Judge Kato Crews – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado

Judge Shane “Kato” Crews is the third magistrate judge nominated by President Biden to the federal bench in Colorado, after colleagues Nina Wang and Gordon Gallagher.

Background

A native of Pueblo in South Colorado, Crews graduated in 1997 from the University of Northern Colorado and then received a J.D. from the University of Arizona School of Law in 2000.

After graduating, Crews spent two years at the National Labor Relations Board and then joined Rothberger Johnson & Lyons LLP in 2001. In 2011, he shifted to be a name partner at Mastin Hoffman & Crews LLC and then moved to Hoffman Crews Nies Waggener & Foster LLP in 2013.

In 2018, Crews was appointed to be a U.S. Magistrate Judge and has served as such since.

History of the Seat

Crews has been nominated for a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. This seat will open on June 20, 2023 when Judge Raymond Moore takes senior status. Crews was previously recommended by Colorado Senators Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper to replace Judge William Martinez, but fellow magistrate judge Gordon Gallagher was chosen instead. Crews was then nominated to replace Moore.

Legal Experience

While Crews has shifted positions over the course of his career, he has worked on civil litigation in all of those positions, including in labor law, business law, and real estate. Among the suits he handled in private practice, Crews was part of the legal team defending Pizza Hut against an allegation of violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. See Smith v. Pizza Hut, Inc., 694 F. Supp. 2d 1227 (D. Colo. 2010).

Notably, Crews represented the Colorado State University System in defending against a lawsuit brought by Rodney Smith, a police officer who alleged a hostile work environment as a result of his race. See Smith v. Bd. of Gov. of the Colorado State Univ. Sys., Civil Action No. 15-cv-00770-REB-KMT (D. Colo. 2017). Judge Robert Blackburn granted summary judgment in favor of Crews’ client, finding that the plaintiff failed to meet his burden to show that any harassment was sufficiently pervasive to constitute a hostile work environment and that animosity was racial rather than personal. See id.

Jurisprudence

Crews has served as a federal magistrate judge since his appointment in 2018. In this role, he presides by consent over civil matters and misdemeanors, assists district judges with discovery and settlement, and writes reports and recommendations on legal issues. Among the cases that he presided over, Crews denied summary judgment in favor of the defendant in a slip and fall case at a Dollar Tree retail store. See Oliver v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-3443-SKC (2022). Crews found that material disputes of fact remained about the actions of Dollar Tree employees regarding obstructions in the aisle where the plaintiff fell. See id.

Writings and Statements

In 2016, Crews was among 16 attorneys and law students who were interviewed by the Colorado Bar on diversity, inclusion, and bias in the legal community. For his part, Crews noted that he strove throughout his life to work harder and exceed expectations in a desire to overcome any “unconscious” bias on the part of others, noting:

“My experience with implicit bias has not been a story of suffering, rejection, or hurt. Rather, I have found empowerment and positive results from pushing myself to outperform biased expectations.”

Overall Assessment

As he himself describes it, Crews has lived a “charmed” life, rising at a young age (in his early 40s) to be a federal magistrate judge. He is now poised for confirmation to the federal bench, with little in his record that should cause him delay.

585 Comments

    • Joe's avatar

      If Manchin does decide to pick a fight over a judge or two, I hope he keeps it focused on a district nominee rather than one of the circuit nominees. There’s just so much more vote whipping required with those anyway because the votes have to be on two different days.

      Like

      • Hank's avatar

        At the same time, why would we want people who just want to make more money to stay on as judges? There are plenty of lawyers who would be happy with $225k a year because they take an interest in public service, and lotsof people making that much or less still send their children to college just fine (since that’s one of the things Hazel brought up). Nothing wrong with wanting to make more money, but if that’s a person’s people main concern in life, I don’t think they should be ruling on how long people should be in prison or whether employers are following the law in how they treat their employees. Other than ideologues and Fed Soc hacks, the worst kind of judge is one who doesn’t want to be there and is not taking their responsibilities seriously – I’d rather anyone who is at that point retire or resign (only caveat being that because Republicans appoint Fed Soc hacks, Dem appointees should time things so their retirement does not undermine the everyday person’s basic rights).

        Like

      • Frank's avatar

        If their resignation was made upon the confirmation of a successor, it would be a bit different. I agree with you regarding that people should not be just looking for the money, but all of these judges resigning (like Hazel and Costa) have in common that they were confirmed at a young age. Also, while I get where you are coming from, it isn’t the job of a judge to defend everyday basic right rights. Judicial activism is never appropriate.

        Like

    • Frank's avatar

      One possible solution Durbin could do is solely do away with blue slips for judicial emergencies after the seat has been unfilled for a certain amount of time, and for no other seats. One might say that the Republicans would just do away with blue slips altogether, and that is very possible, but this would allow senators to have some input while also not allowing the judges to become even more overworked.

      Like

    • Dequan's avatar

      If we are to believe Republicans, there could be help on the way. Senator Cornyn said they sent The White House names last year. Senator Rubio said he can’t believe The White House hasn’t nominated any of the recommendations they gave yet. We know Wisconsin has 3 other names besides William Pocan that was recommended & we have heard names tossed around for South Dakota which has 2 of their 3 seats announced vacant, so I’m sure the senators will be willing to work & get at least one filled.

      Senator Kennedy said the names The White House sent him were unacceptable so I don’t think we will see nominees in Louisianna anytime soon. There’s actually been some red states I haven’t heard a peep about such as Oklahoma, North Carolina, Nebraska & Alaska.

      As I’ve said on other post, I think some states such as Arkansas & Missouri are a lost cause unless Durbin scraps blue slips. I don’t see Cotton or Hawley turning in blue slips for anybody to the left of Chad Meredith. They will certainly call Durbin’s bluff.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Zack's avatar

    That was quick.
    Glad to see at least one court flip back to a moderate/liberal one and it’s sadly likely going to be the only one for some time to come.
    As for future vacancies there, there is no way on earth Debra Livingston (who should never have been confirmed to start with) is going to take senior status under a Democrat so unless Raymond Lohier decides to retire in the next two years, that’s it for the 2nd Circuit.

    Like

  10. aangren's avatar

    Kyle Duncan is a homophobic bigot and a troll who should be rightfully shouted down and protested when he goes for speaking appearances. The right wing thinks they can take people’s right away though their partisan decisions and have no reactions.

    This is why biden cowardice and pandering to cruz and coryn is so sickening. Trump nominated vile open partisan hacks like Duncan and rammed them down the throats of Democrats
    Yet biden a political coward is still afraid to nominate a progressive to the fifth circuit vacancy and is still trying to work in good faith with gop senators who approved slimeballs like Duncan to appellate courts.
    In a sane world we would already have had strong progressive nominees to all the pending vancancies on the appellate court’s.

    Why don’t we? Because biden is trying to work in good faith with gop hack senators who had no issue with giving life tenure to a vile man like Kyle Duncan.

    This are the stakes folks. The right wing use their power blatantly and openly for their policy goals while biden refuses to do so.

    Like

    • shawnee68's avatar

      We don’t really know what is going on behind the scenes. The truth is Biden is not an ideologue. That doesn’t work for Democrat’s. Since, the electoral map favors Republicans they can act crazy and get away with it.

      Let’s not be too cynical. It’s to the prospective nominees benefit for the appearance of consultation to be taking place.

      I think the Democrat’s have the Republicans in a corner. There’s going to come a time when no blue state vacancies are left. Then they will have put up or shut up.

      I think this process needs to play out. I don’t think Biden is as personally involved in the matter as you suggest.

      Like

  11. Zack's avatar

    IMO, I think the issue with the 5th Circuit is that you have to find someone who is willing to put up with a toxic working place for the next 30-40 years where Kyle Duncan isn’t the worst person there.
    Gregg Costa (though he hasn’t come out and said it) clearly left in part because of that.
    Wouldn’t be a surprise it’s hard to find a replacement given that.

    Like

    • Ryan J's avatar

      I want to show pdf’s of recent 9-8 decisions, I think there was even one that was tied 8-8, to Biden/Biden’s team. With the purpose of proving to him that despite conservatives having 12 seats, filling Costa’s seat matters.

      Despite SCOTUS’s 6-3 majority, there have been several 5-4 decisions in the past year where Roberts and Kavanaugh sided with the liberals and a few more involving 3 liberals and 2 conservatives in the majority. In fact, last term (2021-22) there were more 5-4 decisions breaking in the liberals’ favor than there were 5-4 decisions in the conservatives’ favor. Filling Breyer’s seat with KBJ was crucial in ensuring that SCOTUS didn’t move even further to the right than it already is.

      Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        All good points Ryan Joshi. We often talk about the importance of filling every seat to prevent a future Republican president from pushing the courts further rightward. But filling all seats could have an immediate impact on courts when a conservative judge or justice sides with the liberals unexpectedly as well.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Ryan J's avatar

      Also the 5th circuit is going to get worse even without any new Republican appointees. Currently, a lot of moderate senior judges (such as Carolyn King, Patrick Higginbotham, E. Grady Jolly, W. Eugene Davis, Jacques Wiener) are keeping the court from going too far astray. But these moderates are in their 80s and cannot keep hearing cases forever. When the 5th circuit’s moderates die out, the likelihood of having 2 far right-judges in active status will increase.

      Like

  13. Zack's avatar

    If E.Grady Jolly was concerned about the direction the 5th Circuit was going in, he wouldn’t have taken senior status under Trump knowing full well his replacement would be moving the court further to the right.
    As for Carolyn King and Patrick Higginbotham, those seats would be in Democratic hands if not for the stupidity of Patrick Leahy.
    I know it’s over and done with but boy, did he screw so many other s over with his stupidity on the courts.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      I would argue the discussion is not pointless & the analogy is not valid for one reason. In the case of Leahy, history is repeating itself as we speak. Durbin could make the exact same mistake on the district court level.

      No Clarence Thomas replica would be confirmed today if Democrats had a 2 vote majority in the senate. So we aren’t as concern about that mistake because history is not going to repeat itself in that respect.

      Liked by 1 person

      • shawnee68's avatar

        That’s not a decision that Durbin will make without discussing it with others. Not really necessary at this point.

        It’s the same people who wanted to expand the Supreme Court without having the votes. The GOP has every right to revisit that issue when they get back in power.

        They talk too much and it’s going to backfire.

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        I have to disagree with your analogy once again. Adding justices to the SCOTUS does require votes but getting rid of blue slips is solely to the discretion of the SJC chairman as senator Grassley showed us. Of course Durbin would discuss the decision with others but it does not require a vote.

        As for “ Not really necessary at this point”, well if you feel there is plenty of time as you & others do then that statement would be fine. If you’re in the “there’s not that much time left” camp like myself & others then this is exactly the time getting rid or or amending blue slips should be discussed.

        As I’ve said before it’s already the middle of March & we only have 5 nominees that need hearings & have already blown through two missed SJC hearings because of a lack of batches. The senate will be taking off numerous weeks & in some cases months between now & the end of 2024 so I will not give an inch in my belief that there is not all of this time you & others claim there is. My goal is to fill every vacant seat announced before January 31st of next year. We may not fill every vacancy announced before January 31st if THIS year at the rate we are going with blue slips, senators out for extended amounts of time, a lack of nominees & recess weeks.

        Like

  17. Mitch's avatar

    There have been some excellent articles from this blog on “Where things stand now” or something like that with breakdowns by region and circuits, and speculation on who will be confirmed.

    I would really enjoy another such article.

    Like

  19. Ben's avatar

    New article on Colom’s nomination hold up. Likely due to HydeSmith blue slip still missing. Maybe a next step in the evolution of the blue slip could be to say you only need one from a Senator, not both. Would help split states like WI and MT too. Work in good faith with Rubio’s commission while ignoring Scott’s nonsense, etc. losing them in full would work too, but baby steps probably needed in this Senate.

    https://rollcall.com/2023/03/13/biden-pick-for-mississippi-federal-court-awaits-senate-hearing/

    Like

    • Mitch's avatar

      @Ben

      In the absence of information, I can make an educated guess. I think that Hyde-Smith wants to keep Colom off the 5th. Circuit. So she’s trying to get a White House commitment to not nominate him to the 5th Circuit in exchange for her turning in a blue slip for the District Cout nomination.

      Like

      • Frank's avatar

        You might be right about this. I’m just not sure how that would even be enforceable, and in any case why would Biden nominate Colom to an opening (should it even happen during his term) seeing as he’d then have to backfill the district court seat? More likely Hyde Smith wants to have something else more concrete in exchange for the blue slip.

        Like

  21. Gavi's avatar

    This Patrick Leahy obsession is really something. It’s getting really hard to want to read comments if all we talk about is something that was done a decade ago. Frank will soon be a very rich man! Is there anything else left to be said on this subject? Anything?

    @Dequan
    I disagree with you on two accounts:
    1: In general, I lean against killing the blue slip. I’ve already stated my reasoning and won’t add to the ad nauseam repetition.
    2: In the interim you think Durbin should do it piecemeal, since he doesn’t want to fully get rid of it. This is worse than the above. While the jury is still out on whether the Republicans would indeed get rid of it, doing it this way all but guarantees that the GOP will finish the job. Again, this would result in a worse outcome for blue states. Any vacancy that wasn’t filled using this Swiss cheese justification will be filled by the GOP when they up the ante and trash the whole thing.
    Bottom line. Don’t kill the blue slip. But if you must, kill it completely and confirm everyone.

    And not even get me started on the ridiculous take that the prolonged vacancy for the Texas 5th seat is due to a lack of interest by liberals not wanting to be in the minority. Silly.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Joe's avatar

      Agree on that last point Gavi. Any district judge, US Attorney, or Federal Public defender would be well qualified and would leap at the opportunity to be a circuit judge. It’s not like we’re looking for a quality candidate from South Dakota or Wyoming.

      IMO Biden should just nominate moderate Marina Marmalejo in exchange for Cornyn/Cruz signing off on a package of district judges and call it a day.

      Like

    • Dequan's avatar

      @Gavi

      Yea I completely agree. I think Durbin should do for district court vacancies what Grassley did for circuit court vacancies & just get rid of blue slips completely. I only suggested at least getting rid of them on a senator by senator basis because we’re talking about Democrats. Republicans don’t think like that. They do whatever is necessary to stack the courts (Or keep seats vacancy if there is a Democrat president) when they have power.

      We will just have to agree to disagree that Republicans won’t ditch blue slips if Democrats don’t. I honestly don’t see why somebody who seems to be extremely well versed in the judiciary as yourself has so much faith that Republicans won’t actually.

      Republicans were the first to filibuster a SCOTUS nominee when President Johnson nominated Justice Fortus. Republicans were going to be first to get rid of the filibuster for judicial nominees until the Gang of 14 was reached. Republicans were first to say they would not allow the confirmation of ANY nominee for the three vacant DC Circuit court vacancies because they felt the court had too many judges under Obama despite them having no problem confirming three judges to the same court under GW Bush & three more judges under Trump. Republicans were first to say no SCOTUS nominee would even get a hearing, let alone a vote in an election YEAR, then proceeded to confirm ACB 4 years later after early voting had already begun. Republicans were first to eliminate the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees. Republicans were first to eliminate blue slips for circuit court vacancies.

      I just don’t see what argument can be made to say you trust Republicans to continue the norms of blie slips for district court nominees if a President DeSantis or Trump is pressuring them to get rid of it. Maybe I’m missing where all of this Republican good will is coming from. I try to be an optimistic person but I’m a realist first & foremost.

      I can see why conservatives are dominating the courts now. When they are in power the discussion isn’t if they should continue norms because Democrats will once they are in power. The discussion is what bs logic should they use to justify them doing whatever is necessary to pack the courts with young conservatives.

      Like

      • Frank's avatar

        Why didn’t the Republicans get rid of the blue slips the last time they were in power? They easily could’ve and made it so Biden would’ve had even fewer seats to fill upon becoming president, but didn’t. It’s possible that they will change their minds when they are in power again, but I think that they really don’t care about blue state district court seats that much.

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        That’s actually an easy answer to your questions Frank. There are multiple reasons actually.

        First, they didn’t need to. Democrats returned over 110 blue slips under Trump so no need to get rid of blue slips when the other side is working in good faith. Republicans on the other hand has returned less then 20 blue slips under Biden. And don’t get me started on the last two years of Obama.

        Second, the Republicans had a LOT more higher court seats to fill. They had three SCOTUS vacancies & 56 circuit court vacancies, in which they filled 3 & 54 of those seats respectively. Democrats in the other hand inherited much less higher court vacancies so their focus on district courts is more vital.

        Third, Democrats cooperated more once the nominees were sent to the senate floor. I remember one day there were 16 district court judges confirmed by voice vote under Trump. We have had two total under Biden. One day three circuit court judges were confirmed the same day under Trump.

        Let me ask you a question now… If Graham, Grassley & McConnell all came out right now in public & said they will 100% get rid of district court blue slips on day one of the next Republican president & senate would you be in favor of Durbin ditching them now? You’re a smart man so I’m gonna go ahead & answer that question for you. YES

        So this comes down to do you trust Republicans won’t ditch them or not. I have absolutely no trust in their continuing this or any other norms once back in power. If you trust Mitch McConnell then that is why you are in favor of keeping blue slips. I unapologetically don’t trust him.

        Like

      • Gavi's avatar

        @Dequan
        You make a lot of valid points and an unassailable recap of the history. My hesitance to support Dems ditching the blue slip isn’t because I trust the Republicans. It’s because I am hoping against hope that they won’t because of how destructive it would be. Even during the Gang of 8 era, McConnell and others wanted to exempt district courts from that fight. Do you know why? Because senators do not want to give up the chance to select who’ll preside at their corruption trial. Or any other federal criminal trial. That’s why they have always closely guarded who sits on the district courts in their state.
        What is more, Republicans will benefit from the doing away with the blue slips a lot more than Dems, since Republicans will control the senate about 80% of the time, thanks to malapportionment.
        Your hypothetical to Frank is an obvious YES. But don’t expect Republicans to make such a declaration when they are out of power.
        Just to note, I never said I feel strongly one way or another. It’s a very close question.

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        Well I hope The White House Counsel’s office is able to get some red state nominations in the next few batches. Perhaps I will breathe a sigh of relief & ease my position on blue slips. Over 130 to under 20 is too much of a disparity to justify keeping blue slips but if that gap reduces substantially then perhaps it’s worth keeping.

        I don’t see some senators working in good faith at all & Scott Colom may be enough alone for me to ditch the blue slips alone but let’s see who is willing to work in good faith.

        Like

  22. shawnee68's avatar

    What people fail to see is that the GOP is highly protective of district court seats in their states.

    If the Republicans kill blue slips for District judges then someone like Dale Ho could be a judge in Kentucky.

    The District judges have a lot of power. Yes, the Republicans aren’t interested in blue states but Circuit judges aren’t everything. You almost always start in a District court before you go anywhere else.

    Like

    • Dequan's avatar

      I’m sorry @Shawnee86 but I have to disagree with you that Republicans aren’t interested in blue state district court seats. As I wrote above, they didn’t have to end blue slips for them under Trump because of the reasons I mentioned above.

      I am not a betting man, but I would happily bet that if during the next Republican president & senate, if Democrats only returned 13 blue slips & refused to fill almost 40 blue state seats because of blue slips, you will find out that all of a something Republicans are very interested in those seats.

      Like

  23. Zack's avatar

    I will say this…if only Democratic voters as a whole had as much passion for the courts as the folks here do, we would have had a liberal SCOTUS back in 2000, let alone 2016.
    The failure to care about the judicial branch as a whole by Democratic voters/party has been the biggest failure policy wise for the past 50 years IMO and yes, that does include people from all areas of the Democratic party, centrist and progressive alike.
    If nothing else, anyone who votes home or third party in 2016,14,10 and 2000 among other years helped give us the courts we have now and it’s annoying to see some of them online demanding Biden and Democrats fix what they helped break.

    Like

    • Dequan's avatar

      McConnell was just discharged from the hospital yesterday so it will definitely be 49-48 until either him, Fetterman or Feinstein returns. It’s possible neither will return next week or the week after so they can return after the two week Easter recess.

      I truly hope Schumer turns back to judges next week. He would need to send judicial cloture motions to the desk today to be able to vote for cloture Thursday. Brookman is the only possible voice vote.

      There are currently 26 non judicial nominees pending besides the 4 that already had cloture motions sent to the floor. Most can be confirmed by voice votes. Karla Ann Gilbride is one of the 26 & should be considered for a judicial judgeship in the future & would add to Biden’s current numbers if two disabled judicial nominees.

      Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        I still don’t trust 49-48 for Dale Ho, Julie Rinkleman, Nusrat Jahan Choudhury & Michael Delaney. I think the rest should be able to be confirmed with that senate composition. May need VP Harris in town for a couple of the others but wait for all 51 to be present as well as the VP for those four.

        Does anybody know besides the Iraq authorization vote is there any more legislation the senate has to vote on in the near future? I know the DC crime bill had to be voted on by rule so hopefully they don’t pass any more bills that not only take up senate floor time but also would be a difficult vote for Democrats.

        Like

  25. shawnee68's avatar

    The only Democrat on the committee that appears to have a problem Delaney is Feinstein.

    Lindsey Graham indicated that was influenced by Kelly Ayotte’s support. Also, it looks like Kennedy will vote for Delaney too.

    He may get on the court before Rickleman.

    Like

    • Dequan's avatar

      I admit both Graham & Kennedy seemed incline to vote for Delaney based on their questioning at his hearing. I will add one caveat though. Both came before Blackburn, Hawley, Cotton & Cruz. I agree he will probably ultimately be confirmed but not so sure it will be with both Graham & Kennedy still voting for him in the end.

      Like

      • shawnee68's avatar

        Yes, but none of those Senators have ever voted for an appellate nominee or perhaps any made by Biden.

        It was phony outrage from the group that supported Kavanaugh. They are fabricating excuses to oppose Delaney.

        It was Kennedy who was the deciding floor vote for Mathis.

        Like

  29. Joe's avatar

    I hope Fetterman takes as much time as he needs. Would rather have it be a few more weeks to ensure he’s good to go moving forward.

    Definitely excited to see movement on Clarke. Hopefully if McConnell is out next week too we can move forward on Vera, Ho, Kato, Choudhury, and Merle as well.

    Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        Robert Kirsh is an actual Republican yet he couldn’t get voted to the floor. No new batch of nominees in sight, two SJC hearing slots missed, back to back weeks of no SJC meeting votes, two Democrats out & still no blue slip for Scott Colom… This five week in session period isn’t shaping up to what I was hoping for.

        Like

      • Ben's avatar

        It definitely seems like Graham has decided to be more obstructive than he had been last Congress. I think he felt an obligation to keep the tied Senate from being totally deadlocked that he doesn’t feel anymore. To him, Dems have the votes so it shouldn’t be on him anymore.

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        Graham always seems to be more conservative when he’s chairman versus when he’s just a regular committee member. He barely showed up to any non SCOTUS hearings or executive meetings in the first two years & his voting record has him voting no this year on nominees he voted yes or pass on to advance to the floor last year.

        Like

      • Thomas's avatar

        Feinstein ist not there, so the cancellation of the executive meeting makes sence. As there are 5 circuit and 16 district nominees who are eligible for confirmation, I also don’t see that this is a major obstacle, I think that it might be the chance for at least some of them, who are waiting for one and a half year, to get confirmed now, because Schumer would otherwise might bring forward Cummings, Reyes or other uncontroverse people, so Vera, Kato, Cartwright and some others may have a chance to get their overdue confirmation, some others like Ho, Abudu and Bloomkatz still have to be patient for the right moment, but Clarke or Vera have already been discharged last June with 50 – 49, so that should work as no opposition of Sinema or Manchin stands against it.

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        I will say as upset as I am about two straight meetings with votes canceled, I agree the one good thing that may come out of it is it will get to the point where Schumer has no choice but to finally bring up some of the heavy hitters. With very few other non judicial nominees let, almost no other legislation, two more weeks left until the Easter recess & no new batches, it’s getting to the point where Schumer will finally have to give us the main event nominees.

        Like

      • Joe's avatar

        I agree, Thomas. It’s not the end of the world if those 10 have to wait another week or two.

        The more important thing is we keep pushing to clear the backlog (working in Clarke tomorrow is huge) and the biggest priority of all needs to getting a good batch of nominees (2 appellate/3 district or at least 1/4) next week so that they’ll be ready for a full SJC hearing on April.

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        If senators Cornyn & Rubio are telling the truth (Yes I know I should never start a sentence off with those words but hear me out), there could be a rather large batch or couple of batches on the way in the near future. Texas & Florida alone could produce double digit nominees.

        Combine those two states with blue state district court seats that have been announced for over 6 months & were talking about a good number of possibilities. Throw in red states that I think the senators will work in good faith like Indiana (1 circuit & 2 district) & South Dakota that has 2 of its 3 seats announced vacant, & there’s a possibility of close to 25 nominees either going through or completed their FBI background checks. We could get another batch by the end of next week.

        Like

      • Joe's avatar

        Very well may be the case. I understand the hesitation with the 5th circuit because they are probably trying to agree on some sort of package there. Ditto on the 7th, and it’s encouraging that Brookman has moved through so quickly.

        I think we’ll see some movement on the 10th once Wamble finally gets his blue slips returned and gets a hearing.

        With the 4th there’s really no excuses, it should have been done months ago.

        The 3rd and 9th vacancies just came open recently so they’re likely looking at all options there.

        Like

  31. Gavi's avatar

    As you know, I’m not one to bash Sen. Feinstein. I think it’s often deeply misogynistic (women always get more grief for being old than similarly situation males), unfair (senators get sick all the time. Even much younger ones for much longer periods), and undemocratic (her age was before voters and they voted for her anyway, and thankfully they did, otherwise we’d be stuck with Kevin de Leon).

    However, I care more about the federal judiciary than I do about being consistent. And so, I now hope that Feinstein will step down from the SJC. Even when she gets better from this bout of illness, I don’t think we can expect less absences from her going forward. I don’t know if Schumer or Durbin, the two most important people in the caucus, discussed this with her, but I would hope so.

    Memories are short. A few years in the future we’ll look back on the pace of confirmation in this period and will be scratching our heads trying to remember why, just after increasing the senate majority, Dems gave up on nominating, let alone confirming judges.

    Like

  32. aangren's avatar

    This is march 15th and still no new batch of nominations , still nothing about a nominee for the 7th ,10th vacancies. Biden is incompetent and has surrounded himself with hacks like zients and the new wh counsel who is clearly incompetent.
    This is after approving the willow project another gift to big oil and polluters.
    It’s getting close to the point that he should lose the democratic nomination or get a serious challenge from a contender enough is enough. This is now malpractice.

    The conservatives when in power use it to force bigots and hacks like judge ho, branch and Duncan down our throats and biden and his political team are cowards for allowing judicial vancancies to go this long without a nominee.

    He will go down In history as a one term failure just like Jimmy Carter. This man’s presidency has been a failure.
    The one average job he was doing in nominating judges he has stopped it .

    Feinstein is a complete disgrace . If she had any decency and self respect she would have resigned from the senate already. She will go down as a senator who clung to power and barely had any marbles left .just completely unacceptable that another sjc meeting had been cancelled. Feinstein is a disgrace and yes she is at fault because any sane person would have voluntarily withdrawn her name of the commitee.

    Like

    • Dequan's avatar

      I have been a huge Feinstein critic ever since she hugged Graham after ramming through the ACB SJC hearing & vote to the floor despite saying 4 years earlier you can keep this tape, if I’m chairman & there’s a SCOTUS vacancy during an election year under a Republican president, that person will not get a hearing. Even still, I said I would swear off saying anything else bad about her if she announces she will not run for reelection. But this is getting to the point of being unforgivable.

      A second straight SJC meeting with nominees stuck without a vote because she can’t make it to work. And I get it, senators just like everybody else gets sick. But this is not the first time she has missed work & I’m not even counting when her husband died.

      She has already been talked into not taking her seat as SJC chairwoman when she was next in line. She was talked out of being senate pro temp when she was next in line. Then she was talked out of running for reelection. All great things. But I would say her remaining on the SJC is arguably worse then if she was senate pro temp or ran for reelection.

      Nothing is going to happen to Biden, Harris & McCarthy at the same time so her being senate pro temp would have just been a ceremonial position. And her running for reelection wouldn’t have hurt because she would have likely lost. But remaining on the SJC is hurting the country. Whoever spoke to her into making the decisions I mentioned above needs to have a serious conversation about stepping down from the committee. And I mean even after she recovers from Shingles.

      Despite what people on this blog may think, we do not have all the time in the world. Having one senator cause two straight executive meeting votes to be cancelled with the possibility of a third & even fourth is not something that can be afforded. She needs to go, plain & simple.

      Like

      • Ryan J's avatar

        If Feinstein could be talked about 3 of those other things, it’s possible she could be talked out of staying on Judiciary Committee. If Dems are that concerned they will talk to her about it. Give her top seniority after the chair on whatever committee she wants in exchange for her Judiciary seat. The one caveat is that Dems would need to find someone willing to step in, since the presence of Padilla, Ossoff, & Welch (who all joined Judiciary as soon as they became senators, and we know the Dems run on a seniority based system) suggests that no Dem who wanted to be on Judiciary Committee was denied a spot.

        I honestly think that the Dem/GOP difference in who’s getting judiciary seats serves as evidence that Dems STILL don’t take the judiciary as seriously as the GOP. Eric Schmitt wanted to be on Judiciary so bad that he begged Tillis & Blackburn to give up their seats for him. Meanwhile, we have Padilla, Ossoff, & Welch joining Judiciary immediately upon their arrival in the Senate.

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        I totally agree Ryan Joshi. No way in a seniority based system should 3 of the newest Democrat senators be on the SJC while senator Schmitt was willing to fight to the death to get on. Again yet another example of the differences between the two parties approach to the judiciary.

        I do think however they would be able to find somebody willing to join if Feinstein did the right thing & was talked into giving up the committee. Perhaps Warren could be talked into it. I mean to be honest it doesn’t matter who it was save Fetterman, it would be an improvement & maybe even him too once he’s well & back to the senate.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Ryan J's avatar

        I hope they seriously consider this. If Feinstein’s prolonged absence becomes a bigger problem, I feel like almost any Democrat would be willing to take her spot on Judiciary provided they can keep all their existing committee assignments. All it takes is 1-2 hours every Thursday, they can skip the rest of the stuff.

        As far as I know, Dems are less rigid on “fairness” which in this aspect means dividing committee assignments and leadership positions evenly.

        Like

    • Ryan J's avatar

      I agree with the first half of your comment, but I think Biden could still have a good legacy, especially considering he was forced to clean up a huge and disgusting mess that his predecessor left him.
      Feinstein has done many good things during her 32 years in the Senate. As Gavi pointed out, there were plenty of old men (including racists like Strom Thurmond & Robert Byrd) who were no longer competent but given far less scrutiny than Feinstein. I’ve said this so many times but this isn’t on Feinstein, it’s on the Senate’s antiquated rules.
      Lastly, however bad the Democrats are, I would still vote for them in a heartbeat. I will not vote for anyone who aligns themselves with an anti-democracy fascist orangutan who was such a sore loser that he attempted a coup to try to make himself dictator.

      Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        I would hold my nose & vote for senator Menendez if I lived in New Jersey as I don’t see him being defeated in the primary. Even though term limited, I would vote for governor John Edwards without hesitation because I understand the dynamics of Louisiana.

        I would fight like Hell to defeat senator Gillibrand in the primary but if she won I would have to hold my nose & probably another body part of two in order to vote for her.

        Governor Hochul may be the only Democrat in the country running for major office I couldn’t vote for. I honestly don’t think I could walk into a voting booth, see her name on the ballot & vote for her. She’s that much of a disaster that it may be better for a Republican, even a MAGA Republican to be governor as long as the Democrats have a super majority then her.

        But yes all other Democrat, even those I criticize from time to time are the better option than most Republicans right now across the country. If a Liz Cheney type of Republican ran against a Hochul type, I would happily vote for the Republican in that case for any office other than US senate which confirms judges.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Mike's avatar

      > He will go down In history as a one term failure just like Jimmy Carter. This man’s presidency has been a failure.

      It’s hard to take people seriously when they sound like they’re foaming at the mouth. Bidens got more legislative accomplishments from his first two years than Obama and Trump combined.

      The senate has been in session for 6 weeks and they’ve confirmed 19 judges. Relax and take a breath.

      Like

  33. Joe's avatar

    I remember voting for Jim Demint over Alvin Greene for senate in 2010. It killed me to do so but he was a sex offender and most likely mentally ill. But yeah, outside of a situation like that I will vote for every D, even a corrupt one line Menendez, over an R every time.

    Liked by 1 person

  35. Zack's avatar

    I agree at this point Feinstein needs to step down from the SJC as her issues are costing us precious time on sending nominees to the floor and could do so in the future.
    As to the point some other posters have made here, Biden has done a lot but there is no magic wand to wave to undo all the damage of the Trump years, especially on the courts and just because he isn’t doing a 100% progressive wishlist doesn’t mean he isn’t doing a good job in the eyes of many.
    As to NY, as I’ve said before, this state isn’t as blue as folks think it is.
    If AOC tried to primary Gillibrand, she would be giving up a house seat for nothing.
    As for Hochul, I don’t like her but no, I’m never going to roll the dice with a MAGA Republican, EVER.
    If there was a Rockefeller Republican (whom are now extinct) maybe but those types of NY Republicans are long gone.

    Like

    • Dequan's avatar

      Good to see a SJC hearing next week after missing two potential slots due to a lack of nominees. Hopefully all five pending nominees will be at the hearing.

      As for New York not being as blue as some people think, that’s correct it isn’t. But it’s also not a swing state. The only Democrat in the state that could make it a swing state is Kathy Hochul. AOC is one of if not the most popular person in Congress. If she ran state wide, she would increase the NYC turnout probably substantially over what Hochul got. That would make up for the few Republicans that crossed over to vote for Hochul (Surprise, there weren’t many) & Independents that would rather a Republican than AOC.

      I do agree in most cases a MAGA Republican is not better than even a bad Democrat but Hochul isn’t just a bad Democrat. She’s an incompetent Democrat that is bad & not even good at politics which at least her sexual assaulting predecessor was good at.

      I would rather John Eastman be the governor of NY over her with the Democrats having a super majority. If he didn’t know that it snows in Buffalo then you could run against that. You can’t when the governor is from your own party. If he appoints conservatives to the courts you can just reject them & hold the seats open for 4 years, using the need to take back the courts in every election while he’s in office. If (Sorry, I meant to say) WHEN Hochul nominated her next Republican and/or conservative, if that person is slightly less bad then LaSalle, it’s possible they will be confirmed because they don’t want to embarrass her again with a second defeat.

      Kevin McCarthy is Speaker of the House because New York’s highest court sided with the Republicans in the redistricting case despite every member on that court being appointed by a Democrat. Hochul’s response after barely winning her reelection against a piss poor candidate was to nominate somebody that was to the right of more than 75% of that court, & to the chief judge no less. That’s unforgivable.

      Like

  38. Ben's avatar

    Clarke cloture and confirmation scheduled for tomorrow. Plus motion to proceed to AUMF repeal. Surprised Gallagher is still waiting, but I guess his may not be an emergency seat. Great to see a 2021 nominee get off the books!

    Liked by 1 person

  39. Dequan's avatar

    I know most of us have our heart set on Jacy Hurst but another name to watch for the 10th circuit court seat might be another judge on the same Kansas Court of Appeals. Sarah E. Warner is the same age as Hurst & has served two years longer than Hurst. She was confirmed by the Republican legislature unanimously. She isn’t an exciting pick but certainly could be a compromise pick if Biden goes that route.

    Like

  41. aangren's avatar

    It is nice that clarke will get confirmed today she is truly one of the best biden judicial nominees either district or circuit as well, she is up there with the natasha merle, HOs, myrna perez and CJA on the 7th circuit.
    She has waited a long time too. I wish schumer can clear all the new york controversial nominees like ho and merle and vera for the CA too before the easter holidays

    Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        Timing sucks that next week is the second of back to back 2 day work weeks. But if they focus both days on judges, they could definitely get some heavy hitters confirmed with 49-48. I will assume Fetterman, Feinstein & McConnell will all probably take the next week off as well to roll into the 2 week Easter recess. That’s a full week so hopefully there’s no more bills that need to be voted on between now & Easter because the non judicial nominees list is pretty thin as of now.

        Like

      • Joe's avatar

        It is unfortunate that next week is a short week. But there is still room for about 10 votes (1 Tuesday, 6 Wed, 3 Thursday) so theoretically they could pass the Iraq resolution, confirm Gallagher, and then confirm Vera, Choudhury, Merle, and Cartwright. That would be an excellent week, IMO.

        Then the last week of the session you could do Ho, Kato, and 1-2 of the circuit nominees?

        Like

  44. Zack's avatar

    For Michael Delaney, I honestly think the votes aren’t there but I also know NH Democrats are livid over the primary being changed to where they aren’t first.
    Thus I think they are dragging his confirmation vote out until they can’t anymore, which IMO is dumb.
    If he doesn’t have the votes, he doesn’t have them and we should be looking to find another nominee so we can flip the seat.

    Like

    • Ethan's avatar

      @Zack Jones,

      If Michael Delaney’s nomination fails or gets withdrawn, Samantha Elliott being elevated is the most likely scenario.

      Others who could be appointed:
      -Mary Ann Dempsey (1972), who currently serves as General Counsel of the New Hampshire Judicial Branch and previously served as Legal Counsel to Senator Hassan when she was Governor.

      -Sandhya Iyer (1972), currently the General Counsel of Dartmouth College. Previously worked as an attorney for the DOJ Civil Rights Division, the US Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, and the National Partnership for Women and Families. Also clerked for 9th circuit Judge Sidney Thomas.

      Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        Trump nominated Halil Suleyman Ozerden for the 5th circuit on June 11, 2019. His nomination was withdrawn & returned 206 days later when it became clear he did not have Republican support to be confirmed. Cory T. Wilson was nominated 55 days later.

        That’s having a plan B in place. The Republicans were smart, I hope the Democrats are already working on a similar plan B & timeline in the event Delaney does not have enough support.

        Like

  46. Rick's avatar

    Since there is a bill in process, that’s likely why Schumer filed no cloture motions today and they have adjourned until Tues

    Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        I would think the Republican House would want to vote to remove war powers from the president, particularly when the sitting president is a Democrat. It is probably a bi-partisan vote to return it to where it is suppose to be which is Congress.

        Very happy to see Jessica Clarke confirmed today. Sad Schumer didn’t send any cloture motions to the desk to tee up next week. At best all that we can hope for is Gallagher’s confirmation & possible Brookman voice vote Wednesday. Hopefully we see some cloture motions sent to the desk Tuesday. That, a SJC hearing Wednesday & hopefully finally a 31st batch could salvage an otherwise 2 day work week.

        Liked by 1 person

  47. Rick's avatar

    I’m thinking there may not be the SJC meeting next Thurs either as it hasn’t been scheduled….It usually is scheduled right away after a hearing when most, or all of the nominees were held over.

    At least last March, the KBJ nomination took up the time, but this March has been a waste unfortunately

    Like

  48. Ryan J's avatar

    This was the first week in a while that more Republicans than Democrats were out all week. Barrasso, Cruz, & Turtle were out all week so the Democrats had a 49-46 majority. Not sure whether Barrasso and Cruz will be back next week but it seems like Turtle likely won’t be back next week since he had a concussion after his fall.

    Like

    • Dequan's avatar

      I think in all likelihood McConnell is going to take the next two weeks off along with Fetterman & Feinstein. That way they get a full month to recover combined with the two-week Easter break. I really hope both Democrats are back & all 50 are ready to work after that. Hopefully by then Biden will have sent a good number of new nominees as well.

      It’s almost April, time to get as close as possible to Trump’s 230 judges. They are taking away our rights without hesitation & we need all the Biden judges as possible to at least slow them down.

      Liked by 1 person

  49. Gavi's avatar

    Have we considered that judicial nominations will get shunted even further to the back burner due to the ever-worsening banking developments?

    I’m pretty sure that Biden first learns of most nominees only when he has to affix his signature on the piece of paper he sends to the senate, so not super involved. But the nominations teams still need to book time with him for even this perfunctory task. And I can see his time being very limited to do even that.

    This is why you can’t possibly count the number of months and say that you have enough time to do anything. Crises never stop coming up.

    Having very little faith in the Biden WH when it comes to judicial nominations, I might just be being my usual nervous Nelly self. So perhaps, temper your expectations for a decent, ummm, *any* new batch of nominations.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      Right Gavi. Me countering anybody’s argument that there is “plenty of time” is just based on things we know such as recess time, SJC structure, senators out sick & so in. It doesn’t even remotely take into account things that we can’t foresee which will definitely happen.

      On a good note, Jamal Whitehead received his commission. He’s now my front runner to be elevated if judge Gould goes senior. Also the Homeland Security Committee reported Adrienne Noti to the floor. She’s the only Biden DC Supieror Court nominee not to be confirmed yet. She had ties to pro choice groups & is 49 so I hope Schumer doesn’t let her get lost in the shuffle.

      Like

    • Dequan's avatar

      I didn’t realize we reached the halfway mark. Even with the real numbers 114 & 230 were still basically halfway there. I’m not sure how many will be confirmed after the election next year. Manchin has said he doesn’t believe a SCOTUS seat should be filled in that time but I believe he voted for some Trump district court judges after the 2020 election.

      Thankfully there shouldn’t be any runoffs after the election so don’t have to be worried about a senator campaigning in November & December like the past two elections. Quite an accomplishment between the low number of vacancies inherited mixed with only having 50 or less senators for virtually the entire Biden term so far.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a reply to Mitch Cancel reply