Justice Tamika Montgomery-Reeves – Nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

After a trailblazing career in Delaware, 41 year old Tamika Montgomery-Reeves is poised to join the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Background

Tamika Renee Montgomery-Reeves was born on April 29, 1981. Montgomery-Reeves attended the University of Mississippi, graduating magna cum laude. She continued on to the University of Georgia Law School. She then clerked on the Delaware Court of Chancery and then joined Weil Gotschal & Manges in New York City before becoming a partner at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati in Wilmington Delaware.

In 2015, Montgomery-Reeves was appointed by Governor Jack Markell to the Delaware Court of Chancery. In 2019, she was elevated to the Delaware Supreme Court by Governor John Carney, where she currently serves.

History of the Seat

Montgomery-Reeves has been nominated to Judge Thomas Ambro’s seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Ambro was nominated to the Third Circuit by President Bill Clinton in 2000 and will take senior status upon the confirmation of a successor.

Legal Experience

For approximately ten years before she was appointed to the bench, Montgomery-Reeves worked in private practice in both New York and Delaware, focusing largely on business and commercial litigation.

Among the notable cases she handled, Montgomery-Reeves successfully convinced the Delaware Court of Chancery that an advancement suit is required to go to arbitration. See Riley v. Brocade Communs. Sys., 2014 Del. Ch. LEXIS 71 (Del. Ch. 2014). In another case, Montgomery-Reeves defended a merger against a class action suit brought by stockholders. See In re Riverbed Tech., Inc. Stockholders Litig., 2015 Del. Ch. LEXIS 241 (Del. Ch. 2015).

Jurisprudence

Montgomery-Reeves served on the Delaware Court of Chancery between 2015 and 2019. When she was appointed to the seat in 2015, she was the first african american judge on the court. See Randall Chase, Delaware Senate Approves Cabinet, Court Nominees, A.P. State & Local, Oct. 28, 2015. On the Chancery Court, Montgomery-Reeves oversaw suits in equity (suits seeking injunctions or court orders of specific performance).

In her first key opinion on the Court of Chancery, Montgomery-Reeves found the directors of Volcano Corp. did not violate their fiduciary duties to their stockholders in closing a deal to the sell the company. See David Marcus, Chancery’s Montgomery-Reeves Extends Business Judgment Protections to Tender Offers, The Deal Pipeline, July 6, 20166. Her ruling was unanimously affirmed by the Delaware Supreme Court. See David Marcus, Delaware Supreme Court Upholds Extension of KKR, The Deal Pipeline, Feb. 9, 2017.

In another suit, Montgomery-Reeves dismissed a suit filed against Mattel’s Board of Directors after they declined to respond to a shareholder demand letter seeking documentation connected to a severance payout to a former executive. See Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Delaware Chancery Court Throws Out Claims Over $10 Million Severance Payment to CEO, JD Supra, Jan. 26, 2017. In contrast, Montgomery-Reeves declined to dismiss a breach of fiduciary duty suit arising from directors’ decisions to award themselves stock options in subsidiary corporations. See Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Delaware Chancery Court Declines to Dismiss Challenges to Director Option Grants and Outside Investor Voting Agreement, JD Supra, July 11, 2017.

Since 2019, Montgomery-Reeves has served as Associate Justice on the Delaware Supreme Court, the highest court in Delaware. She was Delaware’s first African American Supreme Court Justice.

While on the court, Montgomery-Reeves authored a majority opinion finding that Delaware law did not prevent “sophisticated” stockholders who were represented by counsel from waiving their rights under law for an appraisal of their stock value at sale as part of their stockholder agreements. See Delaware Supreme Court Enforces Waiver of Statutory Appraisal Rights, Impact Financial News, Sept. 20, 2021. Montgomery-Reeves also authored a majority opinion upholding a $6.1 million verdict for shareholders in a breach of fiduciary duty case. See Jeff Montgomery, Del. Justices Uphold Mixed $6M Ruling on Solar Co. Breaches, Law360, Oct. 14, 2021.

Outside the commercial litigation context, Montgomery-Reeves wrote the majority opinion holding that Senate records submitted to the University of Delaware archives by President Biden were not subject to demands under the Delaware Freedom of Information Act. See Jeff Montgomery, Del. Justices Mostly Uphold FOIA Block on Biden Senate Docs, Law360, Dec. 7, 2021.

Overall Assessment

Over the last fifteen years, Montgomery-Reeves has built a strong reputation in the Delaware legal community. Additionally, there is still little in Montgomery-Reeves’ record to warrant strong opposition to the Third Circuit. As such, it is likely that Montgomery-Reeves would have a relatively painless confirmation to the Third Circuit.

84 Comments

  1. She also worked pro bono with the Prisoners’ Rights Project. That, everything mentioned in the article along with her being 41 makes this a very fine nomination. Hopefully Durbin adds a SJC hearing so she doesn’t have to wait until September for hers.

    Like

    • This was probably the most predictable SJC line up to date in this congress. What’s less predictable & I will be watching tomorrow for is if they announce another hearing for next Wednesday. If not & if no weeks canceled during the Summer recess, we won’t have any more hearings until September.

      Like

  2. @ Dequan

    Another ? for you….Remember back in the lame duck period in 2014 after Democrats lost the senate……Some glitch that Sen Cruz apparently did enable Sen Reid to confirm those District Court nominees…….But what I don’t get is Democrats were going to control senate til early 2015 so why couldn’t Reid have confirmed those nominees anyway, why did it depend on Cruz making an error?.

    Thanks
    Rick

    Like

    • Absolutely Rick. That was the firs time (The other being when he went toe to toe with Trump after he called his wife ugly) that I was happy with Ted Cruz. I remember screaming at my tv when it looked like Reid as going to go into recess with all those pending nominees. When Cruz kept them in session & Reid filed cloture on them I almost jumped for joy.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Oh the answer to your question is simple. It took Cruz idiotic actions to confirm them because Democrats then (And apparently now) were perfectly willing to go home on schedule instead of sticking around to confirm life time appointed judges. Remember back then some senators were leaving the senate so that really pised me off. Like your about to be retired there should be no reason why you can’t stick around an extra week to get everyone confirmed.

        There was a couple judges they still didn’t confirm even after all of that. I was still angry over that but at least they got the ones they got done.

        Like

  3. I think they had cleared the calendar of the circuit court nominees back in the early fall…..Some 9th Circuit judges should have taken senior status in 2013, and they could have been easily confirmed with great replacements…..I’m referring to Harry Pregerson and Stephen Reidhardt, and both passed away about 4 years later……

    They should have invoked the nuclear option in 2009, not 2013…And they only had one great year of confirmations (2014) as they lost senate for Obama’s last 2 years…

    As we’ve said before, McConnell keeps the senate in at all costs to confirm judges and Democrats just can’t be bothered..

    Liked by 1 person

    • In retrospect, Democrats should have just forced the GOP to invoke the nuclear option in 2005 instead of making a deal. I understand why they didn’t with a 55-45 GOP majority though, it was likely that the Democrats were going to pick up 3 or more seats, but getting 6 was going to be difficult. So basically Reid’s strategy was to effectively let the GOP confirm all judges in 2005-2006 in order to retain the filibuster in 2007-2008.

      Like

  4. And it’s even worse considering that the Democrats had a 55-45 majority and could’ve confirmed anyone they wanted to even with multiple Ds absent.

    I am hoping Schumer has a similar plan this go round, but we will see. There are only 13 weeks left in the calendar, and that includes a few short weeks.

    Like

    • The 55-45 majority was useful, given that there were several Obama nominees that got confirmed despite being opposed by Manchin (as well as a couple other Democrats who are no longer in office). Though having looked at some of the 2014 votes, it seems like Republicans were absent in much larger numbers than Democrats.

      Like

  5. According to Dana Douglas questionnaire it took 3 months & 6 days from the day she first expressed interest in the 5th seat until the day she was officially nominated. That is lightning fast for a state with two Republican senators. Hopefully that time table will be a new standard.

    “On March 9, 2022, I spoke with Cedric Richmond-then Assistant to the President and Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement- about various vacancies on federal courts in Louisiana. On March 30, 2022, I spoke with Senator Bill Cassidy about my interest in serving on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On April 8, 2022, I spoke with Senator John
    Kennedy about my interest in serving on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On April 28, 2022, I interviewed with attorneys from the White House Counsel’s Office. Since that date, I have been in contact with officials from the Office of Legal Policy at the United States Department of Justice. On June 15, 2022, my nomination was submitted to the Senate.”

    Like

    • I just read Bradley Garcia’s SJC questionnaire. He wrote “On December 27, 2021, I expressed to the White House Counsel’s Office my interest in being considered for a federal appellate judgeship. On April 22, 2022, I interviewed with attorneys from the White House Counsel’s Office.

      It doesn’t look like he applied for the DC circuit vacancy directly, but just any circuit court vacancy. This is smart, especially for those lawyers that are licensed in more then one state. Had the DC seat not opened up so unexpectedly, he probably would have been considered for the Maryland seat. Maybe that’s why we have yet to get a nominee for that seat yet.

      Liked by 1 person

      • @Ben

        I think the former is more likelier then the latter. I can’t imagine them going a full year without so much as contacting credible nominees. With it being a red state, either Cassidy or Kennedy (Most likely) pushed back hard on whoever they had in mind. Dana Douglas was probably brought up & is clearly a compromise candidate.

        They probably didn’t want the optics of another senator like Blackburn sitting on the SJC hearing with fake outrage over a nominee from their state. That’s why I’m afraid out of the nine remaining circuit court vacancies without a nominee left, I think Texas might stand the seat we may not get a nominee for at all by the midterms, even more so then the Indians 7th seat that just became vacant a month ago. Both Texas senators are on the SJC.

        Like

      • It appears when it comes to purple & red states, the administration is reaching out to perspective circuit court nominees first. That’s much better then allowing the Republican senators to recommend somebody who likely wouldn’t be acceptable.

        Doris Pryor seems to be the only one who the senators reached out to first. We always knew the Indiana seat would go to a black woman after McConnell blocked Myra Shelby in 2016. The senators probably figured it was better to jump ahead of the administration & find one that both sides could agree on instead of them taking the lead & nominating somebody like Jessica Eglin, if not her herself.

        In the case of Dana Douglas, I remember after she was nominated senator Kennedy released a statement saying he looks forward to meeting with her. It will be interesting to see if he turned his blue slip in for her. Honestly I’m surprised to see Cedric Richmond was the one who reached out to her. From reading her background, she appears to be as much of a consensus pick as Cassidy & Kennedy could have hoped for.

        Like

      • It’s possible that Todd Young and Doris Pryor know each other, or at least are acquainted. Young represented southeastern Indiana in the House for 6 years and worked for a local DA’s office for a few years up to 2010, and Pryor started her AUSA position at about the same time.

        Like

    • Funny thing is I update Wikipedia for info on the nominees often. I wasn’t able to find almost anything on Nardacci. If she wasn’t a Schumer pick or wasn’t closely aligned with David Boies I would find it hard to believe she is a. Ok I we for a federal judgeship but I will take their word for her

      Like

    • The ABA has a long history of biased NQ ratings, specifically toward judicial candidates who are not corporate lawyers or prosecutors. Obama had several of his possible nominees, including a couple NAACP attorneys, kiboshed by the ABA. Having promised not to nominate anyone who got a NQ from the ABA, he didn’t nominate them.

      Holly Lou Teeter got a substantial majority NQ from the ABA, yet was confirmed by voice vote. It seems like Manchin voted against every other nominee that got a majority NQ from the ABA. I don’t know if he voted against nominees with a minority NQ.

      Like

      • “Having promised not to nominate anyone who got a NQ from the ABA, he didn’t nominate them.”

        @Shawn
        And I for one was glad that he didn’t, because I think that ABA Ratings matter in getting the best & brightest to serve for these lifetime appointments, and I’m also of the opinion that all Circuit Court Nominees should have the top rating of WQ.

        Like

      • I was extremely happy when Biden said up front he will not wait for the ABA ratings before he announces nominees. The ABA should not have sole authority to block somebody from being a federal judge. A senator has the right to take the ratings into consideration but by no means does them saying somebody is not qualified mean they are not worthy of being a federal judge. Particularly when you look at some of the people that Obama wanted to nominate but didn’t based solely on the ratings.

        I would be more interested in reading their report as to why they rated somebody not qualified then I would the actually rating. I remember during the Trump years there was at least one nominee that contested his NQ rating. When I read why it was because he said his interviewers rushed through & also he felt one of them had a conflict of interest but didn’t refuse themselves. While I’m no fan of a lot of Trump’s nominees, I did agree with that particular nominees point of view.

        Like

      • @Dequan
        The issue is that the ABA ratings are plainly biased. They have a very narrow and biased definition of what is considered qualified. It goes the other way too, they have rated as Q or WQ corporate attorneys who do not belong on the bench.
        Granted after considerable pushback and changes on their committee, it’s gotten a little bit better. But their recommendations should be seen as that, not a final decision.

        Like

      • @Shawn

        Yup. I’m surprised they didn’t come out strongly for her on day one. If I were advising red state senators, I would tel them get out in front of any circuit court vacancies in their states to try & find a consensus nominee in this mold.

        Speaking of not being surprised, the SJC Republicans are ripping Bradley Garcia for him being 36 years old. I’ll give them credit. I don’t think I could sit in a public setting with a straight face without busting out laughing at myself saying that if I had their voting record for young nominees under Trump.

        Like

  6. I give Ted Cruz credit for two things:

    1) Willingness to grow a beard while in the senate.
    2) being completely and utterly shameless at all times. The ease with which he debases himself and argues two completely different contradictory views is impressive. Not many can pull it off.

    Liked by 1 person

      • These people are lazy as hell, and not just on judges. They could be doing a hell of a lot more and forcing the GOP to filibuster many more bills that the House has already passed. You can bring up the labor bill, voting rights, abortion, climate change, and other legislation and force the GOP to keep blocking these things and then publicize them. That would encourage progressive voters when they see the Democrats actually trying to pass their agenda.

        Instead these bozos do absolutely jackshit other than take vacations and meet with their big donors for money they don’t fricking need (these Senate candidates are raising money hand over fist from internet donors).

        Like

  7. Still holding out hope that we cancel a week of recess to hold hearings and get some more stuff done in the senate. Taking four weeks off for basically no reason is just shameful.

    If they really must have four weeks off then either hold double the votes next week and work in an extra hearing on Thursday.

    Like

      • I would actually prefer Martin Jenkins over his second pick, Patricia Guerrero, who was a long time attorney for polluters. Basically she was another Dana Douglas, in a blue state this time. She is not much better than the garbage that Andrew Cuomo put up in NY state.

        Jenkins is at least a liberal, and even though he was 67, he will very likely be replaced by another Democrat. So age is less of a concern for me (although I would prefer younger nominees) than bad nominees.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I am a California voter– I think Cantil-Sakauye is doing a good job and up until today I planned on voting to retain her. As of now, I plan on retaining all California Supreme Court Justices on the ballot, even conservatives, given that liberals have a 5-2 majority and none of them are extreme right wingers. However, if you strongly oppose the retention of a specific California justice, you can make your argument to me and if you make some convincing points, I’ll consider voting against retention. Also, as an environmentalist, I will look into Guerrero’s ties with polluters and decide whether the ties are strong enough for me to cast a vote against retention.

        Like

    • Also Goodwin Liu should be elevated to Chief Justice. If he is not selected to be on SCOTUS (where he absolutely belongs), he should be able to stamp his legacy as the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court.
      As I’ve said in the past, Goodwin Liu is the most brilliant progressive legal thinker in this generation.

      Liked by 2 people

      • If Jerry Brown was the governor I would have all the confidence in the world he would elevate Goodwin Liu to chief. He would be a much stronger SCOTUS option as Chief Justice were Biden to get another nominee. I have guessed the last three SCOTUS justices correctly. I still am picking Allison Nathan as my front runner for the next vacancy as long as it’s Biden & a Democrat senate majority (I will re-evaluate my prediction when either of those two changes).

        I could however see Biden picking the first AAPI justice over the first LGBT. I’m afraid if he went that route he would pick Lucy Koh or Florence Pan. I don’t think he would consider Jennifer Sung since she had to be discharged. John Lee would get a strong push from Durbin but probably wouldn’t be picked over the others. But if Lui was Chief Justice I think he would get stronger consideration.

        We absolutely should not have to compromise judges in California. No reason why we can’t get both young & progressive judges for both the federal & state levels. While any Justice will likely be replaced by a Democrat so age isn’t as much of a factor as most other states, I still don’t trust that with California’s ridiculously easy recall laws which need to be changed to make it harder by the way.

        Speaking of state SCOTUS’s, governor Reynolds’s announced her pick to replace the only Democrat appointee on the Iowa SCOTUS today. It’s sad to think when I first voted in 2000 both Iowa & Florida had complete Democrat SCOTUS justices. Soon both will Ave complete Republican justices once the span of 23 years.

        Liked by 1 person

  8. @Dequan I agree on Nathan, she would be a top contender. I also think it probably depends on who is being replaced. If it’s Thomas there’s probably a lot of pressure to name a black person; if it’s Sotomayor then probably a Hispanic judge.

    Like

    • Oh yea, I should have specified. If its any justice other then Sotomayor then my prediction is Nathan. If it’s her that retires then I would go with either Myrna Perez or Bradley Garcia.

      As for Thomas, I don’t think there will be as much pressure to replace him with another black justice with KBJ now on the bench. I think Biden would go with a “first” over that.

      Like

      • We already have 2 justices from New York and one from New Jersey. If another vacancy happens they should look on the west coast.

        We also don’t need anymore judges from DC Circuit. There are plenty of qualified people elsewhere.

        It’s okay to have 6 white people but 2 black folks are too many? Give me a break!

        Like

      • @Kevin Collins

        That’s not what I said at all. I didn’t say 2 black justices was too much. I said I predict that Allison Nathan will be the next SCOTUS pick if Biden was president & we had a Democrat majority in the senate unless Sotomayor was the justice to leave.

        Then I said if it was justice Thomas was the justice being replaced I still am sticking with my prediction because since we have KBJ on the court, I think Biden would go with a first (LGBT or AAPI) over a second black justice. Nowhere in that prediction did I say two black justices w2as too many.

        Like

  9. Well, that’s what it sounds like. What’s wrong with choosing someone based on their own merit ? If that person happens to be black then so be it.

    It comes off like we have a token so now we don’t have to look at another black person. That’s tokenism that most black people won’t stand for.

    The court is too small for identity politics.

    Like

    • @Kevin Collins

      I’m sorry but how does me giving my prediction as to who the next SCOTUS pick will be sound anything like I think having two black oriole on the Supreme Court is too many? Like I don’t even remotely know how that sounds anything like that.

      Yes I do believe the court should have at least one black personal just like I think it should have at least one Hispanic & at least one woman. I don’t think our highest court should be without at least one of each of those categories. I don’t consider that calling any of them “tokens”. They would only be tokens if they were not qualified. Since this country has plenty of qualified in each category then there is no reason for me to call any of them that. And it also does not mean I don’t think there should be more then one of any. But my prediction is Allison Nathan. I am still trying to figure out where in the world did you read me write more then one is too many.

      Like

      • We are just talking here. At the Democratic primary in 2020 Biden made a pledge to black voters in South Carolina. He said he would put a black woman on the Supreme Court. He did not make that pledge to any other group. So, you lost me when you made that leap.

        I’m not trying to pick on you but this is what many people do, They say Clarence Thomas is there and he is a black guy. Thomas is a man who happens to be black. The only thing that Thomas can offer black folks is optics. He’s too complicated to explain here as he does not view himself as “representing” black folks;

        What you are saying is tokenism. Do you think the Republican party cares about black peoples’ interests because they have Tim Scott? Any senator white , asian, latino or whatever has done more for black folks than him.

        It’s an old trick used for years to allow one token black into a neighborhood, hotel or management position and exclude anymore because you have one person there.

        There’s no offense on my part. Bliack people are worse off than any protected class. We don’t need quotas or to be tokens, That’s all I am saying.

        Like

  10. If we are really going solely on merit, the clear choice is Justice Goodwin Liu. I’ve said several times here that personally I would have scrapped the pledge to nominate a Black woman to put Liu on SCOTUS. He’s that good. Pressure needs to be put on Newsom to elevate Liu immediately.

    If Florence Pan, Lucy Koh, or John Lee are selected with a Democratic Senate, I would consider voting GOP over Biden in 2024. After J. Michelle Childs, these were three worst Biden appointed appellate court nominees in my view. I gave these nominations all Ds of some nature.

    If Sotomayor retires, the replacement should be Myrna Perez. Nathan would be ok IMO as well, but not as good as Liu.

    Like

    • You’ve been accused here of not caring much about diversity for people of color, and certainly not as much as you care about anything else. This last comment probably won’t dismiss those accusations. Bernie Sanders faced the same thing in his presidential primary campaigns.
      It would have been political suicide for Biden to go back on such a monumental promise, plain and simple. He had no choice but to follow through.
      As a black person myself, I do not prioritize race like many Dems and people on here. Yes, I like diversity, but just how diverse can a body of nine people be?
      When it comes to the federal judiciary, I mostly care about age, qualification, and ideology.
      As to Justice Goodwin Liu, I’ve said on other posts on here that I’m his original fanboy. I’d love to see him on SCOTUS. Maybe he can replace Thomas.

      Like

      • Frankly those accusations don’t bother me, and I’m not really going to defend myself. I’m a person of color too (not that it matters), and I’ve said many times here that if my comments about J. Michelle Childs are “racist”, then I’m proud to be one. I’ve expressed my views on diversity regarding the courts many times here; that it is important but it takes a back seat to progressive judicial values, and I stand by that.

        I mean Bernie Sanders’ proposals would do a hell of a lot more for people of color than some corporate Big Law Democrat who pounds their chest about how anti-racist they are while defending big corporate interests who are accused of racial and gender discrimination or dump pollutants in areas where people of color live. And frankly this blanket focus on “whiteness” is quite unhelpful, it throws millions of progressive whites under the bus and alienates millions more who could easily be convinced to support progressive viewpoints, including on racial matters.

        As far as Clarence Thomas, I pray every day for him to leave the bench ASAP under a Democratic President and Senate.

        Like

      • I’ll add that Justice Goodwin Liu is the only possible nominee that I would have reneged on that promise. But Liu is a potential Brandeis, Douglas, or Scalia; he’s could be enormously influential as a dissenter decades down the line. And as much as I love KBJ, she’s not in the same class as Goodwin Liu. Nobody on the progressive side is (the two Pams, Karlan and Harris come close though, but they are considerably older).

        Of course I would never made that promise because if you get an opportunity to appoint someone potentially great, you do so regardless of demographics. It’s like when you have an opportunity to draft a likely Hall of Famer in the NFL, you do it even if you’re stacked at that position.

        Like

      • @Shawn, actually agreed with most of what you say about the focus on race and Clarence Thomas. I care more about ideology. We probably won’t agree much on the efficacy of progressivism in terms of policy (always untested) and strategy (always failed). As I’ve said before, I’m one of those increasingly rare under 35Y.Os who’s a moderate voter (who prefers very progressive judges to balance the lopsided courts).
        I’m not like some on here pining for a return to the old days of their youth when both parties were more or less sane, so they could nominate older judges who’d retire soon anyway and didn’t have super strong political policy preferences while on the bench. Long gone are those days. Accept it and move on.

        Like

    • Pan, Koh or Lee would be terrible picks for the first AAPI nominee with a Democrat majority. That’s why I’m so against nominees like them being elevated to a circuit court. It positions them for consideration for SCOTUS. I would have been much happier with Dale Ho, Cecelia Wang & Jennifer Nou respectively for those three seats to go along with Jennifer Sung to be on the short list.

      If Sotomayor leaves then my first choice is still Myrna Perez. I will evaluate that after Bradley Garcia has been on the bench for a little because he is SOLID in my book. Every time I read more about him I like him even more. And I was highly impressed with him in the SJC hearing today.

      As for who I would pick if only qualifications were considered & nothing else, I just can’t answer that. I simply can’t remove politics from picking federal judges at all, let alone for the SCOTUS. Age matters too much to me & demographics & historic first are not too far behind in importance to me too. I guess if I absolutely had to pick a justice right now without regards to age my first choice would be Robert Wilkins but I also like Goodwil Lui & Pamela Harris as well. While I disagree with @Kevin Collins on a LOT, I do agree the next justice doesn’t need to be from the DC circuit.

      As for Biden’s pledge, there’s just no way he could have gone back on his word. Now if the argument is he shouldn’t have made the pledge in the first place, that’s certainly debatable. But I was fine with it because I do believe it was time for a black woman on the SCOTUS & KBJ was a phenomenal choice.

      Like

    • I like Goodwin Liu but his talent is being wasted on the Ca Supreme Court. Most recently, Liu was reportedly seeking an appointment to be California attorney general. Does he really want a career on that court.? My preference would be Katie Porter.

      Who Biden chooses will probably depend on who is leaving. I really want to see Ginny Thomas testifying before the house 1/6 committee. Her and Mr, Thomas belong in jail.

      Since Sotomayor is the most senior justice on the liberal side I wouldn’t expect her to leave soon. Unless her health is deteriorating.

      I don’t want to see anymore east coast people., The center of the country isn’t Washington D.C anymore.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I would have no problem with Katie Porter for either Supreme Court. She has spend her career standing up for consumers and as Liz Warren’s protege at CFPB and in the Dept of Treasury. She is a fantastic progressive.

        As far as the Thomases, I would be ok giving them a pardon to avoid jail in exchange for (a) Clarence Thomas immediately resigning from SCOTUS, and (b) both Thomases giving a full and complete accounting of everything they know about J6, even if it is behind closed doors.

        Liked by 1 person

  11. That is surprising on Desai. I hope there aren’t any GOP shenanigans going on with Sinema and the Reconciliation Bill announced yesterday….Anyway, I will take what we can get.

    Leahy should be back next week for all the votes so hopefully we can get everyone passed out of committee then.

    Like

    • Wasting a week on the reconciliation bill is not ideal when we should be confirming judges instead.

      Honestly the reconciliation bill is not that great. I’d vote for it reluctantly (unlike the infrastructure bill which I would have voted no); it’s better than doing nothing I guess, but not by much.
      As I’ve said before, I don’t blame Joe Manchin, he is not too different than what I’d expect from a coal heavy state that Trump won by 40%. I blame the Democratic Party establishment for putting us in a situation where Manchin is the deciding vote. I blame Cal Cunningham, who could not keep his f-ing Johnson in his pants. And I do think Kyrsten Sinema deserves an immediate primary in 2024, she’s awful.

      Like

  12. Yes, great about Desai! Conservative media started ramping up their opposition to her this week. I think she’ll need a tiebreaker on the floor, despite the voice vote this morning.
    Durbin has COVID. Definitely no more confirmation hearings next week. But hopefully he’ll be back for votes. Again, I don’t see Leahy being wheeled in just to vote on sending a nominee to the floor. Maybe a paired vote though.

    Like

    • I don’t think he would fly down for committee, but they will need him if they plan on doing the big reconciliation bill. Hopefully if so he can also discharge the others.

      Not necessarily a huge priority though as the bottleneck is more so getting additional hearings and also getting more floor votes for the currently cleared nominees.

      Like

      • Leahy fell in his home in Virginia, not Vermont. He is in metro DC resting last I read. But @Joe is correct, I’m more concerned with additional hearings then floor votes right now. That is the biggest priority. Filing cloture on circuit court nominees to kill the 30 hours in each is priority number two. Or perhaps number three after getting Biden to nominate more of the nine circuit court vacancies.

        Like

  13. I’m never an optimist when it comes to Dems being strategic on judges, so read this with a healthy dose of incredulity:
    Schumer might be holding most of the nominations for right before the senate leaves in order to get a deal to vote on them as a package. That’s the only explanation, besides dereliction, I can think of. If that’s the case, the nominees held over in SJC might suffer if they still aren’t voted out in time to be included or in need of a separate discharge vote. SJC absences are not nothing.

    Liked by 1 person

    • @Gavi

      Schumer did do that on December 17th so that is a possibility. My issue with that strategy is none of the circuit court nominees were included in that package deal. I don’t see Republicans allowing them to be included in any deal this time so close to the midterms, particularly without the rreal threat of cancelling recess on the table.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I’m not familiar with all of the SJC rules. I know there has to be a quorum for votes but does there have to be one for a hearing? I’ve seen hearings before with just a few senators so not sure if that was because it was agreed upon or is there no quorum rule for them.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s