Judge Dana Douglas – Nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

U.S. Magistrate Judge Dana Douglas has practiced before Louisiana state and federal courts for two decades. She has now been tapped for elevation to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Background

Dana Douglas graduated from Miami University in 1997 and received a J.D. from Loyola University New Orleans College of Law in 2000.

After graduating, Douglas completed a two-year clerkship with Judge Ivan Lemelle on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. After her clerkship, Douglas joined Liskow & Lewis, an energy firm in New Orleans. In 2003, Douglas also joined the New Orleans Civil Service Commission, serving for ten years.

In 2019, Douglas became a federal magistrate judge with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. She serves in that capacity today.

History of the Seat

Douglas has been nominated for a Louisiana seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. This seat opened on with Judge James Dennis’ announcement of her intent to take senior status upon confirmation of her successor. Due to the nature of Dennis’ announcement, the vacancy will not open until Douglas is confirmed.

Legal Career

After her clerkship,Douglas spent her entire legal career at Liskow & Lewis in New Orleans, primarily practicing commercial litigation. For example, Douglas worked alongside future federal judge Brian Jackson in suing to annual a tax sale in New Orleans. See Brookewood Invs. Co. LLC v. Sixty-Three Twenty-Four Chef Menteur Highway, LLC., 958 So. 2d 1200 (La. App. 2007). Douglas also notably represented Dow Chemicals in defending against a class action alleging damages from a tank failure from a chemical facility in St. Charles Parish. See Guidry v. Dow Chem. Co., 214 So. 3d 78 (La. App. 2017).

From 2003 to 2013, Douglas served as a Commissioner on the New Orleans Civil Service Commission, which is charged with reviewing employee appeals of disciplinary actions. In this role, Douglas authored an opinion affirming the suspension and termination of a police officer for committing a battery against a civilian. See Johnson v. Dep’t of Police, 2 So. 3d 501 (La. App. 2008). In a different case, Douglas affirmed disciplinary actions against officers who formed a limited liability company to administer their paid off-duty police details. See Patin v. Dep’t of Police, 159 So. 3d 476 (La. App. 2013).

Jurisprudence

Douglas has served as a magistrate judge on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana for the last three years. In this role, Douglas has presided over discovery disputes. For example, Douglas denied an effort by Amtrak to subpoena medical records from an employee, finding portions of the subpoena to be unnecessary. See Mike Curley, Amtrak Can’t Get Juvenile Med Docs in Employee Injury Suit, Law360, Oct. 12, 2021. In another case, Douglas ordered the production of documents in response to the plaintiff’s request in a maritime accident case. See Mullen v. Daigle Towing Serv., Civil Action No. 19-11954, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 258229 (E.D. La. June 1, 2020).

As a magistrate judge, Douglas also handled agency appeals, including appeals from denials of social security benefits. In one case, Douglas recommended the denial of a social security appeal where the plaintiff had failed to follow recommended treatment. See Brooks v. SSA, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183467 (E.D. La. Aug. 23, 2019). In another case, she recommended that an ALJ finding that the plaintiff was not disabled be sent back to the ALJ for elaboration of the decision. See Reese v. SSA, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 230546 (E.D. La. Dec. 20, 2019).

Writings

In 2009, Douglas authored a paper encouraging law firms to recruit and support minority and female employees, noting that having a supportive working environment for a diverse workforce makes business sense for the companies. See Dana M. Douglas, Diversity Refined: The Business Side: Making the Business Case for the Recruitment and Retention of Minorities and Women, 56 LA Bar Jnl. 424 (April/May 2009).

Overall Assessment

As a red-state appellate nominee, Douglas, in theory, doesn’t need support from her home-state senators to get a hearing. For their part, Senators Bill Cassidy and John Kennedy, both Republicans, have issued statements that don’t promise support but also don’t indicate any opposition to a hearing. If Douglas is able to get their support, she is likely to skate to confirmation. If not, she may still be confirmed this Congress, but will likely have to rely on Democrats prioritizing her confirmation.

56 Comments

  1. Dana Douglas is a good red state pick. While she’s not a flaming liberal & support from home state senators are not needed for circuit court nominees, I think she will get the support of at least one, if not both senator Cassidy and/or Kennedy.

    Yes she has represented energy companies prior to becoming a magistrate judge but she also has represented some good causes as well as had some good rulings from her 3 years as a judge. And she will be the first back woman & second youngest judge on the 5th circuit once confirmed. I would give this nominee a B- & look forward to her confirmation.

    Like

    • “she also has represented some good causes as well as had some good rulings from her 3 years as a judge.”

      Could you please provide some examples of this, Dequan? Because I’m really considering moving this nomination down to a D of some sort, and putting her in the same category as Pan, Koh, and Lee.

      Like

      • I’m going by what I read on the post here. I’ll copy & paste below…

        1. Douglas authored an opinion affirming the suspension and termination of a police officer for committing a battery against a civilian.
        2. Douglas denied an effort by Amtrak to subpoena medical records from an employee, finding portions of the subpoena to be unnecessary.
        3. Douglas authored a paper encouraging law firms to recruit and support minority and female employees.

        I would put Douglas (B-) ahead of Pan (C-), Koh (C… I upgraded from an initial (C-) and Lee (C) because she is from a red state while the three of them have no Republican senators involved in the negotiations, and because she is about 7 years younger then each of them.

        But I will repeat she is by no means a bleeding liberal or as progressive as I would want in a circuit court nominee. With senator Kennedy being on the SJC & voting for a few nominees (Including his YES vote for Andre Mathis avoiding a discharge vote), I’m ok with a less then stellar nominee for this seat.

        Remember when I give my grades, I take everything into account, not just solely the nominee. As I’ve said before I may give a nominee for the 4th (SC) seat a MUCH higher grade then if that same nominee was for a California or New York seat because of the politics involved. If Douglas was a nominee for either California or New York I would give her a D.

        Like

      • Ok, so she is likely just a center-left nominee on the same level as Pan. Given that this is a red state, the grade stays at C-. Frankly if she was nominated from a blue state, I’d give it an F.

        As I’ve said before, management attorneys on labor/employment issues and those who regularly represent corporate polluters should be totally disqualified from being nominated, except for district court nominees with the blue slip where one of these types is the best you can get. A random AUSA is far better than these kinds of nominees.

        Again, I wish there was just as much outrage about nominations of anti-labor and anti-environmental attorneys as there is with anti-choice and anti-LGBT ones.

        Like

      • Oh sorry, I forgot to mention reason number three why I would rate Douglas higher then Pan, Koh & Lee. All three of them were district court judges. So now we have to spend time in the SJC & floor backfilling their seats. Upgrading a district court judge automatically takes points off for me unless the nominee was clearly one of the best choices such as KBJ or current district court judges(Or nominees) like Dale Ho or Jia Cobb.

        I can’t give Douglass a F if she was a nominee for a blue state because I don’t think she’s nearly as bad as J Childs. That’s why I would go with a D. I could understand the argument for a D- however.

        Like

  2. Interesting piece from the WaPo this morning, of which part of it dealt with judicial nominees. Of particular note, many of the progressive legal organizations are pushing for the Democrats to discontinue blue slips for district court nominees (which isn’t surprising and in my opinion a bad idea) while a source claims to the Post that 7 of the 9 CA vacancies have recommended nominees from their senators. Of course, there is no way without names to know how “progressive” or young these candidates are.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/05/time-is-running-out-confirm-biden-nominees/

    Like

    • While I wouldn’t scrap the blue slips for district court nominees just yet, I completely agree with what was said in the article “ scrap at least part of the Senate’s four-week August recess”. Blue slips should be completely scrapped if Democrats hold the senate & pick up at least one seat.

      It’s comforting to know that the California senators have recommended nominees for 7 out of the 9 vacancies they have. Now looking at some of the nominees we have seen so far, I wonder if some of those 7 are either too old or not progressive enough & maybe that’s the hold up.

      But great article. Anything that can get the senate moving faster I’m in favor of.

      Also one correction from the Dana Douglas post here on this site. Judge Dennis, the judge Dana Douglas is replacing, is of course a man, not a “her” like the article states. But a minor error in an otherwise great post as always from the editors of The Vetting Room.

      Like

      • There’s no point in scrapping blue slips right now with so many circuit court vacancies and blue state district court vacancies unfilled.

        But I think even in another 50/50 Senate in 2023, blue slips should be at least modified. I think the policy should be that blue slip privileges for GOP senators will be retained only if senators do the following; (a) have a bipartisan committee to vet nominees and recommend at least 3 judges per vacancy with at least one from a non traditional background, (b) stand by the results of the committee (no Ron Johnson shenanigans), (c) provide nominees to the White House within 4 months of the vacancy being announced. Alternatively some sort of a 2 for 1 deal can be negotiated. For senators who refuse to cooperate or intentionally delay, blue slip privileges are revoked. I think something like this would be acceptable to Joe Manchin.

        The other thing worth remembering is that any Democratic Senate in 2023 would likely be paired with a GOP House. So there will be almost nothing productive that gets done legislatively, and the only thing to do is confirm nominees.

        Like

      • Considering that this is an election year and many Democrats are seeking reelection in what are expected to be close races, I’d think that shortening the August recess is a nonstarter. If this was an off year, I’d give more credence to the idea.

        Like

  3. “while a source claims to the Post that 7 of the 9 CA vacancies have recommended nominees from their senators. ”

    And this is why I just don’t believe that that the Massachusetts senators haven’t recommended nominees. The problem is with the Biden admin, not with these progressive senators. I’m almost certain that there are nominees recommended from the MA senators, it’s just that the Biden admin is unwilling to nominate them, probably because they are too progressive. The MA senators likely gave these nominees a while back, and only Angel Kelley was acceptable enough to them. I think the nomination of Rachael Rollins for US Attorney foreshadowed likely the kind of nominees that Warren and Markey are sending up.

    Like

    • I don’t buy the Massachusetts senators recommended a 55 year old, left off center, state judge Angel Kelley for one seat, then recommended a bunch of 30 & 40 year old, hard left, ultra progressive nominees for the other seats. I mean if you just look at the other judges in the same district court, not one of them would get an A from me at the time of their nomination. Barely a B for some of them.

      Now you may be right that they recommended nominees (I am more confident your right about that today in July then when I first made my comments back in December), but I highly doubt the reason they haven’t been nominated yet is because they are too progressive. I suspect based on the nominees we have seen over the past two Democrat administrations that the recommended nominees are more in line with what we have seen which is why we still don’t have an announcement for 12 vacancies between those two states.

      The majority, if not overwhelming majority of the 12 recommended nominees are probably sitting state court judges. But I will say I am pleased to hear at least California has recommended nominees for 7 of the 9 vacant seats.

      Like

      • So I took a closer look at the 4 nominees that Warren/Markey sent up in the Obama admin. While none of them are particularly young, all of them are pretty progressive. One was a labor lawyer, another one mostly a plaintiff attorney, two were criminal defenders. In addition, they nominated Inga Bernstein (partner at the very progressive law firm Zalkind Duncan and Bernstein) in 2015 who never got confirmed. Denise Casper was confirmed before Warren got to the Senate.

        Yeah, I doubt their committee were sending up people like Christine O’Hearn or J. Michelle Childs. I’m guessing they sent up 4-5 nominees and only Angel Kelley was acceptable to the WH.

        Like

      • We shall see. I find it hard to believe there aren’t any progressives n their 30’s or 40’s that want to be federal judges in Massachusetts since 2008. The highest grade I could give any of the district court judges since then is a B with their ages which means your highest grade is probably a B- since your a harder grader then me… Lol

        I guess I could go slightly higher on some of the earlier Obama Massachusetts judges that were pre Reid nuking the filibuster (Except those recommended during the 17 months that Dems had 60 senators). But as you said Warren want in the senate yet either.

        Either way I hope between Schumer’s 3, California’s 7 & the 7 circuit court vacancies with no nominees, hopefully there is a large batch on the way next week. Of course it better be a Chad Meredith-less batch.

        I do have a question however. As I said before I’ve never stepped foot inside a law school so not sure the answer to everything.

        The last Colorado vacancy does not occur until February 2023 when the judge steps down. The Colorado senators have already recommended three nominees for that seat. Let’s say Biden were to nominate one & the senate were to confirm him before the end of 2022. If Republicans take over the majority in January 2023, does Biden still get to use the 2022 confirmation for that nominee or will he be returned to the senate & now the Republicans could block him?

        Like

  4. Douglas would be the first African American woman to serve on the Fifth Circuit. Otherwise, she is a very traditional nominee. If she gets the support of both Senators, she’ll be confirmed by a wide margin. Neither of Louisiana’s Republican Senators are considered all that ideological. One of them voted to impeach Trump.

    Liked by 1 person

    • @Mitch,

      What grade would you give Douglas? I gave her a B- taking everything into account including this being a red state (I would have given her a D if she was nominated in California or New York). Shawn gave her a C- & would have given her a F if she was nominated in either of those two states.

      Like

      • I don’t know an exact grade She seems like a decent choice who won’t embarrass herself on the bench. I’m actually more interested in qualifications than ideology.

        As far as ideology, It’s possible that she’ll be less progressive than her predecessor, James Dennis.

        Liked by 1 person

      • In an unrelated topic, I learned more about Chad Meredith of Kentucky and am perturbed. At first my attitude about his pending nomination was, “every White House does this,” and it’s just part of the process. Some of Trump’s Blue State nominees were not made willingly.

        But It turns out that Meredith was involved in then-Governor Matt Bevin’s last-minute pardons, which were even worse than Bill Clinton’s last minute pardons. Bevin’s pardons were so awful, even his fellow Republicans shun him. I realize that some of the records need to remain confidential (the attorney/client privilege extends to this), but we need to know more than we do now. Given that McConnell has disowned and condemned Bevin, why would he want to nominate someone involved in the cause of it?

        If Meredith’s participation was minor in nature or he opposed Bevin’s worst actions and was overridden, that’s different. I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know what records or conversations are protected. Does anyone else reading this post know what can and can’t be made public?

        Like

      • Chad Meredith was very much involved with Matt Bevin’s last-minute pardons. It’s one of the reasons I believe Biden nominating him while the Democrats are in the majority for ANY deal is reason enough for me to support a primary challenge to him in 2024. But when I found out it was in exchange for two US Attorney’s, it’s almost hard to believe any sane person would sign off on that deal taht is serious about running for re-election. This would be the worst judicial related decision since Harriett Myers & I may even put this past that on the list. It’s indefensible & must be rescinded.

        Like

  5. Harriet Meiers would not have recommended those pardons. This is worse.

    I’m also surprised that Mitch McConnell would push this. He’s many things, but he’s not stupid. Kentucky has many other conservative Republicans in the legal community. What makes him think that Chad Meredith is a good choice? I’ve found no evidence that they know each other very well. I don’t see McConnell’s stake in this specific nominee.

    We all know why Justin Walker was appointed to the bench. McConnell is a longtime family friend. But while Walker is no legal superstar, he’s by all accounts very likeable and even kind. His former law school students (many of them progressive) speak highly of him. More importantly, Walker has never been accused of anything unethical.

    This blows my mind. If the White House goes through with this, Meredith needs to be grilled on the worst of the pardons. But Biden needs to tell McConnell, “back to the drawing board, Meredith’s ethical controversies are unacceptable.”

    Like

    • Apparently McConnell was pushing for Chad Meredith during the Trump administration as well. They just have some ties. Maybe not as close as him & Justin Walker or of course Karen Caldwell who Meredith would replace, as her & Mitch dated before he got married.

      But looking at all of the current Kentucky district court judges, they all seem to have close ties to McConnell except for the one Democrat Obama out on in the 2 for 1 deal, the Republican in that same 2 for 1 deal that was Rand Paul’s neighbor, & judge Bunning who’s father was the other US senator at the time he was appointed. So I’m sure McConnell & Meredith are linked somehow.

      Like

  6. https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/mitch-mcconnell/2022/07/05/beshear-turns-over-privileged-emails-chad-meredith-nomination/7816042001/

    We have the full email the WH sent to Beshear’s office re: Chad Meredith (news to me that governors have DC offices; love learning these factoids).
    I am also encouraged to see progressive orgs coming out strongly against this potential nomination.
    Pure speculation, what do you think is the over/under that Biden will still go ahead with the deal, given the backlash? I read that he doesn’t like to be publicly lobbied.

    Like

    • The public backlash has already started. I haven’t seen this kind of outrage over a none SCOTUS or circuit court nominee by regular news outlets (Not outlets like this one where everybody is focused on the courts) since GW Bush tried to nominate that district court nominee in Mississippi. I think his name was Charles Pickering or something like that but don’t quote me. That was the last time I can remember the widespread outrage on every day news outlets for a district court nominee.

      Like

      • The sad thing is I actually wish he had been confirmed back then. I mean sure he was conservative but he was in his 60’s plus he had actually tried to legally take down the Klu Klux Klan back in Mississippi. He even had prominent black organizations speak up on his behalf including Medgar Evans family if I remember correctly.

        Instead, after his nomination was sunk we got another nominee who was over a decade younger but just as conservative. We can’t even win when we win…smh

        Like

    • Kevin, I’d normally agree with you on this, since Democrats don’t typically care one bit on judges, but here is a very rare exception wherein this possible nominee has been talked about by many Democratic leaning media and organizations and as such many of their voters understand the implications of this nomination and are fed up with the idea of putting any explicitly anti-abortion people on the bench.

      Like

      • I think there is so much noise these groups look for things to complain about. What are they going to do? Nothing.

        As for this guy Meredith being against Roe. What’s wrong with that now? Can an overruled case be used against someone? If the democrats don’t like Meredith, they investigate the daylights out of him and vote “no,”

        I don’t think Biden’s detractors will get too far with this one judge. It’s not a pattern just Meredith. Even if he’s confirmed it’s changing anything Roe is gone. I hope people find other cases aside from that one.

        Like

      • @Kevin Collins

        What’s wrong with putting Meredith on the bench is there is no equivalent, zero, zip, zilch that you can find a Republican doing the opposite. I asked you last week name me ONE federal judge on the bench right now nominated by a Republican president that argued in court or worked for Planned Parenthood or any like minded pro choice organization. JUST ONE. You can’t. You know why? Because a Republican president would never agree to it. So why should Biden?

        I also asked you last week would McConnell agree to the reverse of this deal, even if he could pick anybody on God’s green Earth to be the two US Attorney’s. You said you “guess” he would not. No Kevin, there’s no guessing. McConnell would NEVER agree to this deal if it was reversed. You know why? Because as much as I don’t like McConnell he’s not dumb. And this is a stupid deal. Actually the word stupid isn’t strong enough. This deal is indefensible. It’s that big of a deal.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I don’t Roe itself is the only case that one should look at when evaluating judges. I’m sorry I thought I answered your question last week. So, please let me answer (i know you answered on my behalf) it’s probably no. However, abortion rights are a small subset of a law practice. I don’t think Planned Parenthood has a team lawyers. I’m sure they get represented by outside firms.

        Like I have said many times before Roe is gone. There’s no constitutional protection for abortion rights. Look for the republicans to advance this view vigorously. We expect each nominee to forced state that they will follow supreme court precedent. How will they respond to that?

        There have been many instances of republicans nominating liberal judges and democratic president’s picking conservatives. It’s been done before.

        This is just one guy on one court in Kentucky. I get that people find McConnell detestable. Perhaps it would be better to channel that energy into something more fruitful like voter registration. This is chess not checkers.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I just don’t see how nominating this guy increases the chances of people to get out & vote for Democrats. If anything I would say it will decrease the chances. If I could advice Biden, I would say just don’t nominate anybody to this seat until after the midterms.

        Judge Caldwell is stepping down upon the confirmation of her successor so the court won’t be short handed. Plus with the limited amount of seats in the SJC hearings, there’s no need to waste a spot for this seat anyway. That seems like a much better strategy to accomplishIng your goal (And mine) of increasing voter turnout.

        Like

      • The democratic base DOESNT care about judges. If they did we wouldn’t be where we are now. But, I think it is deeper than that. I see a culture of laziness and perhaps entitlement.

        I just saw Michael Moore the other crying about the state of affairs in the country. He was one of Bernie Sander’s biggest supporters and tore down HRC. Now he’s doubling down on nonsense like not voting. This is the mindset that got us here.

        When will people accept some responsibility for their role in helping the “right” reck our country? Always blaming others rather than looking at yourself.

        Liked by 1 person

  9. For some people, Biden can do no wrong. I was wrong to assume that such sycophancy was only endemic on the right.
    The question now is, will Biden publicly reverse and admit it’s a horrific deal, or will it just die a silent death? If either, how will the apologists explain this turnaround if there’s nothing wrong with this deal?
    I can’t think of ever getting a CNN news notification on my phone for a lower court federal judgeship. And yet, I got one for this.
    Yes, it’s that big and bad a deal.

    Liked by 1 person

    • For some people , Biden cannot do anything right. There’s nothing wrong with him. If you have an idea of a .better person for the office let us know. Otherwise, it’s just shadow boxing taking on standard that no one can meet You NEVER hear any of Bidens’s detractors find anyone else who can do better.

      I don’t watch CNN so I can’t accord any weight to spams about one judicial nomination in Kentucky.

      It’s little and relatively inconsequential.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Kevin, #khive welcomes you. I know you want us to all just be braindead robots who don’t think for ourselves and just say and do whatever the Democratic Party tell us to do. I know you want us all to never question a thing Biden does or doesn’t do like he’s a king.

        You’re out of luck. We’re not going to accept that anymore nor can we afford to accept that when we’re in more danger than anytime in recent memory. What we need is fighters who aren’t afraid to fail.

        Roe was a call to disrupt the status quo and demand more from the Democratic Party. Biden’s approval numbers will continue to fall more than other president in history if he nominates a rabid anti-choicer.

        I’ve voted for Democrats my entire life since becoming voter eligible in 2012. In fact, I’ve voted for the more moderate Dems. You can focus on 2016, we’ve moved on.

        Like

      • Hello, I never said that anyone had to vote for Biden. I don’t personally care who you vote for. I also don’t care if you want to “question” any of the policies from Joe Biden. So, is your problem with Biden or the Democratic party or both? Maybe you are a Sandernista still constipated over losing two successive Democratic
        primaries. You lost the nomination for a party you didn’t belong to. That’s my issue with people like you.

        The person I voted for Joe Biden won so I am good. It’s people like you who voted for Nader, Stein, Sanders and Trump and now you complain about the state of affairs in 2022? Give me a break!

        Just to reiterate if Biden had not run in 2020 we would be in Trump’s second term. There wasn’t anyone on the Democratic or progressive side who had a chance to defeat Trump. I am still waiting for someone to tell me who is going to replace Biden. I am
        afraid that’s a day that will never come. Certainly not before 2024 so you are stuck with him whether you like it or not.

        I’m sorry but Roe didn’t mean dick! People of your generation took reproductive rights for granted. That’s not Biden’s fault or the Democratic Party.

        For a President in the first term to slip in the polls before the midterms isn’t news. We saw that in 2010 when younger voters ghosted Obama in 2010. So, what was the intellectual rationale for that?

        If you are looking for a scapegoat for Roe being tossed out. You might want to pursue that matter with the folks who sat out of elections or voted for Nader, Stein , Trump or whoever was on the opposite side of Democratic ticket.

        Take Care

        Like

    • While I agree with Kevin on the normalcy of the deal, the fact that the deal was made public right after the Dobbs decision is what made this story, which previously wouldn’t have been a big deal, so huge for the base which typically doesn’t care one bit about judges. And personally, I think that Biden can wait until after the midterms to nominate Meredith and nobody with any pull on the left will really care about him being confirmed.

      Like

      • That’s my point. This is a horrible deal right now for numerous reason, one being it will lose Democrats votes because of it in the midterms. Now after the midterms, there are scenarios in which this now horrible deal could become a little better.

        If Republicans retake the senate then this is a much better deal then. Plus it will not lose Democrats any votes. But under no circumstances is this not an absolutely horrible deal before the midterms.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Yup, I saw that yesterday. I stayed up all night adding pictures to every federal judge Biden has nominated that’s had a SJC hearing already & noticed.

      Judge Gonzalo Curiel actually ruled in favor of Trump which goes to show how wrong Trump was. I did the math though. The day the judge said he was going to retire he would be 69 & served 10 years as a federal judge. By my math he’s a year short of getting his retirement benefits unless my math is off.

      Liked by 1 person

      • He will be 69 years and 193 days when he goes senior. If we use his commission date, Oct. 1, 2012, he will have served 10 years and 169 days, leaving the sum 3 days short of the “rule of 80”. However, if we use September 22, the day he was confirmed, he will have served 10 years and 179 days as a federal judge, thus making his “rule of 80” total 80 years and 7 days.

        Like

      • @Ryan Joshi

        Thanks for the explanation. I was under the assumption they were not official until the president signed their commissions. But if it goes by the date the senate confirms them then that explains it.

        I’m really surprised though. Theoretically I thought a president can change their mind even after the senate votes to confirm a nominee. I don’t see how they can use that date but I never stepped foot inside a law school so I’ll chalk it up to me being wrong on that one… Lol

        Liked by 1 person

      • That’s why this site is so great. There’s so many great minds that participate on this site, I’m bound to always learn something new. I remember I didn’t know a judge could retire before meeting the “Rule of 80” at all until the Louisiana district court judge appointed by Trump did so due to disability. Now today I learn you could round up & meet the retirement eligibility as well. Good stuff

        Liked by 1 person

  12. Late to the party as always I am, but it seems to me if they’re taking up Dettlebach on Monday, who will probably require 50 votes + the VP, they could do the rest of the discharges and/or Mathis. Or a bunch of district court noms. Glad to know that 7 of the 9 CA vacancies w/out noms have recommendations, but as y’all have pointed out, it’s getting late and unless they shave at least a week off of August recess for confirmations, we’re going to have a huge number of vacancies going into the next Senate. (Although I should note my bet would be Dems keep control of the Senate and add seats).

    Like

  14. Pingback: The Unexpected Opportunity – Assessing the Landscape of Judicial Vacancies | The Vetting Room

Leave a comment