Judge Jeffery Hopkins – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio

Judge Jeffery Hopkins has served as a federal bankruptcy judge in Ohio for twenty-five years and is now poised to gain a lifetime appointment to the district court bench.

Background

Born in Georgia, Jeffery Hopkins was drawn to the law because an uncle, Robert Hall, was murdered by Georgia sheriff Claude Screws while trying to execute an arrest. Screws’ conviction was later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. See Screws v. U.S., 325 U.S. 91 (1945). Hopkins subsequently received a B.A. from Bowdoin College in 1982 and his J.D. from the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law in 1985. After graduation, Hopkins was hired as a clerk by Judge Alan Norris on the Ohio Court of Appeals. When Norris was appointed by President Reagan to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit the following year, Hopkins followed him as a clerk on that court.

Subsequently, Hopkins spent three years at Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP (now Squire Patton Boggs) before joining the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Ohio.

In 1996, Hopkins was appointed to be a U.S. Bankruptcy Judge, and has served as such ever since.

In 2009, Hopkins was recommended to replace Judge Sandra Beckwith on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, alongside U.S. Magistrate Judge Timothy Black and Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas Judge Mary Wiseman. See Jessica Wehrman and Steve Bennish, Wiseman Finalist for Bench; Sen. Sherrod Brown Will Meet With Her, Two Others Before Recommending His Choice For Federal Court Vacancy, Dayton Daily News, June 26, 2009. However, the Obama Administration nominated and appointed Black instead after he was the final choice of Ohio senators.

History of the Seat

Hopkins has been nominated for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. This seat was vacated on May 18, 2022, when Judge Timothy Black moved to senior status. Hopkins applied with a selection commission put together by Ohio Senators Sherrod Brown, a Democrat, and Rob Portman, a Republican and was recommended to the White House by the senators. He was nominated on July 29, 2022.

Legal Experience

After clerking for Judge Norris on the state and federal benches, Hopkins joined the Cincinnati office of Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP (now Squire Patton Boggs), where he represented the Bexley City School District in fighting a teacher’s suit seeking a continued teaching contract. See State ex rel. Fraysier v. Bexley City Sch. Bd. of Educ., 583 N.E.2d 1000 (Ohio App. 1989).

Hopkins then shifted to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, where he worked in the Civil Division. Hopkins would become Chief of the Civil Division by March 1993. Among the cases he handled there, Hopkins represented the government in bankruptcy matters. See, e.g., In re Ernst & Young, Inc., 129 B.R. 147 (S.D. Ohio Bankr. 1991).

Jurisprudence

Since 1996, Hopkins has served as a U.S. Bankruptcy Judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, which covers much of Southern Ohio. In that capacity, Hopkins reviews federal bankruptcy filings and proceedings.

Among the cases he handled, Hopkins approved the sale of Cambridge Eye Associates and Douglas Vision Worlds, two Cincinnati based vision companies to Davis Vision Inc., a New York based company. See Ben Fidler, Davis Vision Wins Sight Resource, The Deal, Apr. 12, 2005.

Among his notable rulings, Hopkins allowed Troulies Ledbetter to discharge one of his student loans through the bankruptcy process, finding that it imposed an undue hardship. See In re Ledbetter, 254 B.R. 714 (S.D. Ohio Bankr. 2000). However, he declined to discharge a second loan that Ledbetter held, finding it ineligible for discharge. See id. at 717. In another ruling, Hopkins permitted the discharge of an obligation to hold a spouse harmless on joint debts, finding that it did not constitute a non-dischargeable award of alimony. See Davis v. Davis, 261 B.R. 659 (S.D. Ohio Bankr. 2001).

Overall Assessment

Recommended for the federal bench by Ohio’s bipartisan duo of senators, Hopkins should see little trouble with a comfortable confirmation. If Hopkins is not confirmed this Congress however, the election of a new senator to replace Portman in Ohio may complicate his path to the bench.

86 Comments

  1. Hopkins would have been a good nominee in 2009 but it’s poetic Justice he is now nominated to replace Timothy Black who was nominated instead. While he’s in his 60’s, he’s a decent pick for a purple state. The case involving his uncle that went all the way to the Supreme Court was intriguing. I look for Hopkins to be confirmed before the end of the year.

    Like

  2. He is more likely than not to be confirmed. Hopkins is certainly qualified and there’s nothing I see in his records that would generate strong opposition. He had a confirmation hearing not long ago and it went without incident.

    Like

  3. Pingback: Judge Jeffery Hopkins – Nominee for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio – Law Glitz

  4. I agree, should be an easy confirmation and he’ll likely get votes from at least Portman, Graham, Collins, and Murkowski. I expect every district nominee that has cleared committee to get a vote in November or December so it should be straightforward.

    Like

    • There’s almost no reason I can think of for at the very least every pending & after the next couple SJC executive meetings, future district court nominees to be confirmed before the end of this year. They can knock out at least 4 in one day even if Republicans make them burn every minute of time they can.

      And that’s even based on the senate 3 day work week. If Democrats were to lose the senate I surely hope at the very least they would move to a 4 day work week in the lame duck if not 5 days.

      Like

  6. Exactly. At worst it can be knocked out in two weeks. And in all likelihood Schumer will probably just file cloture on all of them the last week of December anyway and commit to holding the senate in session until everyone gets a vote.

    Like

  7. Something that I haven’t seen on this site talked about yet but if the Dems hold the senate, we are likely to see two new members of the SJC. Senator Leahy is retiring & senator Feinstein would become the senate pro temp. What two Democrats would everybody want to see added in that scenario?

    My two picks, regardless of if they want to be on it or not would be Elizabeth Warren & Raphael Warnock. Now in my dream scenario assuming some Democrats win election next month would be Cheri Beasley & Mandela Barnes.

    Like

    • What do you mean? What does the senate pro temp have to do with SJC membership? The two last men to serve as presidents pro tempore have remain in SJC.

      As to your boarder question. I really hope the number goes back down. No more than 19 members, but preferably just 17. I don’t know if you remember, but the number has been steadily going up for a few years now, especially in 2019, when Kamala Harris would have been dropped if it wasn’t expanded. And many saw membership in SJC as a major step for senators with presidential aspiration.

      Like

      • I was factoring in WHO the senate pro temp would be in this case. Senator Feinstein (I’m trying to be nice) barely made it to SJC hearings without the extra job so I’m assuming she would gracefully bow out.. Lol

        As for your second point, I absolutely think they need to reduce the number of SJC members. 22 is too high. With that said, power is a hard thing to give up. After the Ways & Means committee, the judiciary may be the second most important committee (And possibly the highest profile committee). I doubt they will reduce the membership sadly. Once power is given, it’s rarely given up willingly. Let’s assume I am right in both cases, what two Democrats would you like to see added assuming a couple of the current non senators win next month?

        Like

      • The senate doesn’t have a Ways and Means committee. Its version is Appropriation. Actually, the most important and high-profile committees in the Senate are Appropriations, Armed Services, Finance, and Foreign Relations. So much so that Republicans limit membership on these committees to only one senator per state (not like Cruz and Cornyn or Grassley and formerly Ernst, Klobuchar formerly Franken on STJ).
        To the very heart of your question: none, 0 addition. As we agree that it’s way too large already. But if they insist on keeping it at the current size, only one vacancy will occur for Dems and that’s for Leahy. It’s too much to assume that Feinstein would leave. pro tempores don’t do much than enroll passed bills and sometimes preside. To replace Leahy I’d also go with Elizabeth Warren. But it’s fair to assume that she doesn’t want this assignment. Most committee membership (including SJC) is based on seniority. Warren had seniority over all the new Dem members, which suggests that she never wanted it as she would have had first dibs.
        For a second hypothetical vacancy, I’d say Maggie Hassan if she wins reelection. She was a practicing attorney (I know I know, not a requirement) and was a capable governor.
        It’s too much of a leap for me to see either Cheri Beasley or Mandela Barnes winning (despite what some on here have been saying all year, Johnson is a proven survivor, and nothing suggests that this election would be different).
        Or maybe we could luck out with an excellent non-attorney like Franken or Hirono again?

        Like

      • I still haven’t forgiven Gillibrand for pushing Al Franken out. He was my favorite SJC member from the past two decades. I couldn’t pick Tina Smith out of a line up.

        As for your points about the Senate are Appropriations, Armed Services, Finance, and Foreign Relations committees, I do think traditionally those committees were higher profiled then the SJC. I’m not so sure anymore with the high profile the judiciary has gotten over the past couple decades.

        I do agree with you that Elizabth warren probably doesn’t want to be on the SJC since her seniority could have already gotten her on it. Perhaps if the Dems hold the senate, she might consider it, but I think it’s more likely a new senator would get on it. I’m not sure why somebody like her or Bernie Sanders don’t want to be on it though. I think both would be great.

        Like

      • As for Elizabeth Warren, I think she might accept serving on the Judiciary Committee for a two-year session to help with judges, but she would not want to serve there for the long haul. Like most Senators, she’d want to serve on the more powerful committees, ones which control specific Federal programs.

        Like

      • @Dequan, the reasons @Mitch highlights above is the reason the Big 4, as they are called, are still considered the most high-profile senate committees. It’s all about programs and budgets.
        Again, when it comes to the courts and adjacent institutions, I’m less surprised than you when things don’t happen, though they might seem like a no brainer to you. I really don’t see Sanders on SJC. It does nothing for his brand. I would separate my own love of the judiciary from the actual regard it’s held in by most Americans. Most Americans probably know about Finance and Budget and Foreign Relations committee. I doubt they do the SJC.

        Like

      • @Gavi & @Mitch

        Yea you two are probably right. But I wish the Democrats would move the judiciary to the top, most important committee. We probably wouldn’t have recess last week & next & Durbin would probably be having a SJC hearing next Wednesday if they did… Lol

        Like

  8. We have red state judicial nominations! Three for a texas and one for Mississippi, the recently mentioned Scott Colom. No idea if any have any chance with blue slips still being a thing. I’d guess not, but maybe some were discussed and compromised on?
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/10/14/president-biden-makes-twenty-seventh-judicial-nominations-announcement-and-announces-new-nominees-to-serve-as-u-s-attorneys-and-u-s-marshals/

    Like

  10. Oh wow, surprise surprise Friday. I didn’t even bother doing my daily check for new nominees today. Well we just discussed Scott Colom at length earlier this week but for any future 5th circuit vacancy. I guess The White House threatened the Mississippi senators they would just nominate him as soon as there was a 5th vacancy.

    With Colom having no shot of being confirmed this year I think the senators played it smart. They delayed the agreement to turn in their blue slips until now. If Dems keep control of the senate, they probably have a gentlemen’s agreement with Biden that he will consult them for any 5th vacancy & since two of the Mississippi judges on the 5th are eligible for senior status today, they probably figured at least one vacancy is probably over the next two years. In exchange they give their consent on this one district court seat & will probably get either a moderate Democrat or a Steven Locher type nominee for the next district court vacancy.

    Like

  11. @Gavi

    I don’t think any circuit judges will be confirmed this year who haven’t already been nominated. As it stands, the next hearing that would have slots for a 5th circuit nominee would be Nov 30, so there’s no need to realize any names at this time. I think we’ll see some more nominees after the midterms or perhaps shortly before (frankly I’m very surprised we got one today, but with him being a compromise nominee maybe Biden and Co wanted to get it out there).

    Like

  12. Also didn’t even bother checking the White House website today. There are errors on today’s release, so it was confusing to read. I at first thought that the three US Attorneys nominated in Texas were nominated for judgeships. Even for a state with two GOP Senators, no one born in 1957, like Jaime Esparza, should be nominated for a judgeship, so thank goodness he was nominated for a US Attorney position.

    Like

  13. Re Costa’s replacement:
    I disagree with those saying new circuit court nominations now can’t be confirmed by year’s end. If Dems want to confirm those nominees, there absolutely is enough time. For the life of me I don’t get why we can’t strive for Republican-level judicial discipline as opposed to be resigned to accepting the mediocrity. There wasn’t a question about Republicans’ resolve to confirm Thomas Kirsch when he was officially nominated mid-November 2020 after the election. But somehow Biden filling a vacancy that was announced as pending since January is too much of a stretch? If this group on here, which is many times more Article Three savvy than the population as a whole, can’t demand better then what hope is there for the wider public to care about judges?
    I firmly believe that at least two of the four current circuit court vacancies should be filled by the end of the year. Not filling them isn’t just a matter of “oh, shucks, we ran out of time.” It’s a downright disgrace. There is still time for Biden to nominate those candidates and for the senate to confirm them. It’s as simple as that.

    Blue Slip
    This is purely a senate matter. The WH doesn’t get blue slip commitment from senators before moving forward with a nomination. As soon as the WH is confident about their vetting and feels like there’s been enough home state senate consultation, they move on. Whether or not the senators agree is a different matter, which usually plays out after the SJC chair’s staff hands out the slips. This is why a good number of Trump’s district court nominations were announced, only for the home state Dems withholding the blue slip. Similarly, don’t be too shocked if the Mississippi senators balk at the Colom nomination.

    Like

    • @Gavi

      I share your wanting senate Democrats to be able to announce the remaining 4 circuit court vacancies & get them confirmed. But I don’t share your belief that they could be confirmed before the end of the year by THIS senate. That’s because in order to do that (Of course along with all other pending nominees) before the end of the year, would take astronomical changes to what we have seen from the senate the past year & a half.

      Let’s first start at the differences between 2022 & 2020. Republicans had 53 senators while now Democrats have 50. So no nominees had to worry about being discharged back then, while I’m fairly confident anybody I would want to see as a circuit court judge will be a tie vote in the SJC in a lame duck, Dems lose the midterm scenario.

      Second, there’s far more pending nominees already that need to be confirmed. That’s the results of a combination of things. There was no deal to confirm a batch of nominees before the election recess like the 16 that were confirmed in 2020. Also Republicans didn’t take the entire month off. We all know where I stand on Dems taking the extra two weeks off this week & next so I won’t rehash that.

      Third, Republicans had extra hearings as we have discussed in 2020. We all know Durbin’s take in not just breaking norms but even meeting the norms set by Republicans. If he would just meet those norms, we would have an additional two SJC hearings.

      So in order to nominate 4 more circuit court nominees, at the earliest this Monday, October 17th, this is what I see would need to change in order to get them along with all prior nominees confirmed. Durbin would need to hold the following hearings (Hypothetically speaking);

      1. Benjamin & 5 DC nominees
      2. Wamble & 5 DC nominees
      3. 6 DC nominees
      4. 2 CC (New Hampshire & Maryland) & and remaining DC
      5. 2 CC (Texas & Indiana)

      It is October 15th right now & it doesn’t look like we will get even the first of those hearings until at best November 9th. With the one week hold over before you can vote them out of the SJC, Durbin would need to hold those 5 hearings between November 9th & December 7th. I am as gun ho as the next man when it comes to Democrats confirming judges but I don’t see any scenario with that happening unfortunately.
      Just being realistic.

      Like

    • As to your last point, I thought it was just Trump being incompetent by announcing district court nominees in blue states without confirming that senators would turn in their blue slips. I don’t think that is the norm. I can’t think of too many cases outside of Trump where that has happened.

      Of course I’m not counting stunts like when Ron Johnson has a commission that recommends nominees only for him to not turn in his blue slip for his own recommendations. I also remember during Obama he named a gay black man to the Southern district that Rubio recommended only for him to find some case he disagreed with & he refused to turn his in. Same thing happened with a black woman in South Carolina.

      But I can’t remember too many cases where Obama or even GW Bush just outright nominated a district court nominee & a senator refused to turn in their blue slip without some back story that showed at some point they were going to turn theirs in. Can you think of any cases since 2000 besides Trump?

      Like

      • My point was more about the effort WH put into each nomination. When blue slips are in play the WH tries to work with the home state senators. If the senators don’t play ball and the WH did all the work anyway, many times the WH decides to just make the nomination anyway.
        About 17 of Obama’s nominations were blue slipped by Republicans.
        GWB also had some, but I am less familiar. I remember James Rogan of California, William Powell of W. Virginia, and Thomas Farr-NC (Bush years). I think there were some from NY, recommended by GOP Gov. Pataki, that were also blocked.

        Like

      • I don’t understand why any president would nominate somebody if they are almost assured the senators won’t turn in their blue slips. Like I get it when it comes to the examples I gave with Marco Rubio & Ron Johnson. But if at no time they think the senators will turn their blue slips in, why even waste time. Unless the SJC chairman is going to change the rule, I think that’s so unfair to the nominee, who often puts their career on hold pending a result. I hope this is not the case with Colom. I don’t see Biden doing that.

        Like

      • I’m not really sure how Hyde-Smith and Wicker would be in this situation; they don’t seem particularly reasonable but they don’t seem completely unreasonable either. Hyde-Smith voted to overturn the 2020 election & Wicker is a steadfast climate change denier (possibly worse than Jim Inhofe), but neither seem to be like Cruz & Hawley who exploit these conspiracies for a potential presidential run or Supreme Court nomination.

        Like

  14. I have insomnia here, so on another topic (Georgia), Ralph Warnock and Hershel Walker had the big debate. It appears that while Warnock did better, Walker really exceeded expectation. The consensus seems to be that it was a tie.

    The Daily Beast article damaged Walker, but not fatally.

    Like

    • I would say Walker did better than I expected but I wouldn’t say it was a tie. Warnock had a few low moments though. He didn’t really answer the question of him evicting low income residents for owing as little as $30. He didn’t give a particularly good answer in if he would vote for Biden in 2024. I also think he let Walker hit him on abortion more than he should. But I still would say he won.

      Like

    • I’ll explain what I mean by “turning point”; the GOP gives candidates a lot of leverage on misconduct (i.e. GOP voters will often vote for candidates accused of corruption, sexual violence, pedophilia, etc.) but not unconditionally. Occasionally, a GOP pervert will face their downfall (examples: Roy Moore, Madison Cawthorn, Sean Parnell) but much more frequently they retain their party’s support (TFG, Herschel Walker, Matt Gaetz). My real question is: Where do GOP voters draw the line? What distinguishes the two groups?

      Like

      • In the case of Georgia, the problem for Walker is he was never really in the lead in most polls before all the allegations came out. So he won’t be picking up votes with them.

        Now of course Georgia is different than most other senate races because of the run off. The real question is can Warnock get to 50%. If not, then I fear what the answer to your question might be in December. That gives an extra month & a half for anything to go wrong such as gas prices, the economy, Ukraine, etc.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @Ryan Joshi

        One thing is the amount of evidence. There was little evidence against Gaetz, other that he chose his friends poorly. Still, he doesn’t get invited to events as much.
        With Roy Moore, there was significant evidence that he really did those things (back in the 70’s, when teenagers were more mature). With Cawthorne, he exposed others to charges, even though his claims didn’t surprise many.

        Who is TFG?

        Liked by 1 person

      • @Dequan

        That’s partly true. When the allegations came out, Herschel Walker had pulled ahead, but it was within the margin of error. Everyone in the GOP was saying how much Walker had improved as a candidate. Now Warnock has regained the lead. Yet Walker is still within striking distance.

        Like

      • Exactly. I think the GOP is resigned to keep Warnock under 50% then go all in for the run offs. Particularly if control of the senate is in the line. Today on Meet the Press, Evan McMullin unequivocally stated he will not caucus with either party so an Utah upset could truly mean the senate majority is on the line for a potential run off. I’m donating money to McMullin’s campaign in just a few minutes.

        Like

  15. Another topic that popped into my head is if the senate remains a 50/50 senate, who could be on Biden’s list for compromise SCOTUS nominees should another vacancy occur, this time a Republican appointee. I’ll list my order of which circuit court judges (Assuming all that have been nominated will be confirmed) would be a compromise nominee that could get Republican support. I am not listing the order I would want to see, just the order I think Biden would consider for a compromise.

    1. J. Michelle Childs
    2. Florence Y. Pan
    3. Lucy Koh
    4. Sri Srinivasan
    5. Roopali Desai
    6. Cindy K. Chung
    7. Sarah A. L. Merriam
    8. Toby J. Heytens
    9. Anthony Johnstone
    10. Paul J. Watford
    11. Doris Pryor

    Who would you all put on your list?

    Like

    • @Dequan

      Cindy Chung is beginning to come under attack. Her office is investigating whether James Biden (Joe’s brother) embezzled from a health care company called Americore that went bankrupt to upgrade a beach house. It’s being implied that Chung is being offered the judgeship in exchange for letting James Biden skate on the charges.

      Like

      • Haaaaaa… Republicans are just throwing anything against the wall to see if it sticks. Chung has the backing of her Republican senator Toomey. But hey, I can think of PLENTY of more progressive choices that Biden could have made so let them try to sink her.

        Like

      • So those were the names I can see any senate Republican (In addition to the usual three) coming to Biden & saying they could support. So for instance, I could see one or both of the Indiana senators suggesting Doris Pryor. With a 50/50 senate, any suggestion from a Republican that is acceptable to all 50 Democrats, virtually guarantees confirmation. Now if I raise the number of Republicans to who could support to lest say 7, here is my list & why for each…

        J. Michelle Childs – Obvious reasons, no need to rehash what we have discussed on this site at length.

        Florence Y. Pan- An older nominee that has clerked for a well-respected Republican judge.

        Sri Srinivasan – He was confirmed 97-0.

        Roopali Desai – I think Sinema could convince 7 Republicans.

        Sarah A. L. Merriam – She is in her 50’s & not an outspoken liberal, even though I suspect her votes will be.

        Anthony Johnstone – He is a White male 7 Westerner that is a member of The Federalist Society.

        Paul J. Watford – He is closer to 60 then 50 & been fairly moderate then most other Democrat appointees to the 9th circuit.

        Doris Pryor – She would probably start off with two home state Republican votes. I can see her getting the usually three & picking up two other Republicans.

        Like

      • I think the timing of the vacancy would play a great role in if Childs is picked or not. If it’s late 2024 in a 50/50 senate, I do think she would be the front runner. But if it’s next year or early 2023, Biden would have enough time for a nomination to go bad with enough time to nominate Childs as a back up.

        Like

  16. Very disappointing that Freeman has yet to begin active service/receive her commission. Doesn’t look like she will start active service before her birthday in November, which is unfortunate. It would be great for her seniority to start at age 43 before she turns 44.

    Like

    • Roopali Desai took about two months to take the bench. She even let Mendoza, who was confirmed almost a month after her, pass her in seniority. Usually sitting judges move very quickly after confirmation to their seat. I notice those in private practice tend to take longer. They want to finish everything they are involved in that they will no longer be able to do once they take the bench.

      Like

      • Looking at the confirmation and active service/commission dates of Lee and Rossman who both exclusively worked for the Federal Defender like her, Freeman definitely should have started by now. I can only hope she gets started before the end of the month.

        Like

      • I’m a big advocate of confirming (More importantly commissioning) judges in order of age in order to maximize the number of potential Democrat chief judges so I agree. I hate it when the younger judge is commissioned first over the older judge just a few days or less apart. It happened last year in the Eastern district of Virginia just one day apart with judge Giles.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I should have said the only exception to that rule is if the older judge is part of a package deal & the Republican pick was the older judge. So for instance in the Eastern district of Pennsylvania, Perez should be commissioned before Murphy even though Murphy is older.

        Like

  17. There has never been an Asian-American on the court before. That’s important to the Biden Administration. Everyone remembers that Biden wanted to appoint a black woman to the court for the same reason.

    Like

      • If there are 51 or more Democrats in the senate. I’m sticking with my pick if Alison Nathan making history as the first openly LGBT justice.

        Strong contenders after maybe a year or so on the bench for me would be Roopali Desai or Julie Rikelman. I’m still sticking with Myrna Perez if Sotomayor is the Justice being replaced by Brad Garcia will surpass her on my list as time on the bench is achieved by him. I still believe if Roberts somehow leaves the bench, either Kagan or KBJ will be upgraded to chief.

        Like

  18. This is silly – there is no such thing as a “consensus candidate” anymore. If Republicans gain the Senate, McConnell has made it abundantly clear that he will not confirm anyone Biden nominates to SCOTUS or the appellate courts. If Dems keep the Senate or it’s still 50-50, then the nominee only needs to get 50 votes – the Dems confirmed KBJ in a 50-50 Senate, so they’ll be able to confirm Nathan or Srinivasan (both of whose pre-bench careers were much more centrist/conventional/boring than KBJ’s) or whoever else Manchin/Sinema will support.

    Liked by 1 person

    • @Hank

      Exactly. That’s my point. That’s why I specifically gave a list for one scenario (A 50/50 senate) in which Manchin’s vote will be needed & a second list for a scenario where Democrats have 52 or more senate seats. The list are different just for the reasons you gave. There’s no list for a Republican majority because also as you said, I don’t believe anybody would be confirmed.

      Btw has anybody seen recent polling out if Iowa. There was a poll this weekend showing Grassley just up by 3%. I’m sure that’s an outlier but still amazing any poll can be that close less than a month out. What’s going on there? Is the challenger that good? I haven’t followed that race at all.

      Like

  19. I’m thinking that if Democrats hold the Senate but Biden’s popularity remains low, Sonia Sotomayor may decide to do a strategic retirement from the Court. She’s pushing 70 y/o and has diabetes. Sotomayor no doubt remembers what happened with Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Then finding a successor would cause a lot of competing factions to come forward.

    Like

  20. Sotomayor absolutely should consider retirement if the Dems hold the senate with 50 or 51 votes. 2024 will likely see the loss of a handful of dem senators and who knows when they might regain a majority? Does she really want to wait 8 or 12 more years and work into her eighties?

    Like

    • I agree Joe. The main reason I want Dems to net a seat or two next month is so we no longer have to worry about so many discharge votes in the next two years. But the long term reason is because 2024’s map is brutal for the Dems. Having a 2 or 3 seat advantage may give them hope at salvaging an even Senate going into 2025.

      Either way, Sotomayor needs to really consider if she either wants to serve late into her 80’s or risk her seat ending up like RBG. She’s been a federal judge for over 3 decades so hopefully she chooses to step down next year at best or 2024 at worst. Both Myrna Perez or Brad Garcia should be ready for SCOTUS consideration by then.

      Like

    • Sotomayor has just become the most senior liberal, so she may want some time to exert that influence. She has the power to assign many dissents and perhaps an occasional majority opinion. If Dems end up with another 50-50 Senate or even 51-49, anyone whom Biden nominates to replace Sotomayor would likely be to her right.

      I don’t think Sotomayor will be ready to give it up if Dems hold the Senate. If Biden wins 2024 & Dems somehow keep the Senate with a potentially horrendous 2024 map, I think then Sotomayor would consider retiring during Biden’s 2nd term.

      Like

      • Sorry, I was late seeing this. I predict that you’ll end up being right and for the reasons you mentioned (although I certainly think a reliably liberal Justice, even another Latina, could easily be nominated and confirmed to replace her).

        Things will probably end up working out but Sotomayor may end up having to wait until 2032 or 2036 to get another chance. It’ll be up to her to decide wether or not that is worth working into her 80s.

        Like

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

Leave a reply to Mitch Cancel reply