Being a District Judge in Idaho is largely a thankless job. The state has only two judgeships, and the judges handle a large caseload. Nonetheless, Idaho’s senators have reached a compromise candidate with the White House willing to accept the spot: Judge Amanda Brailsford.
Background
A native Idahoan, Brailsford grew up in Hagerman in Southern Idaho. She received a B.A. from the University of Idaho in 1989 and a J.D. from the University of Idaho School of Law in 1993. Brailsford then clerked for Judge Thomas Nelson on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
After her clerkship, Brailsford joined the Boise office of Holland & Hart LLP, as an associate. She was promoted to a partner there eight years later. Brailsford then founded Andersen Banducci PLLC in 2013.
In 2018, Brailsford applied for a seat on the Idaho Supreme Court but was appointed by Republican Governor Butch Otter to a judgeship on Idaho’s Court of Appeals. See In a First, More Women than Men Apply to Idaho High Court, A.P. State & Local Wire, July 31, 2018.
History of the Seat
The District of Idaho, which covers the entire state, has only two authorized active judgeships. Brailsford has been nominated, upon the recommendation of Idaho Senators Michael Crapo and James Risch, to replace Judge B. Lynn Winmill, who took senior status on August 16, 2021. If confirmed, Brailsford would be the first woman on the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho.
Legal Experience
For approximately twenty-five years before she became a judge, Brailsford worked as a civil litigator. During this time, she argued a number of cases before the Idaho Supreme Court. See, e.g., Spur Prods. Corp. v. Stoel Rives LLP, 122 P.3d 300 (Idaho 2005). For example, Brailsford represented Dr. Mark Miller, a doctor who was sued for violating the non-compete provision of his contract with his prior employer. See Intermountain Eye Laser Ctrs., PLLC v. Miller, 127 P.3d 121 (Idaho 2005). After a lower court granted summary judgment to Dr. Miller, the Idaho Supreme Court reversed. See id. at 133.
Jurisprudence
Since her appointment in 2019, Brailsford has served on the Idaho Court of Appeals, which serves as an intermediate appellate court.
In her time on the court, Brailsford has written opinions in both criminal and civil cases. For example, Brailsford wrote for the court in affirming Cyrus Buehler’s aggravated DUI conviction. She also wrote for the court in affirming the denial of postconviction relief for Thomas Chaput, finding that he had failed to preserve his challenge.
On the civil side, Brailsford affirmed the denial of a concealed weapon license to Darrell Gunderson. Among other arguments, Brailsford rejected the challenge that the law barring his license violated the provision against ex post facto laws, or criminal laws having retroactive effect. Brailsford found that the firearms provision, even though it bars based on criminal conviction, is a regulatory measure and not intended to “punish” criminal conduct. As such, Brailsford ruled that the law was unlawful.
Overall Assessment
Nominated by a Democratic president with support from her Republican senators, Brailsford is expected to sail to confirmation. She should also be helped along the way by her relatively non-political background and the lack of major controversies in her time on the bench.
The Vetting Room 
Out of Biden’s 135 nominees, this was the nominee I could find the least about. She is truly a non controversial nominee. With Idaho only having two active judges (They really do need a third), her record & support from the two Republican senators, I’m hoping she is a voice vote & doesn’t waste senate floor time getting confirmed. Only one state left that has never had a female federal judge after she is confirmed (I’m looking at you North Dakota).
LikeLike
@Dequan, North Dakota almost had a woman (Jennifer Puhl) nominated to the 8th circuit under Obama, but McConnell never scheduled a vote on her (like many nominees at the end of Obama’s second term). She is still an AUSA and served as Acting US Attorney until Biden’s pick (Mac Schneider) was recently confirmed.
LikeLike
That’s right. McConnell’s shenanigans is another reason I wish Durbin would ditch blue slips. Any belief in Democrats playing by norms so Republicans don’t break them once they are back in power will lead to them breaking them first again. And we see what type of courts we got thanks to that thinking in the past.
LikeLike
Unsurprisingly, North Dakota is the most male state in the nation (presumably due to the coal jobs there). It’s also a small state so there aren’t that many federal judges in the state.
LikeLike
@Dequan
I think that Brailsford is a registered Independent. She’s definitely not political or controversial.
I wonder if this is part of a deal that includes Idaho getting a third District Judge?
LikeLike
Here’s my recap from today’s executive meeting.
Chairman Durbin made a small mistake saying Matthew Breokman was from Louisiana instead of Indiana. All five nominees were held over. Then him & chairman Graham spoke about the hearing they had Tuesday & protecting children.
Senator Coons then spoke about his chief counsel is leaving. She is going to work for minority leader Hakim Jeffries. Senator Booker then spoke about one of the members of his legal team leaving to join chairman Durbin. Senator Durbin responded jokingly by saying the staffer was “Movin’ on up” & Booker responded by saying he said it better than George Jefferson.
Senator Hirona jumped in & said Durbin also stole one of her legal staffers as well. Senator Blackburn then spoke about protecting children from online platforms. She then reinforced she will be requiring roll call votes for US Attorneys in protest.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The last couple of years under Obama with McConnell not allowing floor votes sadly once again showed a difference between Democratic and Republican leadership.
Leahy let nominees get floor votes etc. under W, McConnell didn’t under Obama, another form of malpractice that let conservatives get control of seats they shouldn’t have.
LikeLike
Yea..if we don’t see more nominees by today or tomorrow there will be no nominees for hearings in mid March or beyond.
LikeLike
Anyone have any guess on who Schumer will be filing if cloture on later this afternoon? My guess is perhaps it’ll be 3-4 uncontroversial district nominees. So far this Congress there have been almost zero unanimous consent agreements, so we have have had to burn the full 30 hours for each appellate nominee so far. They may opt to keep doing those on Thursday/Mondays until they are caught up.
LikeLike
Schumer is sending cloture motions to the desk right now. So far Whitehead, Martinez & Guzman
LikeLike
Strange that they’re skipping over Cartwright again. I hope there’s nothing wrong there. Whitehead shouldn’t be confirmed before her, she’s been waiting much longer.
LikeLike
I still haven’t figured out the rhyme or reason of the order he files for cloture. It can’t be based on age since Kimberly Evanson is older than Whitehead. It definitely isn’t the order they were reported out of committee.
Either way we are starting to get to some good nominees. I can see 3 of these 4 get consideration for a circuit court seat in the future.
LikeLike
Until Fetterman returns, we won’t see cloture filed on Abudu, Bloomekatz, Rikelman, Dale Ho, Vera, Clarke, Kato, Cartwright, Choudhury, Merle, Kobick, and Ramírez Almadani, IMO. If Harris has her schedule open up it’s possible they go ahead with the COA nominees depending on how long he’s out or if one of the Republicans has an elongated absence.
LikeLike
Schumer filed cloture on 4 District Court nominees, non of which are controversial…
Should have filed on Garcia, or Bloomekatz..
LikeLike
Guzman is the one who had a controversial record on drunk drivers’, right?
LikeLike
Yea that was Guzman. Here is the report;
In 2012, the special counsel for the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court noted that Guzman had acquitted all 149 defendants who appeared before her in bench trials on drunk driving charges. The report, which did not allege judicial misconduct, called for reform of procedures to ensure that lawyers did not engage in judge shopping.
LikeLike
About what I expected. This should be enough to fill up Monday/Tuesday with confirmations votes. Seems like they’ll keep up the strategy of doing appellate nominees on Thursday/Monday and district nominations the rest of the week.
There are still 5 appellate (not counting Kahn) and 25 district nominations that need floor time, so there is plenty of options to go around for now.
Assuming that Casey and everyone else is back next week, I’d love to see some of the more controversial nominees finally get their votes in the middle of the week.
LikeLike
Senates in recess next week but then will be in session for about a month. Two of the tweeks will only be Tues-Thurs though.
Shame too as I’m really enjoying seeing so many confirmations a week.
LikeLike
Sorry, meant to say “week after next”.
LikeLike
We will have a lot more of these types of weeks this Congress though since there will be little serious legislation coming out of the House.
LikeLike
Fetterman has checked himself into a clinic for depression so he will be out for a little bit, maybe why Schumer is waiting on some nominees.
LikeLike
The fact that we didn’t get new nominees this week is unacceptable. At the very least, we should have nominees for the Court of International Trade or Federal Claims. No hearing should go wasted, and thats four nominees right there…
Also, much appreciation to the folks who provide recaps of Judiciary Committee nomination hearings and executive meetings!
LikeLike
You’re very welcome Mike. And I agree, no new nominees means a skipped future SJC hearing. That’s completely unacceptable in year 3 of the administration.
LikeLike
When there is transition within any administration, there is often a lull between when nominees for relevant positions are announced. I thought we’d see some new nominees this week, but it’s not unacceptable that there weren’t any. Likely we will see some more nominees in 2 weeks for a 3/15 hearing slot.
LikeLike
So what happened with the Kahn vote, shouldn’t that have been next vote
LikeLike
They sometimes have two votes on Monday’s. Perhaps they will vote on her after the Walker cloture vote but most likely Tuesday.
And I hope senator Fetterman gets well soon. With 51, they still can confirm nominees without VP Harris, they just have to make sure nobody else misses the votes. It seems like none of the 49 Republican senators ever get sick or are out for extended periods of time so they will need all 50 others for sure for the tougher votes.
LikeLike
Yeah, I think Grassley had hip surgery recently and he was in the SJC as well as on the senate floor for votes…
Leahy had that surgery last year and was out a while
LikeLike
That’s odd, Khan received yea votes from Collins, Murkowski, and Graham so she will be easily confirmed. Who knows what Schumer is thinking
LikeLike
Hopefully Fetterman is not out long at all. Really hate they he is struggling like this.
LikeLike
The New York Times has a piece that explains the new demands that his job requires of him. It says that he may have returned to the campaign trail too early which may have affected his long term recovery.
I hope he gets better.
LikeLike
Just FYI for anyone who wasn’t following this: New York state Senate voted 39-20 against Hector LaSalle’s confirmation on Wednesday.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/02/15/senate-hochul-lasalle-chief-judge-00083000
LikeLike
@Dequan
You mentioned yesterday that Biden has now nominated 135 nominees. Is that number correct? 135 Article III nominees? I haven’t been keeping track myself, but that number seems higher than I would expect.
I know we are now just over 100 A3 confirmations — that is over 100 judgeships.
How is that number fewer than 135, especially when there are some people who were nominated to more than one judgeships? What am I missing?
Relatedly, do we know the number of *new (non-elevated) judges Biden appointed to the bench? That is, people who weren’t already a federal judge.
LikeLike
@Gavi
Here are the exact numbers.
SCOTUS – 1
Appeals court – 37
District court – 111
That totals 149. Now we have to subtract 3 because those numbers include KBJ, Sarah Merriam & Florence Pan twice. So that brings it down to 146. Those numbers do. It include Jorge Rodriguez, William Pocan or Jabari Wamble so the exact number is 146.
On a separate note, for those of you that use Wikipedia, I’ve started creating pages for possible nominees that didn’t have a page & also adding information on other pages that had little information & also added a profile picture for some. They include pages for Andrew Manuel Crespo, Rochelle Garza, Sundeep Addy, Camille McMullin, Bryant Yang & Mario Garcia. I’ll be creating more pages over the next week… Just fyi
LikeLike
Dequan
I see. You are including announced nominees, not just confirmed.
Do you have the number of Biden’s total new Article III appointees handy?
Michael Delaney
We spoke about him extensively earlier this week, so I am just adding something new that I read: Durbin said he hasn’t decided if he’ll support the nomination. This may very well be the first nominee to draw a negative Democratic vote (if still no movement on Ho, Abudo, etc.). Or, Durbin may decide to not bring it up for a SJC vote.
As I’ve already said, Republicans have misstated Delaney’s representation and people (even in here) are falling for it.
Delaney should be confirmed right away OR voted down OR withdrawn. Any one of those actions that would allow for a new nominee to be named without delay. The nomination should not be allowed to languish, thus extending the already extended vacancy.
LikeLike
Yea sure Gavi. Here is where you can find all of the nominees.
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Joe_Biden)
As for Delaney, I think both he & Charnelle Bjelkengren can both be Biden nominees that could be the second (We have to remember Freeman officially got a Democrat NO vote) to get a NO vote from a Democrat. We will have to see if they get two which would be enough to sink their nominations.
I do agree that whatever happens with either of them, it should happen in relative short order. That way if they fail, at least we will have over a year to get another nominee confirmed.
LikeLike
All 50 Dems voted yay to confirm Arianna Freeman last year. Do you mean that a Dem vote no on a procedural vote on that nomination?
LikeLike
That is incorrect. On Freeman’s first confirmation vote two Democrats were not present. So when the nomination was about to fail, senator Schumer changed his vote to NO so that he can send a motion to reconsider the nomination. Of course he voted YES on the second confirmation vote. Just saying if your on Jeopardy & the question is did every Democrat senator vote yes on every Freeman’s confirmation vote & you answer yes, you will be wrong & not win the money… Lol
LikeLike
Ha!
No way that would count.
Schumer voting NO was purely procedural. What’s more, only final vote counts since only final vote determines if a nominee gets appointed as an officer of the United States. So yeah, Ted Cruz is right, no defections yet.
LikeLike
Freeman’s first vote is part of the senate record. It counts. You can’t say something never happened when it’s in the historical record. It’s a fact a Democrat senator voted against Freeman on a confirmation vote. But again it was just a procedural move so we know he only voted no to eventually get her confirmed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Again, a cough on the senate floor during a speech is a part of senate record but is of no significance. Amy Coney Barrett isn’t on SCOTUS because of Murkowski’s NO procedural votes. She’s on the bench, in part, because of Murkowski’s YAY vote.
LikeLike
Correct, the no vote is of no significance. Just saying as a matter of fact though there still was a no vote & the historically record shows such. But let’s hope that will be the only no vote do to attendance issues… Lol
LikeLike
If Senator Durbin is on the fence about a nominee put forth by a blue state, then this is a really bad.
LikeLike
The issue with Delaney is that he had to know what he did in the case with the outing of a victim of sexual assault would come up and when it did, he failed horribly at trying to defend it.
That’s because there is no defense for what he did, a reason some progressive groups oppose him and rightfully so.
If Durbin and others are on the fence, that needs to be made clear now so another nominee (Gilles Bissonnette my top pick) could be named.
All my IMO.
LikeLike
While I said from the beginning that the Delaney nomination didn’t blow my socks off, none the less I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. He’s well qualified & I feel a lot of what was said at the hearing was just grandstanding. To me, the thing that bothered me the most out of the hearing was his answer to senator Cornyn.
He asked him if he thought this issue would come up in the hearing & Delaney answered yes. Cornyn then asked him if he included that case on his SJC questionnaire when they ask to list ten important cases they have been involved with & he said no. His explanation for not including it sounded like total bs to me to be honest. Just because there was a settlement that involved a disclosure agreement doesn’t mean you can’t list your involvement in the case.
I truly hope the administration has a plan B because as senator Cruz said to Delaney, that hearing didn’t go well for him. And trust me I hate agreeing with Cruz on much of anything. Gilles Bissonnette (I think I’ll create a Wikipedia page for him today because he doesn’t have one) was my first choice from the beginning. I hope either he or someone in his mold has either been or is ready to be vetted in short order.
LikeLike
I’m not trying to be argumentative but I didn’t find anything that Delaney said troubling at all.
He said he didn’t list the case as noteworthy because it was a case that settled. No arguments were made in court a jury was seated and he never saw the judge. He was counsel for the defendant. There’s nothing to discuss.
I’ll have to admit that the 16 year old plaintiff had some slick lawyers. They wanted to try the case in the media and be anonymous? You can’t have it both ways. It’s a ploy to get a settlement .
You can’t blame Delaney because his client didn’t want to debate the case in public.
I am noticing a pattern with these plaintiff’s attorneys going out in public using the victim’s family as props as many times as they can. It’s despicable!
LikeLike
@shawnee68
I get everything you’re saying. I’m just saying as a practical matter, if your soley basing him not including the case on his questionnaire on legal grounds, perhaps you can make the argument for him. But it just doesn’t pass the smell test in my opinion.
He admitted to Cornyn that he figured it might come up in the hearing. And it’s not like the questionnaire asks to name one case or three. It asked him to name TEN cases. I am somebody that is highly critical of Cruz, Hawley & Blackburn’s hypocrisy so I’m not taking anything they said into account. But as a person who tries to stay consistent, even when that position may hurt me or my interest, I must say I just don’t buy that he didn’t think that was one of the ten most important cases to list. I’m not saying that’s enough for me to say he shouldn’t be confirmed, just saying for me that was the one thing from the hearing even I had a problem with.
LikeLike
This stuff with Delaney is why I say that nominees ought not to be rushed. You have do a proper background investigation would include any allegations against a nominee.
Everyone knew the case would come up so the suggestion that Delaney was trying to hide something is absurd.
If you look at the groups that wrote in support of Delaney you could only conclude that the charges against him are baseless.
He didn’t try to out the plaintiff ( she did it herself after seeking anonymity).Nor is there any evidence that he tried to tamper with witnesses. Why would he do that on behalf of a client? It doesn’t make any sense.
If the tactics against Delaney work you can use them against any future or pending nominee.It’s unfair to give one person a veto over someone with a 30 year career.
LikeLike
@Dequan
“Cornyn then asked him if he included that case on his SJC questionnaire when they ask to list ten important cases they have been involved with & he said no. His explanation for not including it sounded like total bs to me to be honest.”
Bit over the top, no?
The 10 important case question is always subjective, no? Meaning that there’s no wrong answers because the nominee gets to pick the cases throughout their career THEY value as being in the 10 most important. How do you get to calling BS on his not listing an unargued, settled case? Who gets to make that pick? You? Cornyn? The question, then, should be: Please list the 10 cases that I think are the most important in your legal career.
LikeLike
The question definitely is subjective. That’s why I listed his previous answer to Cornyn about him believing the case would come up at the hearing as a reason it doesn’t pass the smell test to me. Now if he could name ten other cases he thought would come up in the hearing then that would justify him leaving that case off. My guess is he can’t which is why I call bs.
Imagine if on Julie Rikleman didn’t list any of her abortion cases on her questionnaire. Of course, by your standard she could have perfectly thought the ten cases she did mention were more important. But in my opinion that wouldn’t pass the smell test, so I feel similar in this case.
LikeLike
Julie Rikleman does get to decide on her own that the abortion cases are her most important. She just as easily could have had 10 non-abortion family law cases as the most important to HER.
I think you are confusing “most important” with “most controversial.”
Can you list Antonin Scalia’s 10 most important opinions? Would you include a sleepy case on admiralty law on that list? If not, the ghost of Scalia would haunt you for not putting it at the top!
LikeLike
Agree with Gavi that the not listing it on his top 10 cases is a nothing burger, even though I think the whole incident itself is arguably disqualifying and he needed a better response to it. The guy was NH attorney general, of course he’s going to have 10 more important cases than one that settled without any court proceedings. It still reflects badly on him for choosing to take on the school as a client when he could’ve said no (it’s not like he was a public defender), and the article mentioned one Dem senator who anonymously said they are leaning towards a no on this nomination. If he can’t get 50 votes, then Shaheen/Hassan meet to get over themselves and move on.
And besides Dequan weren’t you defending Al Franken a while back? I don’t like Gilibrand because she recommends bad judicial nominees (as would be expected from a former big law lawyer), but the whole anonymous backlash to her saying Franken should step down is just old male donors worried about the skeletons in their own closet.
LikeLike
@Hank
I am a HUGE Al Franken supporter. But besides that, I was being consistent when it comes to anybody that is accused of sexual harassment & says they are innocent. I believe in due process. I said that when Franken was accused just like I did when Trump, Biden, Cuomo, R Kelly or anybody else is accused of that.
My anger with Gillibrand is she didn’t afford Franken with due process just like she never seems to want to afford that to anybody. If you start to set that precedent, then that leads to a dangerous path in the future. My anger is only expanded in his case because Franken admitted to what he did & while bad, I don’t think rose to anything that should have led to him to have to resign. We lost a great champion on the SJC for a senator who I probably couldn’t pick out of a line up. While senator Smith votes the same way as Franken would have, we really lost a fighter who could have combatted Cruz & Hawley in the SJC.
LikeLike
Dequan we agree on a lot, but you’re argument doesn’t make sense here. Due process? This isn’t a criminal trial where Franken was being charged with anything, and there was no question that he did grope the women in question. The fact that some old white guys think it wasn’t that bad does not mean he was denied due process. Franken could have chosen to wait out the investigation against him and resign (or not resign) at a later point. Him resigning when he did is entirely his own choice – what was Gillibrand going to do if he didn’t, physically bar him from the Senate?
I’m no Gilibrand fan, but your claim that she “never seems to want to afford due process to anybody” also doesn’t make sense to me. Her whole thing is women’s rights/sexual assault in the military, and at the height of the MeToo movement it was hardly surprising that she would want to demonstrate no tolerance for that BS to strike a contrast with Republicans and Trump. Are we saying that all the other senators – including Schumer – who also said Franken should resign were…what, bullied into it by the junior senator from New York? I’ll hold a lot of things against Gillibrand, but not a zero tolerance policy for sexual harassment.
And sure Franken opposed Stras, but that didn’t stop Trump and the Republicans from confirming him anyways. Not sure what good a champion was when there was nothing any Dem could’ve done to make a difference.
LikeLike
@Hank
When I say, “due process”, I’m not saying it as a legal term for a courtroom. I’m not being literal. I’m just talking here on the blog, but I wouldn’t use that term if I was in a more professional setting.
It’s like when I say the senate is confirming the Secretary of baking cookies. I know there really isn’t a position called that, I’m just being sarcastic, driving home my point of how the position is worthless compared to a lifetime appointment to the judiciary.
LikeLike
Dequan – yes I know you didn’t mean the exact legal definition of due process, but one of my points (sorry if it wasn’t clear) is that powerful men claim lack of “due process” when they just mean that they shouldn’t be held accountable for their actions. That’s what I find to be BS.
If you think Franken shouldn’t have resigned because the allegations against him “weren’t that serious,” that’s not a lack of due process in any sense of the phrase – it’s just a disagreement about what you consider to be sexual harassment. Gillibrand was never going to do well in presidential primary right after a blonde female former NY senator snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in the last election, but it’s ridiculous for Dems to fault her for taking the zero tolerance position on sexual harassment. Franken could’ve chosen not to resign, and just because he now regrets his decision to do so, that doesn’t somehow make him a “victim” of…what, a single senator who wasn’t even in Dem leadership?
I had more respect for Franken before the whole scandal (as did everyone), but his whole “woe-is-me” act in the years since is really quite pathetic.
LikeLike
Sexual harassment is serious & im against it in all forms. But I think equating what Franken did decades ago to sexual harassment is where is I disagree. But as for Gillibrand, my disagreement with her is wanting somebody to lose their job just based on an accusation. There is a process for dealing with situations like that. She was calling for his head before the process played out as she has done for others. So that’s my disagreement with her. But she definitely isn’t the worst New York Democrat. That distinction still lies with governor Hochul in my opinion.
LikeLike
Can you please tell us what specifically he did that’s indefensible? Your opinions are you own so what I am looking for are specific legal actions and such. Maybe this is the best way for me to help clear up the legal misconceptions.
LikeLike
Where’s the article about Durbin being on the fence on Delaney? I believe it, but it would be a big deal if he said (or even hinted at) that publicly – hard to see how Hassan/Shaheen can push Delaney through without Durbin on board.
If Delaney fails, we’re far more likely to get another former Dem New Hampshire AG (or maybe solicitor general if NH has that position) than anybody from the ACLU. Hard to imagine the squarely moderate NH senators proposing someone who will likely be seen as a lefty – especially after suffering the embarrassment of having their recommended nominee being the first to be rejected. If this was a Sinema/Desai situation where a centrist senator would support someone who checked off any of the administration’s priorities in terms of personal or professional diversity, it would not have taken this long to get a name in the first place.
Luckily any nominee is likely to be to the left of Howard, and I’m fine as long as they just get a Dem nominee to fill this seat before the 2024 elections. The fact that the administration can’t even seem to nominate people in time for SJC hearings has me concerned.
LikeLike
Today is the last day we could get a new batch of nominees & still not have to skip a hearing per the 28 day rule.
3/1 – “Best case scenario” Wamble (Highly unlikely) , Colom, Brailsford & 1 or 2 nominees for meaningless positions.
3/15 – Nominees from today or skip this hearing.
3/29 – Nominees from today through March 2nd.
LikeLike
@Hank
That’s exactly why I’m not gung-ho about killing this nomination. He won’t be replaced with anyone more progressive and it probably won’t happen any time soon.
Here’s the article about Durbin’s undecidedness:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/16/politics/michael-delaney-biden-circuit-court-nominee-school-sexual-assault/index.html
In another article from Bloomberg (I can’t find it now) Hirono, the Senate’s biggest champion against sexual violence, said she’s prepared to support him. So with support from the NH senators, Hirono, and Ayotte, I’m hoping we can move on right away.
LikeLike
I doubt any replacement nominee would be any less ‘progressive’, and he or she would have a decent chance at being younger, which I thought were the most important qualities for you?
LikeLike
“I doubt any replacement nominee would be any less ‘progressive.’”
A broom stick could be more progressive than Delaney.
Brushing your strawman snide aside, as much as I would love it, I don’t have high hope that the NH senators care about youthful nominees. I don’t know what facts you are looking at to allow you to quantity the chances of a younger nominee as being decent. Again, knowing those senators, I’d argue that a replacement nominee could indeed be older.
LikeLike
Fetterman is going to be out for a few weeks.
Makes having that extra seat matter all the more.
LikeLike
It could be longer than that, honestly. Nobody should be putting any timetable on his return right now.
LikeLike
Fetterman will need to take the time he needs to get well. The other 50 Democrats should be back & ready to work 3 days a week for five straight weeks which I don’t think is too much to ask since they will have had three weeks off by the end of February & another two weeks off in April.
The math is still there for Democrats to confirm anybody with unanimous support in Fetterman’s absence. If there is one good thing about Biden not sending any additional nominees to the senate, it’s that Schumer will soon be getting to the point where he is running out of nominees to confirm & will have no choice but to finally bring up Abudu, Ho & the other heavy hitters.
LikeLike
The good news is if the other 50 senators are in town they should still be able to approve everyone 50-49 even with Fetterman absent.
LikeLike
I will say this on folks like Gregg Costa and Paul Watford among others.
At least they waited until a Democrat was in office before they retired for other careers.
Under Trump, Ann Claire Williams, Chris Droney and Thomas I. Vanaskie retired to take jobs elsewhere and let their seats flip, with Droney giving a tone deaf comment that in his option, the Republican jurist who replaced him was a moderate and folks need not to worry, a reality that has not been born out by some of the options he’s written and the en banc hearings he has joined to try and make the 2nd Circuit a more conservative court.
He and the others made clear that at the end of the day, cashing in was more important then ensuring the courts didn’t get worse under their watch, no matter who got hurt.
Can’t forgive stuff like that.
LikeLike
I can and don’t hold any of them
accountable not one bit, because they worked hard to finally reach retirement age & beyond and have every right to retire as they see fit, regardless of the politics de jour. If it were me reaching retirement age….I’d say DEUCES to all of you and ride off into the sunset (lol).
LikeLike
Totally agree Jill. Nobody should be shamed for retirement or for being “too old” to be a good nominee.
LikeLike
All due respect, some folks have the luxury of not having to care when/if certain judges take senior status/retire.
Others of us aren’t that lucky.
Here in the 2nd Circuit, we are seeing far more en banc cases then we use to in an effort to turn the law to the right on LGBT rights, reproductive rights and gun control laws and that is in part due to two Obama judges not caring about being replaced by conservative jurists.
You can LOL but many of us won’t be for a long time to come.
LikeLike
I know we usually talk about the diversity of Biden’s picks but one thing we never discuss is how many have never been judges on any level. Out of all of Biden’s circuit court pics, I count 18 out of 37 were never a judge before their nomination. If Wamble is renominated that would be 19 out of 38.
LikeLike
Good & honorable judges don’t & shouldn’t care, because they did the job they were sent there to do.
LikeLike
Don’t hold anything against anyone that retires early as long as it’s under a Dem administration. In fact I view that favorably, as they are giving someone else an opportunity (even if they were great judges themselves). Kudos to Costa and Watford for fine federal judicial career.
LikeLike
Costa & Watford RESIGNED and not retired…two separate things.
But I know that it means a lot to many of you on this blog that at least they resigned under the party in which they were appointed.
LikeLike
Blessings to President Carter & his family
(https://www.yahoo.com/news/charity-former-president-jimmy-carter-203157861.html)
LikeLiked by 2 people
Carter is the only president in recent history who is still alive after all of his judges have left the bench.
LikeLike
Albeit several of his appointees are still hearing cases in senior status and one nominee (Cabranes) is still technically active after having been elevated by Clinton.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Something continues to be rotten in the State of New York.
Last year, the Commission on Judicial Nomination kept the application period for Chief Judge open for months. Now, they’ll have it open for less than a month. As it happens, about three commissioners will leave at the end of next month. It seems like they are rushing the process so that the exiting Cuomo and DiFiore appointed commissioners get a say, and recommend LaSalle-like candidates.
This whole system seems rife with misconduct and lack of transparency. With supermajorities in Albany, I really hope Dems can work toward a constitutional amendment to change it.
LikeLike
I admittedly don’t know the process for amending the constitution in New York, but if it’s possible they need to do so now with a super majority. And while they are at it, can they please change the name of the New York Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court. I could be missing another state but I believe NY & Maryland are the only two states whose higher return names the Supreme Court.
LikeLike
Maryland put a change on the ballot last year which the public approved to rename their top court the Maryland Supreme Court so only New York remains as having the top court called something else.
As to the other part, yup, still a lot of the good ol corrupt NY political machine involved in the selection of judicial nominees.
Left unsaid is how ticked off many NY Democrats still are in regards to the redestricting ruling last year that benefitted Republicans.
That will certainly come into play with any nominee this panel comes up with.
LikeLike
@Zack Jones
Oh wow, I wasn’t aware of that but great for Maryland. New York really needs to make the change too. But you could call the top court Dog Crap as long as they change the commission if not eliminate it all together… Lol
While on the subject of Maryland, I love their new governor Moore. I’ve always liked him from his interviews even before I knew he would entire politics. I’ve seen Biden make no less than three campaign stops in the state since Election Day. He’s definitely has a bright future. .
LikeLike
Wes Moore is impressive for sure. I see him as a President or VP candidate one day.
LikeLike
Whitmer and Moore will be the ones to watch down the line.
LikeLike
I would add PA governor Josh Shapiro as well
LikeLike
Also governors J. B. Pritzker who can finance any campaign on his own & Gavin Newsome of the largest state in the union would likely throw their names in the hat. I think any combination of those two could be a potential ticket in the future. But of course 2028 is a long way away, particularly in politics. But those would be my initial guesses.
LikeLike
It will be difficult for mid-western Democrats to campaign with states like southern states like South Carolina front loaded. It favors someone like Wes Moore.
LikeLike
On a different note, was looking at upcoming judicial vacancies down the line and for Delaware, I would have to say Chris Howland, who is a AUSA for the state of Delaware would be the likely front runner although his lack of experience in the patent area could hurt his chances.
There will also be a couple of upcoming CA and CO vacancies so hopefully we will get good choices there as well.
LikeLike
And with the advanced ages of many of the judges in the Federal Circuit, judge Starks may not be the last Delaware pick for that court by Biden either. He likely could pull from his home state if there are multiple additional vacancies in that court. It was the only circuit not to have a vacancy under Trump so the two we have seen under Biden likely won’t be the last.
On to other news, I was afraid of this.
(https://www.wsj.com/articles/sen-john-fetterman-set-for-lengthy-hospital-stay-b04139ac?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=news_tab)
LikeLike
@Zack Jones, there are a few other names I have on my radar for a Delaware vacancy.
-Laura Hatcher (born c. 1981). About to begin her term as a Magistrate Judge on the court. Previously served as Civil Division Chief of the US Attorney’s Office.
-Alexander Mackler (born c. 1983). Currently Chief Deputy Attorney General of Delaware. Deep ties to Biden as he served as Deputy Counsel to Biden while he was VP and before attending law school, as Press Secretary while Biden was in the Senate.
-LaKresha Roberts Moultire (born c. 1982). Currently General Counsel of Delaware State University (an HBCU). Previously served as Chief Deputy Attorney General of Delaware an was a candidate for Delaware Attorney General in 2018 but lost in the primary.
My top choices however would be:
-Pilar Kraman (born c. 1976). Currently a Partner at Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, where she focuses of patent law. Not only would she be the first Latina federal judge in Delaware, she also is progressive, having represented both asylum seekers and prisoners on a pro bono basis.
-Jennifer Ying (born c. 1983). Currently a Partner at Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, where she, like many other Delaware lawyers, focuses of patent law. She has also an undergrad degree from MIT in Electrical Engineering/ Computer Science. She would be the first AAPI federal judge in Delaware, and like Kraman above, has a very active pro bono practice including with the ACLU of Delaware and Delaware Volunteer Legal Services.
LikeLike
Alexander Mackler would be my guess unless a vacancy opens up on the Federal Circuit. He’s highly qualified, close to Biden & in his low 40’s.
LikeLike
@Dequan
Alexander Mackler is close to Hunter Biden. In fact, his name has shown up on Hunter’s notorious laptop computer. Republicans would have a field day if Mackler was the choice.
LikeLike
@Mitch, whoa. Had absolutely no idea about Mackler’s ties to Hunter Biden, as I mostly ignore those stories.
LikeLike
Does his name appear on the laptop for anything negative? I’m not trying to be funny when I say this but I honestly haven’t listened to one minute of coverage about Hunter Biden’s lap top. For one, he’s not an elected official so I could care less what a private citizen has done & two after Benghazi, I figure it’s all mostly bull sh*t anyway. So I’m completely oblivious to anything related to his laptop. So just curious what his involvement related to it is???
LikeLike
Abigail LeGrow (born c. 1979), a judge on the New Castle County Superior Court, is another possibility.
LikeLike
@Ethan
Abigail M. LeGrow is a credible choice, but she also could replace Tamika Montgomery Reeves on the state Supreme Court.
LikeLike
#Dequan
This was from a New York Post article:
In 2018, Mackler sent an e-mail to Hunter Biden reading, “I just finished a hellacious couple months in court,” Mackler wrote Hunter on Oct. 16, 2018, in a message with the subject line “Hey.”
“Now that I have a chance to breathe, was wondering how life is on your end,” Mackler went on. “Last you told me you were out in LA. Gimme a call sometime we can catch up. Love you brother.”
LikeLike
Is that it? Once again I’m truly not trying to be funny as I know nothing about Hunter’s lap top other than the Benghazi like over the top reaction from Republicans. Is that the tone of the communications from Alexander Mackler regarding the lap top? If so, I doubt even Cruz, Hawley, Cotton & Blackburn’s fake outrage could make anything out of it.
Not saying he will be the nominee. Delaware only has 4 district court seats & the Federal Circuit only has but so many so there’s a wealth of options that aren’t on Hunter’s lap top at all. Just saying if Biden has his heart set out on him becasue they are close, I can’t imagine that type of communication being the reason to stop it
LikeLike
@Dequan. Yeah, but he doesn’t have the diversity factor. I wonder if Biden is any more involved in the selection of judges from Delaware than other states.
LikeLike
At the SJC hearing for Gregory Williams, I remember senator Coons saying they told their commission to go out & find the brightest legal mind in the state. So didn’t sound like Biden was deeply involved.
LikeLike
Biden has more pressing issues than a district court selection from any state, including his own.
LikeLike
Mary Briscoe went senior March 15, 2021. 23 more days & it will be TWO YEARS & we are still Wamble-less with no nominee for the 10th. This is inexcusable
LikeLike
@Dequan
Something has come up about Wamble after his nomination was announced. I have no idea what it is, but it looks like they’re looking for someone else.
LikeLike
This is what bothers me about the entire 10th vacancy. I’m not sure what’s going on with Wamble but it took a year & a half to get his nomination. They should have vetted two people from the start just like they should be doing for every circuit court vacancy.
And before anybody says they can’t vet two people, they did so for the Ohio 6th vacancy. I just created a Wikipedia pages for a lot of possible nominees for federal judgeships over the past week & one of them was Alexandra Schimmer whose page I created just yesterday. These seats are far too important to put all eggs in one basket & then have something like this or the SJC hearing for Mike Delaney happen, only to have to start all over from scratch.
There should be a pick of 1A & 1B for each circuit court vacancy. When Trump was president & his Mississippi nominee for the 5th ran into conservative opposition, we got Cory Wilson shortly after. I know the administration has a lot going on but they need to be laser focused on the courts. Having only one nominee for a circuit court vacancy is not laser focused.
And yes today is primary day for the Wisconsin SCOTUS. I truly hope Democrats focus on the state courts at cross the nation like they seem to have finally woken up & done in New York.
LikeLike
On state supreme court watch: Wisconsin
Today’s mini-D-Day in the Wisconsin race – the primary to fill a vacancy on the state’s top court. The top two finishers advance to the April general election. While this would never happen, how stunning would it be if the two liberals advance? Since, as you know, I’m never a prisoner of optimism, let’s get back to reality.
Turnout is going to be god-awful, especially on the isthmus and Milwaukee. But it should provide the campaigns with data on who to target in the general election.
I hope Janet Protasiewicz wins on the liberal side. Everett Mitchell is the other liberal in the race.
For the conservatives, I want former justice Daniel Kelly to prevail. He’s the more beatable of the two. In politics, if you can pick your opponent, always pick a proven loser. It doesn’t guarantee that you’ll win, but at least you’ll enter the race with a crucial piece of information, how this opponent lost before.
Jennifer Dorow, the other more conservative candidate in the race, is widely known in Wisconsin due to her presiding in that televised trial of the Christmas killer guy. So she would be more of a challenge for the eventual liberal candidate. She does have a major liability, however. Her drug dealer son may have caused the fentanyl overdose death of one of his customers. But don’t expect Republicans to be consistent on the fentanyl issue, especially when there’s a supreme court seat on the line.
Wisconsin has some of the most hyper-gerrymandered districts (state and congressional) in the country. A liberal win in April would go a long way to roll those back, as well as a pre-statehood anti-abortion law.
LikeLike
How we do we know that they didn’t consider more than one person? Again, there’s no reason to get worked up over this nomination. There’s plenty of time.
I still see nothing with the Delaney nomination. What people really don’t admit is that they don’t like him for whatever reason.
It can’t be “let’s get someone out there on the double” and “let’s withdraw a nomination that took several months to make.” It’s wasting time and unfair to prospective nominees. Would you want to apply for a job like that and have people smear you?
It’s a holiday week so nominees cannot be received anyway. More are coming you’ll see.
LikeLike
@ shawnee68
I actually agree with most of what you said here. I don’t want Republicans to be able to waste time by having false outrage for Biden nominees while voting to confirm Republican nominees for similar if not worse reasons. Like I’ve said before, my only issue with Delaney is him leaving this case off his SJC questionnaire & we spoke at length last week about the difference in opinions on that issue last week here so I won’t rehash it.
The one area I completely disagree with you on is this sentiment “there’s plenty of time”. I keep hearing that. No no no there’s not plenty of time. On a good week the senate works 3 days a week. The Republicans have actually been playing nice not forcing the full 32 hour post cloture time for circuit court confirmations (I think the average has been somewhere between 18 – 20 hours) but that is not guaranteed to continue.
And that has nothing to do with the 51 senate majority that isn’t guaranteed through the next election. Fetterman will likely be out at least a month. Numerous Democrat senators are over 70 years old & some are in states with Republican governors. Plus there will be other issues that occupy the senates time over the next two years, some unforeseen. A past president may pass away in the near future which surely will take up senate day or days they should be in session. I just completely disagree there’s plenty of time.
LikeLike
I hear that a lot Senator’s only work 3 days weeks. We all really know that isn’t so.
It’s a an almost 24/7 job . I’m sure you know that Senator’s are working when they are off the floor.
They work in their offices go on TV and take calls anytime throughout the day.
The New York Times revealed the schedule that John Fetterman has taken since arriving in the Senate. It’s being away from home during the week and driving back on the weekends .
I think the floor time is structured for those who have to travel to and from work.
It’s not 1787 anymore Washington D.C is no longer the center of the country. Anyway, I still think most of the nominees will be done in a few months.
The only remaining nominees are overwhelmingly from red states. It’s gonna be “put out or get out” for Senate Republicans.
LikeLike
Unfortunately the senators could be working 24/7 in their offices, on tv & taking calls but none of that confirms federal judges to a lifetime position. First the nominee needs to have a SJC hearing. The Democrats have showed they won’t hold a hearing in weeks the senate are not in session (Despite Republicans happily doing so as recently as the previous administration). Then they need to vote for them on the senate floor. Republicans have only agreed to a voice vote twice so far under Biden (I remember Democrats agreeing to voice vote 16 nominees in one day under Trump).
And the Republican had a larger majority the last two years of Trump than the Democrats have now. I say all that to reinforce the Democrats don’t have the luxury to have a we have plenty of time mentality. At one point during the Trump presidency, every circuit court seat was filled. I can remember leader McConnell having a fill every vacancy mentality & that’s exactly what he did at one point. I’d much rather see every judge confirmed & then Democrats say we have plenty of time, not the reverse.
LikeLike
Okay, the job isn’t just confirming judges. No Democrat can get elected just doing that.
We shouldn’t be comparing Democrats to Republicans If Trump was so good why is he no longer in office? It’s that other “thing.” That is good governance which the Republicans are uninterested.
The Republicans don’t have a party platform or any legislative priorities worth noting. What bills has the Republican House passed?
It’s a lot of nothing like cotton candy. As far as the GOP ‘s scheduling . All they did was judges and no legislation that anyone on here would find beneficial.
The GOP is/are a party of grievances . We should not try to one up them in that regard.
LikeLike
I would hope the Democrats can do both. We can say Republicans didn’t accomplish a lot but they have a 6-3 majority in the SCOTUS & Trump has appointed more then 20% of the federal judges in the country despite only being in office for 4 years. All while Democrats have won the popular vote in 7 of the last 8 presidential elections.
It’s nice for a football team to have more passing yards & rushing yards but at the end of the game they have less points, I really don’t care how good of a game they played. That’s where we are now. Republicans have more points on the board despite having a worse team & playing a bad game.
But I do agree with you we are likely to see a new batch soon. Even if there are no red state nominees, at the very least we should have nominees ready to announce from Colorado, Connecticut, Michigan, California & the 4th vacancy if Cardin is done having a hissy fit & ready to stop playing Russian roulette with a circuit court vacancy.
LikeLike
I should compare Republican voters to Democrats. They show up regardless of who is on the ballot. If Democratic “voters” hadn’t ghosted Obama in the 2014 election cycle things would look different.
It’s very difficult to unseat a President. It happened anyway regardless of how many judges Trump put on the bench.
He’s gone and it’s gonna be impossible for him to come back!
LikeLike
I certainly hope you’re right.
LikeLike
I disagree with the whole “meddle in your opponent’s primaries”. It is very risky. Had 2022 been a red wave, we could have had election deniers ready to overturn the results of the 2024 election if they didn’t like the results.
Also, if the Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down the gerrymandering they might get reversed by the US Supreme Court after Moore v. Harper gets decided.
LikeLike
Dequan, I agree.
It’s clear at this point there is an issue with Wamble, so withdraw his nomination and put someone else in there.
Will be inexcusable if we allow another flip a la what happened in the 7th Circuit with Terence T. Evans Circuit court seat where a vacancy that could and should have been filled by Democrats was filled by Republicans instead.
LikeLike
When a close family member serving in Congress is probably responsible for you being the nominee in the first place, I’m sure there’s a lot going on there. Not everyone can be a “Golden Child” like Childs & her replacement in South Carolina.
LikeLike
If Jabari Wamble withdraws (which is looking more likely), than I’m sure that Judge Jacy J. Hurst will be the nominee. Dequan and I have discussed this in prior threads.
LikeLike
@Zack Jones
I actually went to create a Wikipedia page for Jacy Hurst just yesterday in anticipation she may be the new nominee. I was surprised she already had one. I have created about a dozen or so pages over the past couple weeks with people we have discussed here on the blog that did not have a page created.
LikeLike
@Dequan
Hurst should have been the nominee all along but I understand why they went with Wamble.
As we’ve both said (among others) pretty clear at this point there is an issue with Wamble’s nomination which is why IMO it’s time to move on so we can fill this seat.*
*Been said before by a couple of us but the issue isn’t the blue slip rule.
When Anthony Johnstone gets confirmed next month, he will be the 4th Circuit Court nominee that has been confirmed over the objection of a Republican senator(s), in this case Senator Daines.
You can be angry about how Biden/Schumer/Durbin have handled nominees and kept the blue slip rule for district court seats but on a circuit court level, they’re finally playing by the rules Republicans set on blue slips long ago by simply ignoring them.
LikeLike
Yea I think Hurst would have been a good nominee too in the first place. But I don’t complain with Biden trying to add Black men to the circuit courts either. We have had one in the past 3,325 days after all… Lol
But yea I definitely agree with you blue slips is not the issue with Wamble. For one, if Biden still was abiding by blue slips then he wouldn’t have announced Wamble without assistances the senators would turn them in.
Now we just need an update on Clyde-Smith turning in her blue slips for Colom.
LikeLike
Just wanted to mention the second part of my post wasn’t directed at any one person, it was more of a general statement.
LikeLike
Looking at the senate Executive Calander, I only count 17 non-Judiciary nominees pending on the floor that will require votes. Hopefully many of them get voice votes. So once the senate gets back, we really will be getting close to the point where Schumer will run out of non-judges to confirm. Even if he takes a week to knock out some of those 17, we should get the bulk of the judges confirmed before their Easter break.
(https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/executive_calendar/xcalv.pdf)
LikeLike
I’m hoping to see most of the judges confirmed before Easter as well, if nothing else to clear up a lot of the outstanding emergencies left in NY and CA which have overwhelmed those areas to a degree.
LikeLike
Following up from yesterday…
The general election lineup that I hoped for came through.
Liberal Janet Protasiewicz (445,196 votes) and former state supreme court justice, Daniel Kelly (232,299 votes), a conservative, are the top two vote getters from yesterday’s primary. (Judge Everett Mitchell (71,768 votes), a once illiterate young man, looks like he’d be a good future 7th circuit court nominee.)
The vote breakdown is intriguing. At this moment, the combined liberal vote total is 516,964 vs the combined conservative total 441,740. This won’t necessarily translate into a win in April, but it’s a damn good start.
Kelly lost his reelection by 10 points in 2020 when he was a part of the majority on the court that forced people to go out at the height of the pandemic to vote in person.
Here’s to him losing again.
LikeLike
I was pleasantly surprised with the results of Wisconsin last night as well. On to the general
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t know why I am just seeing this, but what a perfect example of cosmic justice this would be. Alas, it wasn’t meant to be:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/al-franken-quashes-rumors-hell-run-for-kirsten-gillibrands-senate-seat?via=rss&source=articles_fancylink
In reality, it looks like the left is gearing up to challenge Gillibrand. I am usually against such challenges, but in this case I thoroughly welcome it!
LikeLike
I may have had to had move to New York for a year just to rally & vote for Fraken over Gillibrand had he decided differently. That’s how bad I would have wanted Fraken to unseat her.
As for Judge Everett Mitchell, I will have to read up more on him. I honestly am unaware of his background but he sounds great should anything happen to judge Sykes & her seat becomes vacant under Biden & a Democrat majority in the senate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I do agree Judge Everett Mitchell would make a fine 7th Circuit addition but I don’t see any vacancy from Wisconsin opening up anytime soon.
No way on earth is Diane Sykes going to take senior status under a Democrat.
As to the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, here’s hoping the Democratic voters who didn’t turn out for Mandela Barnes (if they had he would have won) can do so in two months.
If we flip the State Supreme Court, that will make a world of difference in Wisconsin.
LikeLike
Are there more nominees than this Colorado one?….Has anyone heard of this guy?
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/courts/biden-nominates-kato-crews-for-federal-judgeship/article_96160b76-b2c1-11ed-99db-cfdcb9568cf2.html
LikeLike
Uuuggghhh… Crews is less progressive & older than Sundeep Addy. If this is what the 30th batch is going to look like then it will be blah just like the 28th & 29th batches.
LikeLike
Looks like Wamble is being nominated to the district court. Looking forward to seeing a full list of nominees today.
https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article272570240.html
LikeLike
WHAT… Wamble renominates for the district court. Is that because we are getting a more liberal nominee for the 10th (Spoiler alert, no) or another Black man in his place (Again spoiler alert, no). I don’t want to hear anybody try & tell me I’m over reacting the next time I say Black men are not considered anywhere near the rate of others, left in limbo longer or are out right disrespected when it comes to consideration for the circuit courts.
And I damn sure hope this wasn’t done to appease Moran & election denying Marshall. Over the span of a couple months the circuit courts have lost Watford, Greenway & now Wamble’s nomination. I’m starting to think we will Ted Cruz’s ham sandwich nominated for a circuit court judgeship before a Black man at this point. This 39th batch is off to a horrible start.
LikeLike
I would rather see judicial nominees who give everyone a fair shot to be heard, even if that person is white and/or male. Having more Clarence Thomas types on the bench doesn’t do blacks or many other people any good.
LikeLike
(https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/02/22/president-biden-names-thirtieth-round-of-judicial-nominees/)
LikeLike
So Wamble is being nominated to the court where the blue slips are in effect ?? So the KS senators can’t stop his Circuit court nomination but are now in position to stop his nomination at the District Court level
Not sure what the WH is doing with this?….And where is that 4th Circuit nomination?
LikeLike
We don’t have a nominee for the 4th because Cardin wants to continue playing Russian Roulette with the seat. Three nominees, only two of which are lifetime appointments. A Wamble downgrade, no nominees for Connecticut, Michigan, California or any number of other blue states with vacancies.
I’m so happy so many people keep saying we have plenty of time. It’s not even the end of February & the senate has taken 3 weeks recess while we have gotten 6 article 3 nominees. Sounds like a good ratio to me (Sarcastic voice)…smh
LikeLike
I assume that there is an agreement that the blue slips will be turned in by both senators.
LikeLike
Another example of what I said earlier…..nominees needing to crawl before they walk! Advancing AUSA’s & Federal Public Defenders straight to Circuit Courts with no appellate experience whatsoever is a terrible idea in my opinion! A nominee needs to have broad experience in appellate work or is serving as a US District Court Judge.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Really hoping Jacy Hurst (liberal, young, has appellate experience) is the 10th circuit nominee.. I’m a little afraid since Wamble was nominated to the District Court, the White House found a consensus nominee for the 10th Circuit.
LikeLike
@IrvineOnlooker
You may be a LITTLE afraid but I’m a LOT afraid. Judging by the last three batches, I have little confidence that the new 10th nominee will either come anytime soon, be younger or even as progressive (And Wamble wasn’t that progressive himself) as Wamble.
And the announcement today had the NERVE to say they have announced 157 nominees. That’s counting Wamble twice along with Jorge Rodrigez & William Pocan. I would be ashamed to count them in the count.
LikeLike
Based on the latest set of batches, I think that with the new council in place, the nominees will look more similar to what we saw under the Obama administration, with a lot of AUSAs and other traditional nominees, which is unfortunate, as the federal judicial system is better off when there are many diverse backgrounds of experience on the bench. If you want Biden to not compromise with the Republicans, you haven’t paid attention to his career, and he will seek to find common ground with them as much as he can.
LikeLike
@Dequan, no I definetely agree, I was just being optimisitc, but with how the White House has been operating, I’m preparing for the worst
LikeLike
What an absolute joke this recent “batch” of nominations are, it is total cowardice on the part of the biden administration and white house counsel. Straight up spinless and gutless cowards.
They have gone out of their way to openly show black men that they don’t count, humiliating him by downgrading his job offer to a district court seat.
What’s most painful about this for me is what it foretells. Biden is allowing and giving agency to racists and bigot senators and insurrectionists like Roger Marshall allowing them to control the process and have influence.
What happened here is so obvious , it’s audible to the dumb and visible to the blind, the two bad faith KS senators pressured biden to drop wamble to pick a more right wing federalist society leaning judge in the guise of “consensus and common ground” and biden the incompetent guy he’s always been known for easily went along with it.
I warned members of this forum that wamble nomination was in serious jeopardy not due to any unforseen issues [as he wouldn’t have been nominated to a district court seat] it was simply as a result of biden cowardice and want for bipartisanship, he chose not to ignore the bad faith KS senators complaints rather he fully acquiesce and spat on black mens faces nationwide by demoting wamble.
I’m legit angry.
Kenneth Lee
Patrick bumatay
Trump shoved these slimy hacks down the throats of democratic senators and their objections. His 3rd circuit nominee didn’t even meet with the NJ senators.
Yet biden is bending over and backwards to pander and work with bad faith senators who only want to stall delay or find the best right wing they can get biden to nominate.
I was called slurs and called a troll for calling this out and attacked now its all bearing true.
Dequan let me reiterate my position to you and to everyone here on this forum. The prediction is there will not be a nominee to the open 7th circuit vacancy seat because the gop indiana senators will use every tool in their power to delay and postpone and string biden along and him being the naive fool will go along with it and acquiesce just like he did in this case for ks senators.
We are already at February ending soon will shall be in March that’s already 3 months in and not a peep about a nominee.
This gop senators are vicious bad faith folks and should always be viewed from the light as obstructionists and bad faith people
LikeLike
You are a Republican hack posing as a “Democrat”. Please stop.
LikeLike
Your a troll no one should take serious and you proved it when you said you would bring back blue slips and that if was a good thing. Your a right wing hack
Stop quoting me troll.
LikeLike
No federalist society person has been chosen for the 10th Circuit seat, to be clear.
LikeLike
Apparently the right wing wanting blue slips back troll can’t read properly now
LikeLike
” it’s audible to the dumb and visible to the blind, the two bad faith KS senators pressured biden to drop wamble to pick a more right wing federalist society leaning judge in the guise of “consensus and common ground” and biden the incompetent guy he’s always been known for easily went along with it.”
This did NOT HAPPEN. Don’t listen to this troll.
LikeLike
@aangren
Your right, I can’t deny it. You were the first to call this. It’s unprecedented & I for one didn’t believe this day would come. I could actually accept him not being renominated again much more than a downgrade. This is the first time in 30 batches that I am legit ANGRY. Only two nominees & one of them a downgrade. I am a man & will admit when I am wrong & I was 100% wrong on this one.
I’m embarrassed this day has come. Two years the 10th has been vacant & at best we have Jacy Hurt to look forward to & in all likelihood she won’t even be the nominee. I truly hope you are wrong about the 7th but I must admit after today I am not as confident in me disagreeing with you that you will be wrong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You would have rather have seen Wamble not renominated at all rather than to see him nominated to the district court? I get you really want to see black men nominated to the circuit courts but until we see who gets nominated to the 10th circuit vacancy, it is hard to analyze the “downgrade”, especially as with blue slips still in play (by the way, why would anyone, especially someone who calls themself “progressive”, want federalist society hacks on district courts in blue states? This would happen as soon as the next Republican president came into power). I think that once Wamble was nominated to the 10th circuit, the KS senators went to Biden and asked if they could start negotiating for a compromise, and if they turn in the blue slips, we will see a moderate nominee for the 10th circuit. Definitely not a FedSoc hack.
LikeLike
@Frank
To be clear my entire position is Democrats should scrap blue slips FIRST because I have every belief that Republicans will do it once they are back in full power. And if your next question is why I think that my answer is because Democrats nuked the filibuster for judges except for SCOTUS & as soon as Republicans were back in control, they nuked it for the SCOTUS & proceeded to confirm three justices in four years. They also scrapped blue slips for circuit court seats & proceeded to confirm 54 appellate court judges.
So my position wouldn’t lead to a Republican filling the district court seat. Even if I did believe in partially keeping blue slips in play for those who negotiate in good faith, no senator who voted to overturn a free & fair election, aiding a coup, would be included anyway so Biden still would fill this seat.
LikeLike
I’ll reserve my judgement until there is a nominee for the 10th circuit seat. If it’s Hurst then that’s probably a net upgrade, although I do hate the optics of yanking the the rug out from a qualified black man for an appellate seat.
Hopefully Wamble at least gets his blue slip returned promptly and gets a hearing in March.
LikeLike
What’s so painful is that it’s such an insult. Like hey we couldn’t give you this circuit vacancy because of bad faith GOP senator like Roger Marshall but here’s a district cour seat. It’s such an insult and a spit on the faces of all black men.
It’s looks ever likely that biden will leave office with a net negative on black men as appellate judges. A notion I would have thought insane when biden was inaugurated.
That’s how badly they have screwed up. Even obama gave us more black men.
LikeLike
His trade-off was Black, Brown & Asian Women. But I agree that his White House Counsel should be seeking out highly qualified Black Men for the Circuit Courts with the brightest legal minds.
LikeLike
To new viewers. Ignore Frank he is a troll like Shawn of last year who had a sick and unhealthy obsession with Michelle childs. He was just a few weeks ago advocating for blue slips and saying it was a good thing. What good faith liberal would even fanthom to think that after gop abused the process? No one! Hence he being a right wing troll.
Frank your a troll move on. You will be referred to as a troll in all things addressing you from now on.
@Dequan thank you for giving me credit people are too scared to call out biden administration and call out their failures on issus like this
LikeLike
I’ll ask it again: Why would anyone, especially someone who calls themself “progressive”, want Federalist Society hacks on district courts in blue states?
LikeLike
That a very disingenuous way of reading his comment. Dequan also believes in trashing the blue slip. Will you call him a troll, too? Will you roll out your strawman to say that he wants FedSoc hacks in district courts in blue states?
Couldn’t it simply be a difference of opinion? You’re a proponent of some unpalatable positions, too. Poof! Are you a troll now?
LikeLiked by 1 person
As I’ve already said to you before, it’s not about a difference of opinion at all.
LikeLike
I’ll agree with you about Childs, but that kinda proves my point. Childs is not a “progressive”, even as she is an exceptional jurist.
LikeLike
@aangren
Don’t let anyone try to stifle your opinion and label it trollish just because they don’t agree with what you have to say. There is no orthodoxy in here. If people can pontificate on their historically unfollowed opinion about nominating old judges in here, you also can make your opinions known. In fact, I mirror your frustration and disappointment in the Biden admin on judges. And even though I don’t agree with everything you say, I absolutely agree with you on Wamble and Biden’s cowardice.
Like @Joe, I will reserve further judgement on the 10th vacancy until there’s an actual nominee, but I have to tell you, this whole embarrassing saga is moving me closer to I-can-no-longer-support-Biden camp. The final straw may very well be the type of nominee that replaces Wamble. People keep forgetting that Biden very nearly nominated Chad Meredith. I will never forget that and this will color all these other instances of “dealmaking.” In other words, everything I hear dealmaking between the WH and GOP senators on judges, I will remember Chad Meredith and there will be a heavy presumption against such a deal.
To all those who still think that Biden is some judicial nomination hero/savoir: HAHAHAHA.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gavi, I take the wins with the losses at this point. Even though I have been disappointed with several of the recent picks from the WH, I am trying to keep a wait and see approach.
If by the end of 2024 all of the negotiations mean we’ve been successfully able to fill the bulk of the red district seats and all of the circuit seats with center left or progressive nominees then I will take it as a win. But I certainly agree the last few batches have been uninspiring.
LikeLike
@Gavi
At this point I can’t even say the deal making is working. I can’t count circuit court nominees because Biden can fill those without blue slips. So far we only have 13 district court nominees with at least one Republican senator in the state & we don’t even know if Hyde-Smith is returning her blue slip for Colom.
I know some people on this site keep repeating there is plenty of time but I’m sorry, we are getting to the point where almost all of the district court vacancies are in red states. So if Durbin & the Democrats want to continue this bs Patrick Leahy-esse adherence to blue slips after Republicans gleefully ditched them for circuit court vacancies then you all will be correct. We will have enough time. Enough time for the senate to sit around the chamber & twittle their thumbs because there will be little to no judicial nominees to confirm. But hey, at least senator Marshall is happy after today’s batch, so I guess all is not lost…smh
LikeLike
At this point I think it’s a near lock that the 5th circuit vacancy will be a Latino or Latina judge. Makes sense.
I also have a strong suspicion that the 7th circuit seat will be a fairly boring, center left white male who is palatable to the two Indiana senators. Fair or not there is a good relationship with the White House there and they did cooperate on Pryor, so I think the WH will make a deal to go moderate. Either way, still a major upgrade over Kanne.
Hard to imagine the 10th getting another black male, so that really only leaves the 3rd, 4th, and 9th vacancies and realistic possibilities. Should be a bunch of qualified candidates for each seat, so I’m going to keep my fingers crossed that the WH figures it out.
LikeLike
“At this point I think it’s a near lock…”
Hahaha famous last words. I don’t know if I’d say such things with such certainty when it comes to this Admin on judges. Haven’t today’s news diminished your overflowing optimism any?
LikeLike
Gavi, my guess is that it’ll Marmalejo, who is an Obama judge on the SDTx with some sort of package to nominate a handful of district judges as well. That would make the most sense. But yes, I am a tremendous optimist haha.
LikeLike
@ Dequan,
What is the fight with the 4th Circuit nominee?….Do Cardin and Van Hollen want a more progressive nominee and the WH wants an old centrist ?…..I wonder what it is that they can’t work out
LikeLike
The article didn’t go into details or specifics. It just said that Biden & Cardin (It didn’t mention Van Hollen) are at odds over the nominee. As angry as I am about Wamble, to be completely honest the 4th vacancy is even worse. Cardin gambled with a circuit court seat in an election year that traditionally the Democrats should have lost. That’s inexcusable.
I don’t know which side wants the more progressive nominee. Judging by most of the district court judges we have seen out of Maryland over the past decade & a half, I’m gonna go out on a limb & say Cardin ain’t the one pushing the more liberal nominee.
LikeLike
Earlier today, Senator Tester announced he was running for relection and among the attacks Sen. Daines lobbed in response was Anthony Johnstone and how he’s a liberal activist judge out of touch with people in MT.
And yet his nomination hasn’t withdrawn.
You can be angry about Wamble being downgraded but Andre Mathis, Arianna Freeman, Cindy Chung and Johnstone are judges who were nominated (and soon to be confirmed) despite objections of Republicans (granted Toomey is gone now) and their blue slips.
Nancy Abudu and Dale Ho are subjects of online Republican campaigns to stop their nominations and yet Biden hasn’t withdrawn their names either.
Do I like all the moves Biden has made on judges?
Nope (like the DC Circuit for example) but this notion he is a coward isn’t born out by facts given the names I mentioned.
As to the other point a couple of people have made, guess what?
Biden is going to be the Democratic nominee sans health related issues so folks better get ready to accept that.
Those who can’t and will vote third party or stay home, that logic in 2016,14,10 among other years is how we got the right wing courts we have now and also might be why some in the Democratic party aren’t inclined to listen to the progressive part of the party when they are still catering to folks like David Sirota and Nina Turner (who said SCOTUS didn’t matter) among others.
Bottom line, I do believe Biden and company dragged their feet on nominations in some areas and that some of them have sucked but this idea he’s been a coward on them is garbage IMO and I will stand by that.
LikeLiked by 1 person