Warner recommend three people & the other two were born in 1960 & 1962, picking Heytens born in 1975 was really the only legit recommendation they gave Biden.
I would have had more respect for the process if they had just recommended him outright. I think Biden should have put his foot down & told them send him three real recommendations & not two that they no there was no way in Hell he would ever nominate to a circuit court. So I held that against him a little even though he had nothing to do with the process. But I have no doubt I will be raising his grade in a later post months down the line.
And for Gelpi, I’m not surprised at the disappointment he has been. He was one of my least liked circuit court nominees from the start. He was originally appointed to federal court by Bush after all. We just have to hope the 1st circuit stays a solid 4-3 solid liberal composition even with Gelpi.
Wait a minute… Is this a Democrat, with a spine, taking the fight TO Republicans before there’s even an election??? My God, it’s been so long since I’ve seen one, I almost forgot what it looked like. BRAVO governor Newsome
It’s easy for Gavin Democrats have every statewide office locked up including the Supreme Court
The legislature is owned by Democrats. He sucks at nominating judges. He took took a judge who retired and placed him on the Supreme Court. That’s the rare instance where I complained about the age of a judge.
I miss Jerry Brown his nominees to California Supreme Court were excellent.
Looks like your link is broken, at least for myself. 2024 is a long way away, I’m focused on seeing what Biden does on judges for the rest of the year and the midterms. After that, I’m all for looking ahead into the next presidential election.
Oh I don’t know what happened to the article. But here’s a similar one. And yes I’m with you Frank, I will be watching what Biden does on judges the rest of this year, in particular if he backtracks from that ridiculously horrible deal with McConnell.
I’ll be looking closely at the next batch of nominees. I think that will be the last batch that has a very good chance of getting confirmed this year. Any nominees after the next one will have a difficult time getting confirmed if the Democrats lose the majority. I’m really hoping it’s finally double digits nominees.
Personally I think Biden should consider resigning and give Kamala Harris a shot to govern. I’m open to whether he should do this in the lame duck session or in 2023. There are advantages both ways. I think the chances of the GOP winning back the House is greater than 85% (and frankly I wouldn’t mind if they do), so there’s the risk of not getting a VP confirmed if you wait until 2023. OTOH, waiting until 2023 would allow Harris to run twice as an incumbent instead of just once.
I don’t agree with Harris on everything (much like Hillary), but I think both of them have a much stronger form of leadership than Biden does. Newsom would be fine too, but he seems like much more of a phony.
While I think there are a number of others that would probably meet the moment our country is in right now better, simply put people with power don’t give up power easily. With the exception of health issues, which even at 80 years old, when your surrounded by some of the best doctors in the country that’s unlikely, I don’t see this or any other president giving up being the most powerful person in the world up.
Right now, my focus is more on keeping the senate & hopefully expanding it by at least one, so we don’t have to have a mild heart attack every time a Democrat senator in a state with a Republican governor.
Pingback: The Unexpected Opportunity – Assessing the Landscape of Judicial Vacancies | The Vetting Room