Judge Amanda Brailsford – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho

The Idaho Federal Courthouse in Pocatello, where Nye will likely sit.

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.

480 Comments

    • Good news. Now once we get both Pennsylvania senators back, we’re in business. I see Feinstein couldn’t make it to work after a week & a half off but I said I was gonna be nice if she announces she is going to retire so I’ll keep my thoughts about that to myself… Lol

      Like

      • I am looking forward to the judicial confirmations tommorow even if its for district judges.
        I have to say araceli martinez background is awesome and seeing her confirmed would be great. One of biden best district nominees along with natasha merle and Jessica Clarke who sadly have languished in the senate for a long time now.
        Those two obama judges who stepped down to allow trump to replace them on the 2nd circuit are a disgrace and shameless.
        Imagine ikuta on the ninth circuit or callahan taking senior status under biden? The thought is as asinine as pigs flying in the sky. Yet the clowns obama nominated see no issue with that. So annoying
        These Democratic obama judges suck and are shamelsss, and never see the bigger picture. Clowns

        Like

  2. About what I expected today, I do hope we can get a cloture file tomorrow for a circuit nominee though. The optimist in me says that maybe Schumer wants to see who will be there on Thursday first before he decides who to set up a vote for. The pessimist says he’s delaying because of some absurd GOP grievance. Lol. I guess we’ll see though.

    Like

    • Here’s my list of pending nominees (Not counting those on the executive calendar this Thursday) that I think easily will get three GOP votes. I’m not counting the 8 Schumer has already sent motions to the desk for.

      Robert S. Ballou
      Andrew G. Schopler
      Arun Subramanian

      I also think Ramon Reyes & Kymberly Evanson could get two GOP votes. So I think this will be the last week Schumer can avoid bringing up the heavy hitters. I’m not sure what the timetable is for other committees besides the Judiciary, but hopefully none of them will vote nominees to the floor over the next week. That way we could start to see some exciting nominees next week.

      Like

  3. Nancy Abudu and Anthony Johnstone are the ones who will have to wait until all 51 Democratic senators are present in order to be confirmed.
    With the latter, as with Senators Blackburn and Lee with Andre Mathis, it’s laughable Sen. Daines is acting outraged over his blue slip being ignored for Johnstone considering he had no issues with ignoring it under Trump for Circuit court nominees from blue states.
    As with the other Republicans, the only “outrage” is that for Circuit court nominees, Democrats are finally playing by the rules Republicans set on them.

    Like

  5. Not sure about the others but I know the victim in the prep school case and her parents have become a lot more vocal about Michael Delaney’s nomination.
    I will say having looked into the case it’s not quite cut and dry as his critics are making it out to be but as they say in politics, if you have to explain, you’re losing.
    I do think Delaney’s nomination is in trouble.

    Like

    • I too could see Delaney being the first Biden nominee to either withdraw or being voted down. More so because it’s not just conservatives that have an issue with the case but progressive groups have also come out against him too. It’s probably not fair because looking at his career as a whole, he has been tough on crime. But as you said in politics, if your explaining your losing.

      If I were a senator I would vote against Charnelle Bjelkengren before Delaney though. I just can’t get past that deer in the headlights look she had when asked to explain Articles 2 & 5 of the Constitution. Either way in both cases we could get a more progressive nominee so let’s see how it plays out.

      Like

      • There’s no reason for Delaney to withdraw. He’s the pick of both Senators from New Hampshire. Also, it appeared that both Graham and Kennedy were good with his nomination.

        It’s wishful thinking that Delaney would withdraw himself. I don’t see any Democrats voting against him. He did NOTHING wrong!

        Like

      • So I don’t necessarily think Delaney WILL withdraw or be voted down. But at the end of the day it doesn’t matter if he really did something wrong or it. The only thing that matters is the number TWO. If two Democrat senators decide not to vote for him then it’s likely Graham & Kennedy won’t save him.

        And I can see this case & pressure from progressive groups getting two Democrats to pause on confirming a 54 year old White man. Will it happen, only time will tell. But to sit here & say it can’t happen is wishful thinking. Particularly with red state Democrats in very tough re-election races coming up next year.

        Like

      • Of course it matters if the allegations against Delaney are true or not. They’re not and you know that.

        At this point every Democrat has supported all of Biden’s judicial nominees.

        Did you see the letters of support Delaney has? These so called “progressive” groups will not stop this nomination.

        If you don’t like the nominee let’s not make excuses. Be honest and upfront. It’s unfair to nominees put them through a lengthy process and let them get smeared.

        What happened to “it takes too long to get a nominee?” We get a get a nominee after several months and now people are wanting to reboot the process.

        That’s wasting time!

        Like

      • Haaaaaa… This is politics. Somebody actually doing something wrong often times have very little to do with them not being confirmed. Merrick Garland was the most qualified person in the country to sit on the highest court & didn’t even get a hearing. If two red state Democrats thinks it will help their chances of getting re-elected by voting against him then guess what, they are going to vote against him. He doesn’t need to be guilty of anything for politics to be politics.

        I think everybody on this site needs to come to the realization that Manchin is not gonna vote for 100% of Biden’s nominees like he didn’t first two years. He’s just not. With a slew of red & blue state nominees likely to be coming down the pipe that require blue slips, it most likely won’t be any of those nominees. So we need to take a realistic look at who’s gonna be the first. I’m not saying Delaney will be the first but I certainly don’t think you could rule it out.

        Like

      • Okay. You can call if what you want. It’s not gonna work.It appears that Senate Democrat’s have agreed to support their peer’s choices for the judiciary.

        The situation with Garland was different. The Republicans didn’t trash his character. The Democratic base didn’t like him so I guess Neil Gorsuch would be better?

        The idea that Delaney was trying to “out” the survivor in school case was ridiculously absurd.

        The greedy trial attorney’s wanted to be use the survivor by prancing around on television. THEY were the ones who decided to be out and about building their legal practice on tv. No one was forced to try their case in the media.

        It’s despicable.

        Like

      • I’m not seeing the Delaney nomination being in any sort of trouble. While the questioning was tough and his answers to them not great, they were not as bad as several other nominees which got confirmed (looking at O’Hearn here). Several of Biden’s nominees, particularly the NJ ones, have also seen progressive interest group opposition, and all of them have been confirmed. I don’t think Delaney will be different, save something else coming out about him in the near future.

        Like

  6. Yup.
    Charnelle Bjelkengren’s performance was simply dreadful and showed that while she might be great on a state level as a judge, she isn’t ready for the next step.
    As for Delaney, he wouldn’t have been nominated in the first place if NH’s Democratic senators had been worried about progressive groups but I do think it’s a red flag for him that Durbin is implied in a couple of the articles to be on the fence about him.
    Most likely his performance sealed his fate which means back to the drawing board.
    Not expecting a much more liberal nominee though.

    Like

    • @Zack Jones

      “I will say having looked into the case it’s not quite cut and dry as his critics are making it out to be”

      This is hilarious.
      We are all allowed to change our minds about things, but we should be honest about it and not try to hide our past views.
      YOU have counted yourself one of his critics. It would take no time for me to go back on a previous post and copy and paste here all you’ve said about Delaney, including accusing him of “indefensible” outing of a sexual abuse victim.
      In fact, I directly replied under one of your screeds asking you to tell me exactly what you were accusing him of. That way I could categorically address them. But you ignored that request. I was hoping that you would give me something, anything, even if it meant that you’d lift the accusations from one of the interest groups against him.

      —
      As I’ve said previously, it does look like the Delaney nomination is in trouble, which is unfortunate, because it shouldn’t be. You all know that it’s far be it from me to support an older nominee. So while I wished we got someone younger and more progressive, this is the nominee we got. And the disingenuous attacks have only made me want to support him even more.
      Notwithstanding, and this is important: this nominee should not languish until the end of the year (which is how some presidents prefer to kill nominations: instead of withdrawing it, wait until the senate sends it back at the end of the year). If Schumer and Durbin have determined that there aren’t enough votes, they should implore the WH to withdraw it and supply us with a new nominee post-haste.

      Like

      • @Gavi

        Exactly. No reason to wait the nomination out. Either Delaney has 50 out of the 51 Democrats or he doesn’t. Wasting a year will only add stress to an election year reduced schedule next year.

        And as for Blackburn, I wish I could loop her speech on my tv 24/7. It’s better then any prime time show on tv now… Lol

        Like

  8. I don’t think Olguin is going to get confirmed today…Cloture was 48-47 but Budd and Tillis didn’t show up for cloture, they did for final vote…So unless Feinstein or Merkley shows up, I don’t think she’ll get confirmed today

    Like

      • That was such a close vote. Its crazy crazy think how much opposition biden nominees get . 48 no votes out of a possible 49 wow. Glad harris was there to break it.

        In terms of the delaney issue. To me I am more inclined to say he should withdraw his nomination
        There’s no need to expend the political capital needed to confirm him when you can just get a better replacement with no consequences.
        Samantha elliot would be a solid choice. I am not getting into the business of doubting sexual assault survivors and nitpicking . Delaney should withdraw his nomination and bjelkengren should be swiftly voted out of commitee and confirmed as a judge Kennedy partisan tricks should have no bearing at all.

        Like

      • The Democrats just can’t catch a break so I too expect to see more of VP Harris in the chair. Republicans must be made of steel because they all show up no matter what.

        I’m trying really hard not to break my promise & criticize Feinstein after she announced she will retire so I’ll keep my comments to myself about her missing yesterday & today after a week off. It’s not easy being nice but I’ve kept my promise so far… Haaaaa

        Like

  11. Its make more sense now that Schumer filed cloture on the nominees with the most Republican support first instead of going in order as he had done, Senator Merkely will be back in DC next week, so Dems should be back up at 50 votes then.

    Like

  12. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t this the first ever tie-breaking vote on a district court nomination? At least in modern history.

    I hope Dems remember all these negative votes against a Dem president’s judicial nominees. No way should they go back to voting for any of the Republican’s. Can’t be a one-sided war.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I would assume ever but I’m not sure. This is the first tie breaking vote for a Biden district court nominee however. And absolutely Gavi. I want to see that same energy next time there’s a Republican president & senate. And damn sure no more 16 nominees confirmed by voice vote & 3 circuit court nominees confirmed in the same day again like we had under Trump.

      Like

    • Excollect point gavi and strongly agree.
      1. No judge belonging to the federalist society should ever be confirmed again to a district courtship in a state with two democratic senators. That’s malpractice. Can you imagine Ted cruz and coryn voting for an aclu immigrants rights lawyer for a district court judeship in their state or rick scott of florida? The notion is asinine alone.

      2. No more unanimous consent agreements or voice votes. Oppose all to the greatest extent.
      These gop senators don’t play fair they oppose nearly in unanimous fashion the vast majority of biden nominees even ones that are unproblematic. Tiffany cunningham literally got 33 no votes from gop senators when she literally had no issue with her or controversy.

      It’s time to start treating this Gop senators like the charlatans and goons they are.
      In a sane world biden would have nominated a far left Liberal already to the existing vacancy in the fifth circuit and ignored cruz and coryn and treat them as the charlatans they truly are, trump did alot of damage by putting right wing federalist society hacks on the ninth circuit like Kenneth Lee and bumatay on the ninth circuit.
      Enough is enough

      Like

      • The analogy at the beginning is a bit off. A better comparison would be with the ACS (although the answer would still be no either way). The rest of the post is simply more trolling nonsense, even as I agree with the Cunningham point (and why anyone on either side of the aisle would vote against any of the Federal Circuit nominees is simply due to partisan politics, sadly).

        Like

    • What if the Republican nominees are well qualified? For all of the partisan hacks Trump nominated, I can think of several dozen reasonable district court nominees. Senators need to stop looking at the party of the president appointing the nominee when evaluating candidates and look more at their qualifications and experience like was done in previous generations. Sadly, very few senators do that anymore.

      Like

      • The troll frank shows up and rears his ugly head again. Reminder to everyone on this forum not to take Frank seriously . He said blue slips are a good thing and that they should be back for judicial nominees.
        That alone should discredit everything the troll says.
        No progressive or Liberal or anyone with common sense would advocate reinstating back blue slips after the Gop abused it and threw it away.

        The troll always seems to always defend the trump judges and their integrity. Frank go to breitbart this place isn’t for you

        Like

  13. @Frank, I think ACLU is a better comparison. While the ACS is trying to be the left’s answer to the Federalist Society, they have a long way to go. I remember reading an article that said ACS law school chapters have pizza parties while Federalist Society law school chapters have steak dinners. That’s one way to illustrate the huge gap in funding.

    Like

  15. @aangren, I don’t think Frank is a troll. While most people on this blog are left of center, he has said the he isn’t. While Harsh Voruganti is an ACS member, this is not a site only for liberal court watchers, as much as it sometimes seems like that.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I disagree he is a known troll. He has consistently defended trumps goon judges and thier integrity and how they are good people who follow the law. Strongly disagree.
      He is a right wing troll grifitng on this forum. No progressive or Liberal or anyone center left would ever think of advocating reinstating back blue slips!! Think about that. The troll[frank] said it was a good thing and should be brought back .
      This is after mcconell and the gop senators shoved right wing judges down our throats over democratic senators objections
      He is a troll

      Like

  16. @Dequan

    Just to show that the senate continues to screw over democracy.

    This is to follow up from yesterday. Remember when you asked about pro forma sessions? Not only can’t the senate consider judicial nominations during that time, it cannot consider any business whatsoever.

    Remember that loooong adjournment in January? This is one of the consequences.
    Because of the senate’s long adjournment, Congress gets more time to strike down a DC law. I personally oppose the law (this post isn’t on the merits of the two laws) but I absolutely think DC Home Rule should be sacrosanct. If the senate hadn’t been out that long, the congressional review time would have expired by now.

    Like

  18. Did Schumer send any cloture motions to the desk today? If not, I’m not sure what votes will be taken Thursday unless they won’t finish the 4 nominees from yesterday’s cloture motions tomorrow.

    Like

  19. @Dequan

    Among the votes next week are for Colleen Lawless of Illinois and James Simmons of California. They ought to get comfortable margins, perhaps even 60 votes.

    The question is whether Chuck Schumer emphasize the less controversial nominees or push for the outspoken progressive ones? With John Fetterman hospitalized, Schumer doesn’t have much room for error.

    Like

  20. Assuming Hyde-Smith vetoes Colom (as now seems likely since he hasn’t been scheduled for a hearing) how long before Biden pulls him and nominates someone else? Of course, Durbin should get rid of the blue slip, but he’s made clear he’s not going to do that.

    Like

  21. @Mitch: Fetterman’s absence isn’t an issue except for the fact that Merkley and Feinstein were also out. Merkley will be back next week, which should help, and Feinstein…well, we don’t know why she’s out, exactly, and no, I’m not being snide about her age. I just desperately wish we’d won another Senate race in November.

    Like

    • @Jason
      “Assuming Hyde-Smith vetoes Colom (as now seems likely since he hasn’t been scheduled for a hearing) how long before Biden pulls him and nominates someone else?”

      As I mentioned earlier, presidents tend to not want to withdraw a doomed nomination. Instead, they often wait until the end of the year when the senate adjourns sine die and sends the nomination back to the White House. Then they don’t renominate after January 3rd. Biden did this twice last year.

      I really hope that Biden doesn’t do this for any additional nominee this year. He needs to withdraw them and nominate a new person as quickly as possible. Sorry, Shawnee, we don’t have all the time in the world.

      Like

      • I don’t understand the strategy of nominating somebody in a red or purple district court seat if you don’t have pre approval from the Republican senator. Why waste the time? If Biden’s strategy is to continue to do so & try to show Durbin they are working in bad faith so he finally ditched blue slips then that’s one thing. But I doubt that’s his strategy.
        So I just don’t see what’s the point of going through the nomination process & wasting the time while simultaneously putting the nominee through a failed process.

        Like

      • That’s because you think that it’s some general explicit “approval.” The standard is consultation. The WH and senator may differ in just how much consultation was given/received. We had this discussion before and I pointed to Trump’s blue slipped blue state nominees and you assumed it was just Trump being a blundering idiot who did respect the process and didn’t seem prior approval.
        If the standard was prior approval, then Pocan wouldn’t be nominated. And Sen. Marshall wouldn’t be waiting on Wamble’s ABA rating.
        In truth, it’s happened to many presidents.
        At this moment, I am not convinced that Colom will be blue slipped. But if he is, we need to move on ASAP.

        Like

      • But Gavi respectfully you’re wrong. William Pocan was recommended by senator Johnson’s commission. I can see Biden nominating him, assuming Johnson would turn in his blue slip. Scott Colom was recommended by Bennie Thompson. He isn’t a US senator. So my question is why would he not get pre approval from the two people that are US senators from the state.

        I know we talked about it before but I still have the same disagreement with the strategy now that I did then. And I know it’s been done like this in the past but unfortunately this isn’t our grandfather’s Republican Party. It just makes no sense to me to nominate somebody to a district court seat with a Republican senator without getting either pre approval from them or trying to get Durbin to ditch blue slips. I know it made sense before but it doesn’t today in my opinion.

        Like

      • I wonder whether Johnson actually changed his mind on Pocan or whether this was all a setup so he could delay filling the seat.

        Things don’t bode well for the Wisconsin courts. On the same court Pocan was nominated sit Lynn Adelman and Joseph Stadtmueller, who are 83 and 81 respectively. Adelman is a liberal lion and surely does not want a Republican president to replace him. The next Republican president could get 3 out of the 5 seats on E.D. Wis. if the next GOP Senate decides to get rid of blue slips.

        Like

    • Thank goodness Senator Crapo isn’t in session or it would have been back to back nominees that would have had to be reconsidered. Interesting fact, if these are indeed the first two district court nominees that needed a VP tie breaking vote to be confirmed, both needed it because a home state senator that recommended them missed the vote.

      Liked by 1 person

      • @Ryan Joshi

        The senate home page shows the four senators that missed the Guzman vote were Crapo, Feinstein, Fetterman & Merkley (Of Massachusetts & whose mother died & will be out all week).

        @Mike

        Who knows when it comes to Feinstein. I’m not Catholic but if I was, I would give up saying bad things about her for Lent… Haaaa

        As to your other point regarding what Black woman Newsome would appoint (As he pledged he would), I would assume any one besides Barbra Lee not to give her an unfair advantage in the general. He would likely appoint San Francisco mayor Breed but my most favorite far out wish would be Maxine Waters. What I wouldn’t give to see Cruz, Hawley & the rest of their heads explode listening to her on the senate floor even if just for a year… Lol

        Like

  26. McConnell is simply angry that Democrats aren’t doing a Patrick Leahy on Circuit court nominees anymore and are nominating people that won’t kiss the Federalist Society’s butt.
    He’s also mad at the fact that Republicans blew it last year and made it so he can’t stop any of this like he did with Obama.
    If we can get another SCOTUS nominee, hoo boy.

    Liked by 1 person

  27. Is it a medical issue with Feinstein? It’s almost like she should just resign now but that would be a mess for Newsom unless he gave the seat to someone who wouldn’t run for re-election in 24′.

    Hopefully at least 2 of the senators are able to come back soon, it’s wild that this keeps happening when the senate is in session instead of the weeks and months they’re off.

    Like

    • She will leave when she is good and ready. We already know know Newsome will choose Barbara Lee.

      I would rather keep Feinstein than have Barbara Lee. Look what happened the last time.

      Newsome chose Padilla who isn’t on the same level as Adam Schiff, Katie Porter or Ro Khanna.

      I don’t know when the last time Feinstein has been back in California.

      Like

  29. A few things – not to be a stickler for spelling, but @Dequan it’s Newsom with no “e” at the end (and it’s also Maria Kahn, not Khan). If you’re spelling their names wrong to be snarky or something (since I notice you consistently spell them that way), that seems a bit petty. Apologies if I’m reading too much into it.

    Not sure in what world Feinstein is better than Lee or Schiff would be better than Padilla. Lee at least doesn’t have dementia and knows what she has or has not announced publicly. There’s also no way Schiff would be recommending progressive people of color like Martinez Olguin for judgeships (Porter is less clear to me given that the media thinks she’s a progressive but her voting record in the House has been fairly moderate because of the partisan lean of her district).

    Great to see Martinez Olguin confirmed even though it was a narrow vote. We need more nominees like her, rather than the milquetoast centrists (if not straight up Republicans) the WH has nominated since the midterms. Between the slow pace and the poor quality of nominees, it seems like things have really fallen apart at the WHC’s office with the departure of Remus and now Klain. I’m very curious who is in charge now, because they’re frankly doing a horrible job – do they even know that Dems have an expanded majority in the Senate?

    Like

    • Ah yes your right. I did get Markey and Merkley confused. Your correct.

      @Hank

      Thanks, no not spelling their names wrong on purpose. I don’t think I’ve ever noticed the spelling until you just pointed it out but thanks & most of the time I’m writing on here it’s quickly on my phone when I’m supposed to be working… Lol

      Either way I got it now.

      I definitely agree with everything else you wrote as well. Lee would be light years better for the rest of this term then Feinstein. I haven’t made up my mind who would be best in the general election, in part because I don’t think we have seen the last of everybody who will jump in.

      As for your last point, this is what I was afraid of. When Remus left, I was a little worried but when Klain left, I was outright afraid at the changes we would see in regard to judicial nominations. Post 51 senators has seen a substantial drop off from what we saw with a 50/50 senate.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I don’t think there’s enough of a sample size yet to say how progressive the batches will be in the next Congress. The last batch had only 1 new nominee, and the one before that only had 4. Also, we’ve been seeing more red state nominees (along with the status quo type nominees NJ has consistently been pushing out), which are obviously going to be less progressive since they need blue slips.

        Like

  30. Yea…we knew this before but if I had to read between the lines, I would say Michael Delaney’s nomination is in trouble.
    Should have gone with Samantha Elliott even if it meant her seat had to be backlogged.

    Like

  31. Senate is done for the day. No cloture motions sent to the floor so it looks like they will be focusing on legislation at the beginning of next week. Senator Brown teed up the confirmation votes for Lawless & Grey tomorrow.

    I’m ready for the SJC hearing in the morning. I think there’s a small chance Charnelle Bjelkengren could be the first Democrat no vote in the SJC but we shall see.

    Like

  32. Feinstein will be out for Thurs SJC meeting, so can she vote by proxy if it’s a deciding vote?….I mean in the last Congress if a vote was 11-11, all Democrats had to be there….Perhaps the only nominees voted out tomorrow will be non controversial ones

    Like

    • I believe somebody on this site (Maybe it was Gavi) answered that a year or so ago. If I remember correctly, a proxy vote can’t be taken if it’s the deciding vote. Since the Dems have a 1 vote majority, she should be able to proxy if I remember correctly since her vote wouldn’t make it a tie like in the last Congress.

      Like

      • @Dequan
        Yes, but I don’t think I made a distinction (between 50-50 and outright majority).
        From what I’ve read of the rules, AYE proxy may *never* make a vote successfully reported out of committee. In other words, if you have 10 nays, 10 ayes, and 1 proxy aye, the matter cannot be reported out because proxy made the difference. If you have 9 nays, 11 ayes, and 1 proxy aye, then the measure can be reported out because it passed on the numerical majority of the physical votes. (I have no idea if this was amended in the 118th congress.)

        With the above in mind, I think that the recent unreliability of Graham and the absence of Feinstein might be the reason tomorrow’s meeting is canceled. All the nominees not supported by at least one Republican would fail to be reported out favorably.

        But but but, we have all the time in the world.
        I hope someone remembers my suggestion from the start of the year for us to keep a google doc to record all these wasted slots/times and see how they add up at the end of the year.

        Like

  34. If I had to hazard a guess, it’s clear Delaney will be deadlocked so rather then risk that, they are pushing him and other nominees back a week until Feinstein gets back.
    I still forsee him withdrawing, the fact a couple of Democratic senators putting their names on the record about their concerns of him doesn’t bode well for him.

    Like

    • He doesn’t need to chair the meeting himself, and have designated temp chairs in the past. I think the meeting was canceled due to multiple absences, including his and Feinstein’s. Yes, Feinstein is allowed to be sick and otherwise absent like any other senator. Per reports, she’s away for health reasons.
      I wish all the health-absented senators well and a speedy return.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Yes that’s what I was alluding to as well. If Durbin was out for whatever reason, then along with Feinstein, no need to have the meeting. If Durbin was the only one out then he could have a temporary chair but in this case it would make no sense. On to next week

        Like

      • Whitehouse was also out today. There’s no chance of getting anything done when 3 Democrats can’t show up.

        One thing that really irks me is that proxy votes against a nominee CAN be decisive but proxy votes FOR a nominee can’t. It makes no sense that if 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans are out, the 3 Republicans’ proxy votes can be used to defeat the nominee but the 3 Democrats’ proxy votes can’t be used to advance them.

        Like

  37. Here’s an article about the senators out this week.

    (https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/absent-senate-democrats-complicate-biden-judicial-confirmations?usertype=External&bwid=00000186-a2ef-d9f2-a7df-a2ff8b790001&qid=7428179&cti=&uc=&et=NEWSLETTER&emc=blnw_nl%3A14&source=newsletter&item=read-text&region=digest&access-ticket=eyJjdHh0IjoiTFdOVyIsImlkIjoiMDAwMDAxODYtYTJlZi1kOWYyLWE3ZGYtYTJmZjhiNzkwMDAxIiwic2lnIjoiMFZZWFJYeEJZMlNiYXRJYkVST2JQdW5ZVWxvPSIsInRpbWUiOiIxNjc3Nzg0NzU3IiwidXVpZCI6InlWRHJrQ2JxZUM2ZlNybkhQMUpicXc9PUhBWjZBbGpJZEtUU0JRZGFWbkpLbWc9PSIsInYiOiIxIn0%3D)

    Like

  39. Ballou, Schopler and Subramanian next up on the cloture train. Plus an HHS nominee. Kahn, Gallagher and Simmons already past cloture, awaiting confirmation votes. Monday nights vote is Ballou.

    Like

  40. Even if it wasn’t some of the heavy hitters, we still got numerous judicial confirmations this week (filling several judicial emergencies) so I still count this as a good week.
    Still want Maria Kahn to get confirmed.

    Like

  41. Those three plus Ramon Reyes were my guess for the next batch to be set up but I guess he went with the HHS nominee instead of Reyes. With no SJC meeting today, after this next batch, all of the pending nominees on the floor will be ones I’m excited about. I’m really happy about Subramanian however.

    Like

  45. I get that these absences get in the way of the tough confirmations, but it seems like we have a lot of the easier ones teed up. Couldn’t they have confirmed Kahn, Simmons, and maybe Gallagher today with 3 GOP votes? Or Monday?

    What I’m trying to say, badly, is that if they can get the margin they need for cloture on these less controversial nominees, then they can likely get the same margin for confirmation. (Rarely if ever does someone vote for cloture and against the nomination). Instead we’re getting more cloture votes–important, yes, but actually getting folks on the bench is the goal, right?

    Or just promise the VP a good bottle of scotch or something and say “Today’s the day you break ties.”

    Like

    • I’m not very familiar with Shingles so I can’t say how long Feinstein is likely to be out. Knowing her age, no matter what the average time for recovery is, she will probably be on the worst end of the timetable. I don’t expect Fetterman to be back in the next couple weeks. He may just take the entire 5 weeks off & combine it with the two-week Easter recess.

      I am not sure why senator Crapo was out this week, but it saved two confirmations whatever the reason was. Schumer likely doesn’t know Feinstein’s timetable to return either so we will probably see a good number of HHS type nominees after this last batch of judges.

      If Crapo is out for some reason that will keep him out another week, then the senate is back to a 49-48 Dem majority. Even without Fetterman & Feinstein they can still confirm some of the heavy hitters (Probably not Abudu, Rinkleman & Ho) as long as VP Harris will be in town.

      Sucks but this is the hand the Dems are dealt. They just need to coordinate as best as possible until whenever Fetterman returns. I already factored in Feinstein missing numerous weeks at the beginning of the year so just counting on Fetterman at this point.

      Like

  46. @Dequan
    It really hurts because we could have flipped the 11th into a moderate/liberal court if not for the stupidity of Patrick Leahy clinging to blue slips as well as moderate the 5th,6th and 7th Circuits among others.
    Instead, McConnell through Trump got to solidify conservative control of all of those courts and made others like the 2nd,3rd and 9th more conservative as well.
    Sad to say in some of those cases, nothing could be done about that but in a few cases it could.
    I know what’s done is done but it still irks me and always will.

    Like

    • The worst thing I ready today was the only reason James Ho is a judge on the 5th circuit is because Republicans held the seat open three years under Obama. I never thought about it like that but him, Amy Coney Barrett & so many more wouldn’t have even had the seats vacant to fill had Dems did what Republicans did as soon as they got into power. And history looks like it will repeat itself again…smh

      Like

      • See why i say frank is a right wing troll? He literally goes out of his way to make excuses for the right wing and conservatives. Either it’s defending the integrity of their partisan federalist society hack judges, or advocating for the blue slips to be fully re instated and now this. Leahy messed up by letting bad faith cretins like mcconnell and the other members of senate GOP ,from allowing obama to make meaningful change to those cirucits. Go away frank your a right wing troll. Go to breitbart

        Like

  48. Sad to say but there was nothing to prevent Amy Barrett from getting on the 7th Circuit, as the George W judge she replaced waited until a Republican was in office to retire.
    Her replacing RBG was 100% avoidable but that would have meant RBG putting aside her ego for a greater good.
    We know how that went.

    Like

  49. You gotta love the irony of the Dem’s outright senate majority.
    In the 117th congress, tie votes in committees didn’t prevent nominees from being discharged to the full senate, subject to a discharge motion. Now, this option isn’t even available. So one democratic absence in a committee has the same effect of a GOP majority.

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Cancel

Connecting to %s