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.
The Vetting Room 
I don’t think Manchin would vote for a Scotus nominee late in the election cycle. Not sure what his cutoff is though. September was clearly too late but what if it’s the summer? No one knows.
You’re right that he would probably vote for district/circuit nominees though and I suspect he would also vote in favor of a nominee in the dead period as well (regardless of the outcome of any election).
LikeLike
If anyone’s interested, there’s a livestream ceremony to honor RBG at the Supreme Court at 1:45pm DC time. It should be interesting to see the speakers and attendees.
Yes, yes, I am WELL aware of how RBG’s obstinacy cost liberals a seat on SCOTUS. This isn’t an invitation to rehash that well-trodden argument, I just wanted to share:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/
LikeLike
I got a little curious on Manchin’s voting history so I did a little research:
In October 2018 he did vote no on David Porter, Ryan Nelson, and one district judge. Couldn’t find a source on why, but presumably it being right before an election (including his election) was a major factor.
In September and October 2020 he voted for every trump nominee for a district court. There were no appellate nominees during this period but of course he voted no on ACB. After the 2020 election, he voted for 11 of 12 District nominees and voted for Thomas Kirsch for the 7th circuit as well.
Manchin voted in favor of every Obama nominee during these periods as well and of course has been a yes on every Biden judicial nominee so far. Unlike some, I don’t anticipate Manchin being a gigantic factor here and would likely only vote “no” on a Biden nominee if he was assured that the nominee would still be confirmed.
LikeLike
@Joe
Very interesting. Maybe Manchin is just against SCOTUS confirmations during the lame duck then. I would be fine with that since a SCOTUS nominee would still get confirmed even if he voted no. So perhaps Biden can get much closer to Trump’s 230 but of course I still stand by my prediction he won’t get close unless blue slips are either ditched or at least amended.
LikeLike
It sounds like it. To be honest that was such an unusual situation that it seems unlikely to happen again for a long time. I am reassured that he seems perfectly willing to take a vote on a lower level judge though, because I’m sure there will be some of those.
I also don’t anticipate Biden matching Trump’s total. There just aren’t enough openings without abandoning the blue slip tradition, and I’m not sure they’re prepared to do that (at least at this point).
LikeLike
Yea, sadly I agree with you completely. It will take a second Biden term & Democrats to pull off a senate miracle & just lose one senate seat. I do think it’s very possible, even with blue slips, to pass 230 in a 5th year. He probably can pass 54 circuit court judges in his 5th year as well as even if he filled all current vacancies, he would only be 11 behind & I fully expect additional vacancies this year alone. But it’s important to get as close as possible by the end of next year.
LikeLike
I do think flipping Maine and NC will again be on the table in 2026, so even if senate Ds dip back to 49 or even 48 I think it’s possible to gain control back for 2027-2028.
There are a lot of other variables as well before we even get there, though.
LikeLike
I’ll also add that some packages for red state district judges may still be possible in a 51-49 or 52-48 R senate, but those would be pretty limited I’d imagine. But if Biden could get home state support, I’d imagine some judges like Lochner, Brookman, and a small handful of others could get through with Collins/Murkowshi and home state senators.
LikeLike
The RBG Bar memorial just wrapped, after tributes from some of her more preeminent former clerks.
I might not always agree with her legal strategy, but it would be an absolute shame if SG Elizabeth Prelogar doesn’t make it onto the DC Circuit. I don’t know whose seat she would take, since I don’t see any voluntary vacancies soon. But what a talent!
If only Justin Walker or Neomi Rao would decide that this judging thing isn’t for them.
LikeLike
People like Elizabeth Prelogar are the reason I’m so hard on the Childs & Pan nominations. Not only were there far younger & better choices but there were even if you just count people in the administration alone. Two wasted picks. Hopefully Biden gets second term because several DC circuit judges will be eligible to retire before January 2029.
She also could be considered for the SCOTUS as well. I doubt anybody who’s not a sitting circuit court judge would be nominated but she’s so good it’s possible. I believe the last time anybody was picked for the SCOTUS without having never been nominated for a circuit court judgeship was Sandra Day O’Connor. But of course, as a sitting Solicitor General, Prelogar could be considered like Kagan (Who was nominated for the DC circuit in 1998) for any non-Sotomayor seat.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think by now we can see a pattern on how the White House selects judges.
Pan and Childs paid their dues so they should have promoted and they were.
How do we know that Prelogar wants to be a judge? Not everyone wants to be a judge. And, they have to ask or submit resume or something.
It shouldn’t be Biden’s job to “make” someone when they are 40 something so someone else down the line can choose them.
Every President wants to be re-elected judges aren’t gonna make that happen . Look at what happened to Trump.
LikeLike
Of course we don’t know if Prelogar wants to be a judge. We’re just speculating. This is a blog, that’s what we do unless somebody personally knows the person being spoken about which in most cases we don’t. But if I had to make an educated guess, I would assume she’s not Solicitor General for the money. She could be in private practice right now making much more. So if she can be talked into a 4 or 8 year position, something tells me it would take little arm twisting to get her to accept a lifetime appointment one step below the SCOTUS.
And I’m sorry but circuit court seats are far too important to hand them out because somebody “paid their dues”. Especially the DC circuit. Positions to hand out for paying your dues would be Ambassador to the Bahamas, not one of the 179 circuit court seats one step below the highest court in the land.
LikeLike
Pan and Childs are both on DC Circuit so whoever is pickings judges saw that they both have 12-15 years as a judge. That had to be a feeling point that got them selected.
I don’t think anyone believes the the promotions that Pan and Child received were “handed” to them.
They were both rated “well-qualified” by the ABA. People who came before them or worked with them approved of their nominations.
When people find themselves in court they need experienced judges. Not someone selected with less experience because someone wants to “make” them at a later time.
I don’t know what else to say except that you free to write the White House and report back how they respond. But , Pan and Childs ;that bus has already left station.
LikeLike
I don’t think Childs, Pan or any other circuit court judge Biden has nominated had their positions handed to them. I was responding to what you wrote. As I’ve said before anybody nominated by the president for a lifetime position is going to be qualified. It’s not about qualified, we discuss if a pick is good or not. I personally think the Childs nomination to the DC circuit was horrible & Pan not much better but what’s done is done.
And I keep hearing the argument people want experienced judges. Just because somebody is in their 40’s doesn’t mean they aren’t good, experienced picks. It just means statistically they will remain on the bench longer like Republican appointees.
LikeLike
Prelogar is very impressive and apparently so because, she was the most sought after law clerk for sure! Definitely see her as a strong contender for SCOTUS looking into the future.
LikeLike
Re: getting to 230–it would be a lot easier, of course, if we could get some more nominees. It baffles me that there are 13 potential district court vacancies in blue states or Claims & International Trade that don’t have nominees. I know we’re getting to the end of the low-hanging fruit stage of the appointment process and we’ll have to start getting some red & purple state nominees soon, but 13 seems like a lot to just sit there without nominees. MI? CT? HI? Anybody home?
LikeLike
Well we can’t even get a nominee for the 4th in Maryland because senator Cardin was willing to risk holding up a circuit court seat on the election results. So no wonder no nominees for many other blue state seats yet.
I truly hope this new White House Counsel is gathering a list of potential nominees for every circuit court seat where the judge is eligible to retire. I took a look at some of Trump’s circuit court vacancies from blue states in 2019 which would be the equivalent to red state vacancies in 2023. Here’s the breakdown on when the seat became vacant to the day the nominee was confirmed;
Peter J. Phipps: November 30, 2018 – July 16, 2019
Danielle J. Forrest – I’m not going to count her since she was the second nominee for this seat after Ryan Bounds failed.
William J. Nardini: June 30, 2019 – November 7, 2019
Steven Menashi: May 31, 2019 – November 14, 2019
Patrick J. Bumatay: December 18, 2017 – December 10, 2019
Only Bumatay took more then 9 months to fill. We are going on over two years for the 10th seat & many blue states are taking well over 9 months to fill.
LikeLike
Bumatay was confirmed to Bea’s seat on December 10, 2019. Bea announced he would go senior upon the confirmation of a successor on June 24, 2019.
Kozinski’s seat, which became vacant on December 18, 2017, was filled by Daniel Aaron Bress on July 26, 2019.
LikeLike
I agree @Dequan which is why I focused on district court vacancies and non-Maryland vacancies (although they entirely fit my original point and include the 4th CCA vacancy you mention). While Cardin’s hold-up is outrageous given time and politics, where are the MI, HI, and CT Senators with their nominees?
LikeLike
The Maryland situation angers me knowing the polls were showing the Democrats could lose the midterms. But I’ll give Hawaii a pass because that vacancy was just announced about a month ago. I’ll also give the 3 Pennsylvania seats a pass since we all know Fetterman’s situation. Here are the blue states that should have a nominee by now along with their announced vacancy dates;
CT: 09/15/2022 & 11/01/2022
MI-E: 05/24/2022 & 08/13/2022
NY-S: 09/15/2022
DC: 12/12/2022
LikeLike
Exactly. Put those 6 up there and wait on PA and HI (forgot it was so recent). A lot of this is momentum. We had it, and now we don’t. Keep nominating and holding hearings Eventually we’ll have the votes on SJC. As for the floor, remember “oh, now we’ll really concentrate on judges in 2023” (from Schumer)? W/GOP absences, we have to move nominations forward. No excuses.
LikeLike
Yup. This new White House Counsel is dropping the ball. No question about it. Two SJC hearings missed because of a lack of nominees. That shouldn’t happen
LikeLike
I actually disagree about the PA situation slightly. As the senior senator, Casey should be making most of the picks there, so the Biden administration should be in contact with him now regarding possible nominees
LikeLike
You could be right about Pennsylvania albeit I don’t agree with your reason. I do think it’s possible The White House could just work with Casey to get nominees despite Fetterman being out but not because he’s the senior senator. I think it’s possible more so because Fetterman would agree to let him take the lead so his illness doesn’t hold up the process combined with Fetterman just doesn’t seem like the type to be extremely well invested in his own picks.
I don’t think the same would be true in every case however. For instance if it was Georgia, I don’t see senator Warnock saying Ossoff could just recommend three nominees to The White House if he was out for months because Warnock seems interested in the judiciary. As a matter of fact, I can’t think of another blue state I would say the junior senator would just let the senior senator make three picks without their input perhaps except New York & only that because Schumer has a 3 to 1 deal with Gillibrand anyway. Unless there’s another state I’m missing that has a similar deal, I don’t believe the junior senator would be so deferential, particularly with 21 months left in the term.
LikeLike
The HI vacancy won’t occur until January 2024, so there’s not much of a point in nominating someone there right now.
LikeLike
The new white counsel is incompetent same for the white house chief of staff, but again biden is a cowardly and incompetent president so he doesn’t care.
When it becomes apparent to folks on here that biden will finish his first term with several open appellate vacancies simply due to his incompetence and cowardliness to ignore republican senators tantrums, then we all can agree in consensus he has been the worst dem president since carter.
He will be known as a failure and a 1 term president.
They have dropped the ball throughout this year despite getting a wider senate majority. just incompetent clowns
LikeLike
Anthony Johnstone’s nomination would have been withdrawn if Biden was such a coward as would have others.
I’m not happy with the slow pace in nominees right now but we’ve had several confirmations by now to show Republican senators opposing nominees on a circuit court level doesn’t doom them.
Your disliking Biden because he isn’t as far left as you like doesn’t make him a coward or failure and posting it over and over again won’t make it so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If Jacy Hurst is the nominee for the 10th, I expect to hear a lot about this case in her hearing.
(https://www.yahoo.com/news/calling-voting-fundamental-ks-court-182836695.html)
LikeLike
Hopefully they nominate Hurst the afternoon after Wambles SJC hearing lol.
LikeLike
Wednesday is the one month anniversary of the last “batch” with one new nominee. There’s a SJC hearing this Wednesday as well. Once Wamble is sworn in perhaps they will release the 31st batch…lol
LikeLike
@Dequan
Has the ABA released its rating on Wamble? It’s taken an awfully long tome to do so.
LikeLike
Still no ABA rating for Wamble. But I can’t imagine him not getting a WQ, especially for a district court seat.
(https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/government_affairs_office/webratingchart-117.pdf)
LikeLike
@Dequan
“Still no ABA rating for Wamble. But I can’t imagine him not getting a WQ…”
Actually, to be a bit pessimistic, this is a cause for concern. The ABA does a single review to get to WQ, then they issue the rating. If it’s not WQ or Q, the ABA does the whole thing over again to make sure they didn’t miss something or overweigh something. Basically, to diminish the chance that an error produced the NQ rating. This often leads to delay *and* leaks.
I don’t know if this is the case for Wamble. But I wouldn’t be surprised if the WH got wind a negative rating.
“….especially for a district court seat.”
You are correct in a sense. Wamble is extremely well qualified for an *appeals court seat, let alone a district court.
But professional qualification isn’t the only thing the ABA look into and rate. In today’s hyper sensitive climate, it’s not unthinkable that raising your voice or getting angry at someone on the job could worsen your total ABA rating.
LikeLike
I thought that was a possibility as well. The one saving grace is Scott Colom still doesn’t have a rating either.
LikeLike
We can only hope haha. At least then the mystery around this seat would start to make some sense.
Really it’s high time we get nominees for at least the 4th, 5th, 7th, and 10th. Particularly the 4th. But we will see.
LikeLike
I’m thinking Wednesday will be a new batch day. That’s four weeks before the first Wed back after recess.
LikeLike
I believe Wednesday as well. 4 weeks since the last batch & 4 weeks before the next SJC hearing. I just hope it’s enough nominees for two batches.
LikeLike
Wednesday is a logical day. But it may be a small batch like the last one was.
LikeLike
Ha! We’ve been saying this for the past month.
LikeLike
Haaaa… True but the other weeks were more wishful thinking. I actually think this week we should see another batch or it will be a complete dereliction of duty by the new White House Counsel’s office.
On another note, here’s a perfect example of what I’m talking about with age. The Eastern district of Missouri now has a Trump appointed chief judge. This is despite four Obama judges that were pass over for chief judge because the Trump judge is young enough to meet the requirements for the position. Yet another example of what I’m talking about.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_District_Court_for_the_Eastern_District_of_Missouri)
LikeLike
I remember when Bill Clinton nominated Ronnie White to a seat in Missouri I believe it was East and West District. John Ashcroft was opposed to White but he eventually was scheduled for a floor vote.
However, before the vote they Dems and GOP met for their weekly caucus. When they got back all Republicans voted against Ronnie White . Leahy was pissed and accused them of racial bias.
Almost 10 years later Obama nominated White and he was confirmed. He was obviously much older at that point but I think it was the right thing to do.
LikeLike
@Dequan
Awesome share, thanks!
But don’t let Frank and the other old-nominee proponents hear you, they might be forced to repeat their non-arguments yet again.
But Frank is not alone in lacking judicial personnel strategy. The WH, too, should sign and issue commissions based on age, not order of confirmation. (Schumer doesn’t need to worry about this because confirmation doesn’t equal appointment.)
LikeLike
Good point. Biden signing the commissions determine the order not Schumer deciding who gets confirmed first. I still can’t believe in the year 2023 they are still confirming judges in alphabetical order. There’s no way shape & form should I, somebody that has never stepped foot inside of a law school, should have a better strategy then The White House…smh
LikeLike
I’ll be happy if we can just get 2 appellate and 3 district nominees. Even 1 and 4 would be fine.
LikeLike
For the 7th Circuit, I still believe that it’s Mario Garcia’s nomination to lose.
LikeLike
@Zack Jones,
As much as I’d like for the nominee to be Mario Garcia, the last three holders of that seat have been from northern Indiana (not Indianapolis). As such, I think someone like David Hollar (Appellate Chief of the US Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Indiana), who clerked for Clinton appointed (now senior) 7th circuit Judge Diane Wood.
https://www.luc.edu/law/faculty/facultyandadministrationprofiles/hollar-david.shtml
LikeLike
Durbin has COVID so no movement on judges getting to the floor that aren’t there already.
LikeLike
Uuuggghhh… I swear Dems just can’t catch a break. Back to a temporary Republican majority. I truly hope Fetterman & Feinstein are back 100% after the two week Easter recess in a month. That way one senator being out doesn’t lose the majority. I hope they can still have the SJC hearing Wednesday.
LikeLike
I hate that SJC will be deadlocked again. At least McConnell is likely still out so I guess it’ll be 48-48 for the week unless Feinstein comes back early. There will likely be other absences as well.
Still, might be able to squeeze in Gallagher, Brookman, or someone else on Thursday morning if they want to.
LikeLike
I guess the only saving grace is this was a 2 day work week anyway. Schumer didn’t send any cloture motions to the desk Thursday so there was never going to be much movement on judges this week anyway. But hey, some on this blog still thinks there is plenty of time sooooooo…
LikeLike
So not only did delaney try to silence a victim of sexual assault he also signed onto an anti abortion brief? Look this is getting ridiculous pull his nomination and stop wasting time.
The sad reality is the biden administration and white house counsel are so incompetent that we are very likely to not put up a nominee to replace delaney until 2024, i put the odds at 90 to 100 percent.
We are getting to april in a few days and still nothing about a nominee to the 7th circuit that has been open since last year june!! Why? because biden and his administration officials are cowards who do not have the courage to tell todd young and mike braun to piss off and nominate who ever he wants to like trump did severally to states with two democratic senators. They are allowing the GOP senators to deliberately stall this process, and biden the fool is going along with it.
There will be no new batch of nominations this month i think that’s getting clear now, just total incompetence and malfeasance from the white house since the midterm elections.
Still no nominee to the 10circuit vancacy, 5th, or even the 4th vacancy, literally the lowest bar and the whitehouse cant clear it.
In two years when its trump/desantis filling the several vacant appellate judicial positions biden left open out of cowardice with federalist society hacks there should be no whining then. People should raise the alarm right now. Enough is enough.
LikeLike
Delaney signed onto an anti abortion brief? I hadn’t heard about that. Is that new news?
And while I don’t agree with everything you said, I do agree that it’s almost April & despite what some on this blog thinks, time is running out. I do believe we will see a new batch this week however. Albeit if it doesn’t happen, I may agree with a lot more of what you said.
LikeLike
Its a new article, this is the dagger in his nomination its time to pull it. sadly i dont see any nominee being named as a replacement this year.
Thats a bet dequan! i say no new nominations this week, you say there will be, will shall see. I definitely say we wont see any circuit court picks at all.
There isnt time at all.
LikeLike
Its a new article out on how he signed an anti abortion brief. Enough is enough its time to pull his nomination and i look forward to seeing who is right this week i say no nominations or atleast not any for circuit court seats thats the one i am very confident about.
LikeLike
Ok, now I’m fully on board with this nomination being withdrawn. When it was first announced I said it didn’t blow my socks off. Still, I understood we probably weren’t going to get an exciting pick for this seat such as Gilles Bissonnette.
Then the issue regarding if he tried to expose a sexual assault survivor came up. I stuck by him because when you looked at all of the elements of the case, I gave him the benefit of the doubt in every aspect. I also took into account his entire career. I wasn’t happy that when asked to name ten important cases on his SJC questionnaire, this wasn’t one of the cases he mentioned. But I still reluctantly said I would probably vote to confirm him if I was a senator.
But now THIS??? Come on, I’m sorry but this nomination needs to be withdrawn. It’s March 2023, we can get another nominee vetted, announced & confirmed by the end of this year, let alone the end of Biden’s term. I understand what the administration said in the article regarding they don’t want to set a precedent that one case can tank a nominee. But this isn’t ONE case or one issue. It’s multiple issues. Pull this nomination please. Enough is enough.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree that we’ll see a new batch, but like the most recent ones it likely will include some red seats so it’ll be comparable to the most recent batches in terms of there being a lack of progressives.
LikeLike
Not true. The attorney’s representing Prout wanted to try the case in media. How could this be done without revealing her identity? It was her attorney’s who sought to out her to get some leverage and their enormous “fees.”
What happened with the pace of nominations are too slow? To rescind a nominee because you don’t like him for whatever reason is a waste of time.
It’s desperation and the case against Delaney is weak for someone who been a practicing attorney for 30 years.
So, Delaney submitted a brief on behalf of the Attorney General Kelly Ayotte? So what? He was just doing his job.
The article mentioned that Biden didn’t make a nomination in Kentucky because of an “outcry” from Democrats. That is totally untrue. It was Rand Paul who said he wouldn’t support the nomination so there was no point in making the nomination.
I don’t see much substance in the pushback on Delaney and hope Biden sticks with him.
LikeLike
Of course, if Biden goes through with this nomination, it’s harder to say that he’s truly pro-choice (just like with Chad M). There is definitely a smear campaign by progressives to try and tank this nomination since there is definitely time to find a replacement for any open circuit court seat (despite what one troll here would have you believing). While your point is valid, it is quite nuanced for anyone not involved in law regularly. At the end of the day though, unless multiple progressives such as Warren and Sanders openly announce that they aren’t going to vote for him, Delaney will be confirmed, likely after the Easter break. Since the NH senators are campaigning heavily for him, I think the likelihood of that happening is minuscule.
LikeLike
Yes I am one of the main advocates of we don’t have that much time left. But I also am one of the main advocates for we just don’t need nominees, we need the RIGHT nominees. Every week it seems more & more as if this nominee isn’t the right one.
In regard to the Missouri district court, I too agree Ronnie White deserved to be nominated by Obama despite his age after what happened to him under Clinton. It just sucks that a total of FOUR Obama nominees were not young enough to not get passed over by Trump’s for chief judge.
As for the Rand Paul is the ONLY reason Chad Meredith wasn’t nominated statement, that may be nice to say but the timeline simply doesn’t add up to that being the complete truth. Let’s review what actually happened;
On June 23, 2022, The White House sent the governor of Kentucky an email stating they were going to nominate Chad Meredith “tomorrow”. Then the next day on June 24th, the Dobbs decision came out. The next batch of judicial nominees was released on June 29th. Rand Paul didn’t disclose he would not return his blue slip for Meredith until July 15th.
Between June 23rd to July 15th, let’s take a look at what happened within those 22 days. The Democrat governor of Kentucky came out against the nomination. Then the senior Democrat congressman came out against him. Then numerous progressive groups came out against him. The White House released FOUR new batches of nominees within those 22 days (As Archie Bunker use to say, those were the days) & not one of them included Meredith’s name despite them saying they would announce him “tomorrow”.
I say all that to point out yes it was dumb for The White House to consider Meredith in the first place. It was even more dumb of a consideration when you take into account what they would get in return, which was speculated to be two US attorney’s that can be fired on day one of the next Republican president. But there are too many factors to consider that lead me to believe Biden actually read the room, albeit late, with this would be terrible decision & did so prior to Rand Paul’s announcement 22 days later.
And before you say Biden just waited the 22 days before finding out Rand Paul’s decision on if he would return his blue slip, that makes even less sense for two reasons. First, The White House nominated Scott Colom, an African American Democrat in his early 40’s without knowing if both Mississippi senators would return their blue slips. We know that to be true because Wicker announced he would return his blue slip about a month after the nomination & Hyde-Smith apparently still hasn’t returned her blue slip in. What argument could have been made at that time that Rand Paul wouldn’t return his blue slip for a White male Republican that argued in court for anti-abortion bills, particularly when he was nominated by the senate minority leader. And second, the Colom nomination happened AFTER Meredith’s so you can’t say they learned their lesson by seeing what happened in Mississippi.
So if we are going to give him the blame for this dumb consideration, let’s give him some credit for reversing course as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You never really wanted to see Delaney selected anyway. You said that he didn’t “blow your socks off.” Is that really how we should evaluate people who want to be judges? But, that’s besides the point , I am speculating on what I think Biden will do based on statements coming from the White House and how Biden voted when he was a Senator. He voted for a lot of conservative judges but not based on one issue.
There aren’t any new “findings” on Delaney he was a Deputy Attorney General filing a brief on behalf of the Attorney General. All I see are rebased arguments re-packaged as if it’s fresh and new. It’s not.
It’s well known that the White House pulled the plug on Meredith when they learned that Rand Paul would not return the blue slip. What would be the point? It’s highly usual for 2 Senators’ of the same party splitting on a nominee with a President from another party. I think the White House was surprised by Rand Paul’s opposition. We all were.
The one thing that I have noticed about Biden and his approach to nominations : he sticks with them. I was surprised that Eric Garcetti for Ambassador to India wasn’t dropped after 2 years of waiting. He could have been replaced by Ro Khanna or someone like that. I was also surprised that some Republicans voted for him when
a few Democrats abandoned him.
I don’t expect Biden to walk away from Delaney.
LikeLike
Well your half right. I wasn’t thrilled about Delaney’s nomination, but I initially had no issue with him being confirmed. When you say I never wanted him to be confirmed in the first place, I think the only Biden nominees I felt that strongly about was Childs & Pan to the DC Circuit. Every other nominee I never initially said should not be confirmed. Delaney has worked his way into a deserved no vote in my opinion.
And once again just saying Biden dumped Meridith because of Rand Paul without evidence isn’t making the statement true. I provided a step-by-step timeline of the events from last year. While I do believe Paul’s refusal to turn in his blue slips was the final death nail, I believe other events in the 22 days between then email & final decision not to nominate him shows other reasons can be attributed to the decision as well. There were four batches in those 22 days. He could have easily nominated him before Paul’s decision if that was the only reason.
But if your point is what Biden will do, I do agree with you on that point. I think Biden will also back him until the end. I’m just giving my opinion that in this case I disagree with him.
LikeLike
If Fetterman, Feinstein and McConnell are out, wouldn’t that mean it’s 49D and 48R in the senate this week?
LikeLike
Durbin in addition to Fetterman & Feinstein would mean only 48 Democrats are in town this week. If McConnell is still out, at least Democrats will have a 48-48 tie. But there’s only 2 days in session this week so it probably won’t matter much anyway.
LikeLike
I think the only votes this week are the Iraq resolution and then probably a bunch of other executive posts. Perhaps Gallagher, Brookman, or another district nominee can slide in there.
Since next week is longer I really hope Feinstein can come back to give Ds a true majority plus also vote out these 10 nominees. Then after Easter hopefully we can finally knock out all of the big ones.
LikeLike
Thanks for sharing, @aagren.
Wow. What a mess. This was mishandled from the very beginning.
Here’s what I think:
Filling this vacancy:
This is the biggest obstacle for me. The defeat of this nominee will absolutely result in this seat not being filled this year. And who knows what next year holds. Now we know that of the two senators, Shaheen is his recommender. It took a year from when Shaheen first reached out to him to his being nominated. Do we really want to risk repeating this timeline? This would get us into summer 2024, depending if/when the nomination fails. I would much rather a chastened Delaney serve than not getting a replacement confirmed in time.
Deputy AG role:
I am not sure to what extent he was involved in the document he signed. It could be related to his role as Deputy AG.
Planned Parenthood + ABA:
PP hasn’t come out against this nominee and they are not shy about doing so. This could be dispositive for me. Also, if the ABA revised his rating downwards, that could be fatal.
Wavering Senators:
Basically all the wavering senators in the article sound like they will ultimately support him in the end. Durbin’s stated support is a big plus for him.
Shaheen’s heft:
This is one of the biggest indications that he’ll be confirmed. Despite what I’ve read on here (that the delay and Delaney’s nomination is somehow the NH senators’ payback for their state’s primary getting bumped—utter nonsense), Shaheen is a very well-respected member of the caucus and will very likely prevail upon her colleagues.
If it weren’t for absences, this nominee would have already cleared SJC, and would have been even harder to kill. Hopefully, Dem senators will now see this debacle and try to avoid it in their state at all cost.
LikeLike
I am almost entirely agnostic on the Delaney pick, since the first is entirely Obama/Biden picks. If he does not have the votes I think it’d be very simple to turn around and nominate Elliott and call it a day. There is plenty of time to have her confirmed by the end of 2023. Then you could turn around and fight it out over a less important district seat in 2024.
LikeLike
If Delaney doesn’t have the votes, this is exactly why the proposed timeline proposed by some on a new nominee is likely not accurate. Elliott has already gone through a background check recently and had bipartisan support in her district court nomination. There is no reason to think it would take long to nominate her to the circuit court opening.
LikeLike
Four new district nominees incoming today, for MD, IL, and LA. Let the research and analysis commence.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/biden-nominates-four-new-federal-judges-across-three-states-2023-03-20/
LikeLike
Jeremy Daniel was the worst of all the recommended nominees for Illinois. Figures that are who gets selected. Another blue seat with a lackluster nominee.
On the other hand, Brendan Abell Hurson is an absolutely phenomenal pick. I hope the 4th circuit pick is better than he is, or he should have been chosen for that seat. Matthew Maddox is an ok pick.
Darrel Papillion is a good pick too. He would be a great pick if he was born earlier then 1968 but for a red state & being a Black man, he would be good for that seat. Hopefully there will be no blue slip issues.
LikeLike
Always happy to see US Magistrate Judges elevated to lifetime appointments, and the Louisiana nominee seems to be well-qualified has Cassidy’s support on record thus far.
LikeLike
Looks like Biden is nominating four more district judges, including Darrell Papillion for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Hopefully he already has or will soon get Blue Slips from Kennedy and Cassidy. He seems fairly mainstream and non controversial at first glance.
LikeLike
It seems the ugly troll frank has come back again.
So I was right. If Biden nominates anyone it wouldn’t be any circuit court picks.
It would be ones he had “permission” with the right wing senate republicans. It’s clear biden isn’t serious and cares more about pandering to republicans . He has let them stall the CA10 AND CA5 appellate seats instead of nominating a far left Liberal and slamming it down their throats like trump and mcconell did severally to democratic senators.
Am I the only one that sees what’s happening here? They keep given biden crumbs by working in “good faith ” with meaningless district court picks while they can stall the real influential appellate vacancie for as open as possible hoping they can get trump or desantis to be the one to choose nominees.
The list is filled of two magistrate judges,a former prosecutor, the standard right wing blueprint that biden was supposed to reject when he came into office . I give this “batch” which was apparently signed off by right wing senators an F.
I would have rather this seats remain unfilled than go waste valuable time filling the bench with federal prosecutors.
LikeLike
We have had multiple batches in a week before, so your proclamation doesn’t make any sense right now since it is only Monday and the week isn’t even half over. Just look at last July, when there were 4 batches in the same week!
LikeLike
It looks like the White House and Ben Cardin achieved a breakthrough. Two district judges nominated in one day for Maryland.
Brendan Hurson is a former public defender, which should please progressives.
Matthew Maddox is a more traditional nominee, which seems to be what Cardin values. It’s a reflection of his generation, similar to Dianne Feinstein.
In Eastern Louisiana, Darrel Papillion is a longtime personal injury lawyer.
In Northern Illinois, AUSA Jeremy Daniel got chosen. I thought he was going to be nominated for U.S. Attorney. The White House and Senator Durbin probably figured he’d be an easy confirmation. Also, he’s a military veteran and that’s always a plus.
LikeLike
Most nominees I would think would prefer a lifetime appointment over a Political appointment, if given the choice.
LikeLike
I agree Jill, especially in areas with a lower cost of living makes it somewhat easier for a younger nominee to last long on the bench.
LikeLike
Some people early in their careers may not be ready to assume a lifetime position.
Yes, Leondra Kruger was offered Solicitor General twice but turned it down. This could have effected the outcome of the decision of who to replace Stephen Breyer.
She would have had a better chance I think but California is too far to uproot your family for 4 years.
LikeLike
After reading some more background it seems like an excellent batch overall to me. Good nominees and it’s always good to get one in a red state. Only downside is it does not include any circuit nominees, particularly for CA4 or CA10.
Next hearing after April 19 would be May 3, so hopefully we get another batch in two weeks (or possibly next because of the recess).
LikeLike
@Joe
I found a picture of Brendan Hurson at a civil rights protest a few years ago. It wasn’t what I expected.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/biden-nominates-2-baltimore-men-including-another-former-public-defender-to-maryland-federal-court/ar-AA18ROdP?fullscreen=true&cvid=6f2eb70156de46da9a711fc48d292cc6&ei=23#image=1
LikeLike
Here is the official release: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/03/20/president-biden-names-thirty-first-round-of-judicial-nominees-and-announces-new-nominees-to-serve-as-u-s-attorney/
LikeLike
Although it’s a small sample size; I think Darrel Papillion is the best red state district court nominee to date by Biden. He is better than double digit blue state nominees as well. Senator Cassidy voted to impeach Trump & senator Kennedy is tough but usually fair & has supported other Black men in past judicial nominations so I think they will turn in their blue slips.
I’m starting to worry about who will get the 4th seat. Brendan Hurson would have been a great choice but now that he got the district court seat, I’m wondering if that means Cardin will win out & get his choice for the 4th. If so, I expect a disappointment.
I know it hasn’t been mentioned here yet but I’m also happy to see two nominees for the Superior Court in DC. While those are 15 year terms, you can use those seats to set up nominees for future elevation. And it’s low hanging fruit because they usually are confirmed by voice vote, not wasting senate floor time.
LikeLike
Brendan Hurson sounds like a good nominee if there is a future 4th Circuit vacancy from MD in the next two years besides Motz’s.
LikeLike
According to this article, Darrel Papillion was considered for a judgeship in 2018. If Trump considered him, in addition to Cassidy already endorsing the nomination, he should sail to confirmation. He has a great background. The article is a good read.
(https://www.nola.com/news/politics/president-taps-baton-rouge-trial-lawyer-to-new-orleans-court/article_ae8a1376-c754-11ed-8f1f-b74a4c1c1dbb.html)
LikeLike
I agree, that it is a great pick, as we have also to consider, that the Eastern District of Louisiana has the oldest completement on the bench, the youngest judge there is a 59 years old Obama-Appointee, who is also the chief judge, on a court of 12 there should be no problem to find a chief under 65 years of age, but obviously, it’s a great job to be district judge in New Orleans, Louisiana.
On the matter of the Eastern District of Missouri, I have also noted that Clinton-Appointee Rodney Sippel, who stepped back from the post of the chief before he went senior, was replaced by a Trump-Appointee, but beside the age two of the Obama-Appointee will go senior in the next months, and Judge Wilmes, who had the eligible age for the job, but his chambers are located in the Western District, what might explain that.
On the other side the judges Obama posted on the Western District are relatively young, hence a mix might have been useful. And replacement of these three will become questionable under the blue slip, as there is also no movement on the attorneys. Playing hardball with Josh and Eric needs to be done.
LikeLike
People are so desperate to avoid criticism of the biden administration they are now falling over themselves to compliment his lackluster picks.
1. The nominee to the ND illinois has been a prosecutor putting people in prison since 2014, whats so good about this? Trump could have easily made these nominations and its insulting we are getting such names in a state with two democratic senators. How is this objectively not worse or on the same level as the terrible NJ picks?The chicago selections have been terrible, prosecutor after prosecutor, even jenkins recently confirmed was another prosecutor, but remember things were meant to change with biden in office…
2. The magistrate judge to maryland maddox is another prosecutor who spent a good part of his career putting people in prison, again for a blue state with two democratic senators. So no one has an issue with prosecutors who spend their carriers trying to lock people up getting lifetime positions in blue states? i do.
3.The louisana district nominee is another corporate stooge/lawyer who never spent a day helping indigent defenders or pro say litigants, and to top it off he was considered by trump? Its insulting to pretend this batch is anything but a complete and total failure. Trump literally was open to appointing this guy to the bench, and we progressives are supposed to be happy? please don’t insult our intelligence.
4.Brendan hurson is the only acceptable nominee in this so called ”batch” due to public background practice.
I rate this batch an F another failure by biden.
Its the same playbook, corporate lawyer or prosecutor who spent their career trying to imprison people.
I would rather this seats been kept vacant for the entirety of biden term than to waste valuable senate floor time confirming more prosecutors and corporate lawyers to the federal bench. We have more than enough of those.
Terrible batch from biden . F , complete failure.
I truly hope history remembers biden worse than carter, as a one term failure and nothing more who squandered a golden opportunity to reshape the federal bench
LikeLike
I do agree with you about Jeremy C. Daniel. He was the worst of the 7 recommendations & the best one wasn’t even picked with five vacancies. I give his nomination a D+ being a blue state.
Brendan A. Hurson is an absolute rock star of a pick. Him being a White man out protesting the killing of Black men moves him even higher on my list then his background which already made him a great pick. The 4th circuit only has four woman & we know Biden has a deficit of Black men & Hispanic circuit court picks, but this would have been a justified White man pick had Hurson been the 4th nominee. I give him an A+
Matthew J. Maddox is a mediocre pick, but I give the administration credit for replacing a Black man with another one. It will be good to see a court with two Black men on it. Seeing the type of judges, the court has added over the past decade or two, this is in line with most previous judges. I give him a C+
Darrel J. Papillion is a good pick for a red state. I was a little taken aback when I read he was considered in 2018, but I think that has more to do with Louisiana having two senators that truly want to find nonpartisan judges for their state. And before you say what about Kyle Duncan on the 5th, remember Kennedy initially pushed back on his nomination. Papillion’s resume is solid. He has worked on civil rights cases including the Voting Rights challenge to Louisiana’s 2011 congressional districts. For a red state, I give him a B+.
LikeLike
While prosecutors are still definitely over represented on the bench, that doesn’t mean that they aren’t “progressive”, and saying as such is incredibly narrow minded (not that I’d expect anything else from you). Someone like Rachael Rollins in MA would be one of the most progressive nominees around should she ever be nominated to a district court seat in the future, and there are other progressive prosecutors around the country that would make for quite progressive federal judges. While I’m not familiar with the ones nominated by Biden this week, I’m curious to watch the hearing and see how they are treated by the Republicans.
LikeLike
There’s a sixth seat opening on the Northern District of Illinois, with Obama appointee Thomas Durkin announcing he’ll go senior in December. Another chance for one of the remaining Durbin-Duckworth short listers.
I only wish more circuit judges would get to making the same announcement.
LikeLike
That’s actually great news to see Thomas M. Durkin announce he is taking senior status for several reasons. First, despite him being appointed by Obama, he is a Republican. Since Illinois had Republican senator Kirk at the time, he was part of a package deal. Second, there’s only two recommendations left out of the seven initially sent to The White House. One is a Black man in his early 40’s who has an extensive background & the other is my favorite pick out of the seven due to her work investigating police practices, in addition to her being in her late 40’s. So Biden will be forced into a good pick here moving the court directly to the left unlike the Daniel pick who in all likelihood will be to the right of his predecessor.
LikeLike
I agree Ben, there are still 11 Clinton Circuit Judges in active service plus several other Obama Judges who are senior status eligible as well. I’m not expecting a ton over the next 18 months, but I think 4-8 or so is possible. Plus there is always the possibility of a sudden death or retirement from one of the Reagan/HW/Bush judges.
Ultimately I do not believe that 54 Circuit judges is happening but I think upper 40s is pretty likely.
LikeLike
Yea unfortunately it is unlikely 11 more circuit court judges will leave the bench for whatever reason before the end of next year. It is even less likely Biden would actually replace all of them before the end of his first term even if they did. But it would be great if at least a half dozen or so more would retire before the end on next January because I do believe their replacements would be confirmed if they did.
It looks like Biden is trying to negotiate in good faith with Republican senators for circuit court vacancies which will inevitably lead to the delays we are seeing now with the 5th 7th & 10th seats. Hell we are even seeing the same delays for blue seats like we saw with the 1st & seeing with the 4th vacancies. I hope the 9th doesn’t take nearly as long & we all know for the 3rd the best we are going to get is a 54 year old Esther Salas which for New Jersey would be a good pick.
I have little faith in this new White House Counsel’s office having a running list of replacements for every circuit court judge eligible for senior status right now. I’ll be satisfied if Biden can get an additional 6 or so circuit court judges added on top of the current vacancies. At the end of the day Biden will need to be re-elected & pull off another Senate miracle in order to pass Trump’s 54.
LikeLike
I think Salas and any of the CA District Judges would be good for those vacancies.
For the 5th and 7th and do believe there is a fair bit of negotiation going on. For the 7th it’ll probably pay off, but I skeptical for the 5th. But with so many vacant district seats I think it’s worth trying.
For the 10th I have a hunch that they’re waiting for Wamble to get further along in the process because they don’t trust the KS senators (for good reason).
The vacancy on the 4th is just inexcusable. Maybe the two nominees from yesterday is sign of hope there, but it could also mean they are at an impasse.
I do maintain that these will all get filled before the end of 2024, in addition to any seat that opens up before at least Sept 1, 2024.
LikeLike
@Dequan
I just saw your thing about Chad Meredith. This is an example of how quickly we forget things. This happened less than a year ago and already the events surrounding this catastrophic near-nomination have gotten murky.
Quick bottom line: Yes, without a doubt, Rand Paul is the one who killed this nomination.
Dequan, you obfuscate the facts surrounding those four “batches.” It wasn’t like Biden sent them week after week with many nominations per batch. Many were nominated in the same week. The WH had a temporary strategy of sending out the nominees as soon as they got the sign off throughout that week.
After Dobbs, there was an uproar over the prospect of Meredith. Weeks later, news broke that the WH was still determined to proceed with the nomination. Think back. Don’t you remember this pissing off even more people? The decision was called tone-deaf.
Finally, and this is where we can rest this case: Rand Paul had NO part in the selection of Meredith. It was between Mitch McConnell and Ron Klain. The WH assumed that the two KY senators were on the same page on the nominee, or that the junior senator would yield to his senior senator and party leader. McConnell said so. And Paul said so.
So while Meredith wasn’t included in any of the earlier rapid-fire “batches,” if it weren’t for Paul, Meredith would have been on the court (yes, at least Manchin and Sinema would have voted for him).
—
I’m always amazed at our unwillingness to hold the Biden WH accountable. Maybe it’s just the nature of the majority of people who use this blog. I’m a liberal (decidedly not a progressive!) who thinks there’s absolutely room and reasons to expect better from Biden. Comparing Biden to other Democratic presidents on judges is terrible. It’s like comparing a D with an F. A very low bar. The comparison should be with Republicans. Trump would never have a Cardin-Maryland problem (just ask Sen. Kennedy). Trump would never have a Tish James nominee in the home state of the minority leader. And numbers aren’t everything. It’s a cliché for a reason: quality over quantity.
I see that I am in the deep minority here, but I find it more and more difficult to be excited about Biden’s nomination announcements. What’s the point in getting more vacancies? Maybe Biden doesn’t deserve to match or exceed Trump’s 54 or Carter’s 56 circuit court appointments. I mean, are the days of Holly A. Thomas, Lauren King, and Dale Ho behind us? Are Delaney, Republican judges, and Trump-adjacent nominees all we have to look for now?
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Gavi
I would agree with your reasoning if it wasn’t for Scott Colom’s nomination coming after all of this. If Biden was waiting for both Republican senators McConnell & Paul to sign off on Meredith (A young, White male, hard right conservative) then why would they nominate Scott Colom (A young, Black male, liberal) without prior approval from both Mississippi senators AFTER? That change in strategy doesn’t make any sense. Nobody has been able to answer that question yet everybody keeps using it as part of their argument… Lol
I do not agree The White House was committed to still nominating Meredith in the 22 days after the “tomorrow” email. I remember vividly none of the reports stating such, had any quotes from anybody in The White House confirming that. None of the reports didn’t even state it was from an anonymous source within The White House. It was all reporting from outside sources. I remember clearly The White House commenting they do not comment on potential nominees for vacancies. So no, we do not know they were still going to nominate him if Paul had signed off on him.
As to your four batches in quick succession argument, that furthers MY point. If you remember, the “tomorrow” email didn’t have just Meredith’s name only on it. I remember everybody on this blog being happy because Meredith’s name had the number 7 to the left of it & the rest of the email was cut off so we all assumed there was a big batch coming. The fact that we got those multiple names announced in the subsequent 22 days & Meredith’s name wasn’t included supports my point that Biden pumped the brakes on nominating him even before Paul’s announcement.
Look, I’m not arguing Biden even considering Meredith doesn’t deserve criticism. Lord knows I’ve criticized the decision plenty. But even when I don’t agree with a decision I do want to be fair. It’s simply not fair to give Rand Paul ALL of the credit for Meredith not being a Biden judge today. The more fair praise would be a combination of Paul’s ego (And if I was a Republican I would say stupidity), along with progressive groups, the governor of Kentucky, the senior Democrat congressman from Kentucky & yes even a little bit of credit to Biden & his team for reading the room & pumping the breaks by not announcing Meredith in the 22 days before Paul’s announcement in any of the FOUR batches they had within that time.
LikeLike
I guess I don’t see what Scott Colom’s nomination has to do with Meredith’s. There are different levels of engagement for different senators. And as I’ve said, that’s conveniently left out of your analysis, the McConnell-Klain sans Paul negotiation, isn’t what that’s happened in MS. It’s not one-size-fits-all approach, it never was.
The “tomorrow” email is so absurdly easy to explain: It was because of Dobbs. Foolish though he was to have entertained this candidate in the first place, Biden couldn’t have possibly gone on to make this nomination official on the very day Dobbs was announced. So it was delayed and delayed until Paul killed it.
I know, I know, it’s all too easy to double down on our misconceptions. But even if you ignore everything else, the WH DID comment on its decision to not move forward with the nominee, in plain black and white:
“The White House cited opposition from Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky’s junior Republican senator, in deciding not to nominate Meredith.”
[from a Courier-Journal article entitled “Louisville-courier-journal-stories-that-made-a-difference-in-2022” that I couldn’t post due to WordPress’s one-link-per-comment restriction on me]
Not: “The White House cited opposition from progressives” or something else along that line. But by all means, keep ignoring these plain inconveniences.
Do you want a named source? White House spokesman Andrew Bates:
“In considering potential district court nominees, the White House learned that Senator Rand Paul will not return a blue slip on Chad Meredith,” Bates said. “Therefore, the White House will not nominate Mr. Meredith.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-abandons-plans-nominate-anti-abortion-attorney-federal-judge-rcna38526
But I guess the jury is still out? Haha
LikeLike
The Colom nomination is relevant because you & others brought up Biden needed to wait for both Republicans senators to sign off on the nomination. Yet they didn’t do the same before (Andre Mathis) albeit that was for a circuit court or after (Scott Colom).
And yes I remember the article you sent vividly. It was the article I initially referenced when I said it was 22 days after the “tomorrow” email that Paul announced he would not return his blue slip… Lol
And once again I said in my response above the Paul decision was the final death nail. It just doesn’t explain why the wait for 22 days & four batches unless you think Kentucky is the sole red state Biden waits for both senators to pre approve of all nominees since he doesn’t use that strategy in numerous other red states.
LikeLike
1: I’ll post it again:
“In considering potential district court nominees, the White House learned that Senator Rand Paul will not return a blue slip on Chad Meredith,” Bates said. “Therefore, the White House will not nominate Mr. Meredith.”
Hard to get out of, I know. Sorry.
2: “The Colom nomination is relevant because you & others brought up Biden needed to wait for both Republicans senators to sign off on the nomination.”
I do??? This is a ridiculous accusation. Should we pull up this discussion from the last couple of weeks? ***I*** am the one that always points out that the blue slip considerations are *usually for the SJC to worry about, not the WH. So if the WH felt it has engaged the home state senators enough, they would go on with a nomination and leave the blue slip process to the senate, *except for when a senator *explicitly* say they will withhold it.
YOU, Dequan, have been the one to assume that the WH gets prior blue slip assurances from home staters, and that Trump was an aberration in this regard.
How are you now flipping this around? I don’t have trouble recalling these elementary facts.
LikeLike
1. Nope, not hard at all actually. Again, Paul announcing he would not return his blue slips was the FINAL death nail. Nowhere, not even in the statement from the article does it say it was the ONLY deciding factor not to nominate him. And even you admitted The White House didn’t nominate him “tomorrow” because of the Dobbs decision. So apparently you agree with me that they read the room & paused on nominating him.
2. No that’s not what I said at all. I said I wish Durbin would get rid of blue slips all together but if he’s not, I WISH The White a house would not nominate somebody unless they got ore approval that both senators will turn in their blue slips. I think it’s stupid to nominate somebody without knowing if a senator simply not returning a blue piece of paper will tank the entire nomination. It’s a complete waste of time.
LikeLike
Can you show me where in this article or any other that the WH said Paul’s decision wasn’t the only reason??? I am being factual by listing the actual, honest-to-goodness, black and white, stated reason. You are being inventive by purporting that the WH has listed other reasons. The delay was not the death. Being blue slipped was: “… Paul will not return a blue slip on Chad Meredith… Therefore, the White House will not nominate Mr. Meredith.” It did not continue: “… along with these reasons we have considered over the course of the few days.”
Wouldn’t you save face by saying that you’ve come to your senses with the help of your allies, as opposed to a defeat by an opponent?
To answer your hypothesis, with the KY Dems saying yes and progressives saying no, the dispositive factor would STILL be Rand Paul. Biden has never nominated a candidate for a vacancy that can be barred by the blue slip. So, again, your hypothesis still has Paul coming out smelling like roses and Biden not so much. Biden gets absolutely no credit for doing what he couldn’t help doing, anyway. It’s like the “you’re fired, I quit” analogy.
You’re getting the second part muddled. The “killing the blue slip” discussion was different from the “no nomination without the assurance of returned blue slip” discussion.
I recall them both.
LikeLike
I just don’t see how you can honestly say had everything opposite had happened except for Rand Paul’s part of the equation, that Biden wouldn’t have nominated Meredith in the 22 days between his email saying he was going to nominate him (Which at the time he didn’t know Paul’s decision) “tomorrow” & Paul saying he wasn’t going to return his blue slip 22 days later. Like I truly don’t understand why would Biden say he was going to nominate him “tomorrow” then not do it when the only thing that happened within those 24 hours was the Dobbs decision & the public rebuke from the governor, congressman & progressive groups.
Rand Paul didn’t announce he wasn’t returning his blue slip within those 24 hours so either Biden is a psychic & knew what Paul was going to do 22 days later, or something else led him to delete the 7th person from his list. I guess you would have me believe the Dobbs decision & complete & utter backlash from every Democrat who was asked had nothing to do with it.
LikeLike
And btw it seems as though you agree with me in that it wasn’t just Paul that stopped the Meredith nomination. You wrote obviously the Dobbs decision was the reason they didn’t announce the nomination the next day. That was my initial point. That despite how dumb even considering him was, they read the room after the Dobbs decision. So I’m happy we agree on that point.
LikeLike
And let’s kill the Rand Paul is the only reason Chad Meredith wasn’t nominated another way. Let’s say everything else in the equation except Rand Paul was the opposite. Let’s assume the Dobbs decision was 9-0 in favor of Julie Rinkleman’s clients. Then let’s say after the “tomorrow” email instead of a stunning intra-party rebuke, the Kentucky governor & Congressman had come out with glowing reviews of a Meredith & an immediate endorsement. Then let’s say progressive groups had come out & said this was a terrific nomination & Meresith should he confirmed ASAP.
Does anybody in their right mind think had all of those things happened instead of what actually happened occurred that Meredith wouldn’t had indeed been nominated “tomorrow”? If your answer is of course he would have been nominated had all of that happened instead then you agree with me. Rand Paul is not the ONLY reason Chad Meredith wasn’t nominated. And if you agree with me on that then all I’m asking is to be a little fair & give credit to all involved in stopping that horrible nomination.
LikeLike
“I guess you would have me believe the Dobbs decision & complete & utter backlash from every Democrat who was asked had nothing to do with it.”
Yes, more or less. ***Because, Dequan! As I said in an earlier response, WH sources did come out and say that the nomination as STILL on, even after all those things you cited.
Who knows when Paul communicated to the WH about his explicit objections? It could very well be *before* his public declaration. So, the 22-day delay doesn’t mean much. And if Paul did make his objections known privately to the WH before July 15, the WH would have had no reason to comment on the nomination *until* Paul’s public statement.
LikeLike
If Paul told The White House privately within 24 hours then I would agree with you. We don’t know the answer to that but honestly that makes even less sense. Why would The White House wait 22 days & get pounded on by advocacy groups, politicians & the media when they could have simply said Paul killed the nomination the next day? That would be a level of stupidity that I don’t think I’m willing to pin on this administration despite my disagreement with some things.
I will go with my opinion which is the Supreme Court taking a way a right for the first time in history & the Democrat governor & congressman of the state blasting the nomination had a little something to do with “tomorrow” never happening. We will have to agree to disagree Rand Paul was the only reason this nomination didn’t happen.
LikeLike
Why must it be 24 hours later? Seems arbitrarily narrow. We simply don’t know.
The only thing we know is what the WH said. And the fact that the WH said it AFTER Paul’s announcement. Not AFTER the Dem opposition.
You’re right, agree to disagree.
LikeLike
Because if you make a decision, then all of your friends & family come out publicly for the first time ever & say it was a horrible decision, but then somebody who can unilaterally stop you from doing the decision even if you wanted to 24 hours later says they will not let you do it, I don’t know many people who would wait 22 days to announce your not going through with the decision. You would be willingly taking heat & fire from your friends & family for over 3 weeks when you knew 24 hours later you couldn’t do what you said anyway. Who would do that? Most people would just say 24 hours later hey guys, the one person that can decide if I can do this has said I can’t so I’m not now let’s move on. But hey, I guess Biden enjoys 22 days of getting pummeled publicly.
LikeLike
Again, you’re missing the point. Who says that Paul must have told the WH privately WITHIN 24 hours? That’s the timeline that seems arbitrary. We just don’t know when Paul may have communicated his objection to the WH, but I doubt it was 24 hours later.
LikeLike
I don’t think Paul privately told The White House 24 hours later. I was trying to help your argument. Your argument is Biden didn’t nominate Meredith ONLY because of Rand Paul. I said there were other factors & Paul was the final straw.
He sent an email saying he was going to nominate him tomorrow. Tomorrow came & went & he didn’t nominate him. 21 more tomorrows came & went & he didn’t nominate him. So if I am to believe Rand Paul is the ONLY reason Biden didn’t make the nomination then one of two things have to true…
Either Paul privately told Biden within the 24 hours of tomorrow that he wasn’t going to return his blue slips or Biden lied when he sent the email saying he was going to nominate him tomorrow & never intended to. I don’t assume you are saying Biden was lying in the email so I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that Paul told him 24 hours later he wasn’t returning his blue slip. Then Biden proceeded to willingly get pummeled in the media & by Democrats for 22 days instead of immediately calling the nomination off. Because that’s more believable than the Dobbs decision & unprecedented massive backlash being the reason he hit the pause button…. Lol
LikeLike
How kind of you to help. Funny enough, I am quite capable of making my own argument, thank you very much. As it happens, your 24-hour timeline is an arbitrary strawman. It just came out of nowhere and only serves your purpose.
Yet again, ***all we have in black and white is, to use your snark, Biden gets pummeled for 21 days and have keep the nomination live. Then on the 22nd day, Paul publicly announced his opposition. And shockingly, the nomination was dead. But by all means, let’s give the credit to what had been constant for 21 days straight.
LikeLike
The 24-hour timeline didn’t come out of nowhere, it came from an official email from The White House Counsel’s office that said they were nomination Chad Meredith tomorrow. Tomorrow is 24 hours. They didn’t nominate him the next day which coincidentally was the same day Dobbs was decided & also the sitting Democrat governor of the state blasted the nomination… Lol
So yes, anybody who is saying that Biden didn’t nominate him ONLY because of Rand Paul while simultaneously saying Biden was telling the truth in the email saying he will nominate him tomorrow & Paul didn’t notify them he wasn’t returning his blue slips within that 24 hour period could use a little help with their argument… Haaaaaa
LikeLike
You seem determined to remain outside of reason at this point, but I’ll leave you with these.
I keep forgetting to add, Jesus, why do you really think that “tomorrow” was set in stone? How’s that your smoking gun? It wasn’t a deadline. And I wouldn’t be shocked it many other candidates are said to be announced “tomorrow” who wasn’t.
Biden made *no Article III nomination that “tomorrow.” What happened to the other non-#8 nominees? Was Biden going to nominate Chad Meredith as the sole judicial nominee that day?
BEFORE the news broke, the WH sent Beshear another email on July 29:
“Sorry for not including this in the original e-mail, but I wanted to clarify that the e-mail I sent was ***PRE-DECISIONAL*** and privileged information,” (emphasis added).
Obviously someone jump the gun, did an awful copy and paste job, and did not include the full context in the initial email and had to follow up with a cleanup. Then, the pre-decisional became a final-decision, despite the uproar. Then Rand Paul saved the day.
LikeLike
Somebody in The White House Counsel’s office screwing up initially & then Rand Paul bailing them out is a much much more believable of an argument & the one that likely is closest to what actually happened.
LikeLike
Is that a concession? And a return to praising Paul and blaming Biden for this singular stupidity?
LikeLike
It goes back to what I initially said. I don’t soley blame Biden nor do I soley think Rand Paul was the reason the nomination happens. I think he was the final straw though. That I agreed with you on from the beginning.
Now if the email was sent in error then that would eliminate the timeline debate & there would be no reason to include Dobbs nor the backlash. In that case there really wouldn’t be a debate. If we were talking about THIS Counsel’s office I would almost certainly say that’s what happened. I do have a little more faith in last years office albeit I agree with you the email in itself looked shady. There’s no reason to copy & paste the entire list of nominees instead of just talking about the nominee from that state.
LikeLike
I refuse to reply to the troll , when you advocate for reimposing back the blue slips process so bad faith GOP senators can use it to block qualified black women like arianna freeman and black men like andre mathis you lose any relevance. I repeat again, frank is a troll,go back to breitbart. Only a troll would propose something so asinine after GOP and mcconnell shoved federalist society hack after hack down the democratic throats. Now the genius is playing coy about not knowing how prosecutors always tend to lean towards the pro government side and against litigants. Advice to everyone is ignore the troll let him rant and vent.
To Dequan point, It has been obvious to everyone with a sane mind , that biden is trying in good faith to work with GOP red state senators whose only goal is to delay and stall or at best find the most palatable nominee suitable to the right. Thats why the firmest prediction i have had is that there wont be any nominee to the 7th circuit court vacancy this year simply due to bad faith stalling in the guise of trying to find a ”compromise” . Its easy to see biden leaving several appellate seats open after his 1st term. More and more people on here are seeing my reasoning about the incompetence of the whitehouse counsel, white house etc. There isn’t much time, once it gets to campaign season by next election nominations are likely to slow even further, they are letting valuable time go to waste. I remind everyone it took justin walker less than 3 months from when his name was sent to the senate to when he was confirmed to the D.C. circuit, thats the pace and urgency that’s critical right now
I am not impressed by red state district court picks , im sorry ,buzz me when biden finally nominates someone to the appellate vacancies that have been open for over a year and others several months..
Professor collins tweet captures the exact sentiments that i hold as well , no one cares about red state district court nominees in districts already outnumbered by other right wing federalist society judges. Nominate someone to appellate courts!
LikeLike
Looks like governor DeSantis will get another SCOTUS pick. Sad thing is Florida will probably get a new justice before New York gets a new Chief Justice. And I wouldn’t bet money on which one will be more conservative… Uuuggghhh
(https://www.yahoo.com/news/justice-ricky-polston-resigns-florida-205303057.html)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Are you really saying that you think there is a chance the NY nominee is a FedSoc hack, which is almost certainly who DeSantis will nominate? Even with Hochul being conservative by Democratic standards, I’m not seeing it. Likely the NY nominee will be slightly to the left of LaSalle.
LikeLike
I was being sarcastic but only slightly. DeSantis will nominate a more conservative hack but I consider a Democrat governor nominating a conservative in a blue state with a Democrat super majority worst than a Republican nominating a Republican hack with a Republican super majority. At least DeSantis is stabbing me in the front. Hochul is stabbing me in the back which is worse… Lol
LikeLiked by 1 person
“At least DeSantis is stabbing me in the front. Hochul is stabbing me in the back which is worse.”
You sound like Shawn now haha. If only you had Shawn’s clear-eyed vision of this WH.
LikeLike
Haaaaaa… I didn’t agree with @Shawn on everything, but that is one thing I did. Btw I hope he is ok. I know he mentioned once he had health problems & that’s why he was gone from the blog for a while. Then he disappeared altogether. We didn’t always agree (Specifically in a child’s being unqualified despite us both hating her nomination) but I did enjoy as I do enjoy his & everybody’s comments even when it’s in disagreement.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Latest batch is not great, but Hurson is a decent pick and honestly I was expecting worse from Zients/Celery – I agree with whoever said that it’s frustrating to even keep tabs on who Biden is nominating given that it’s mostly (1) milquetoast prosecutors/Big Law lawyers, even in blue states, and (2) the administration seems incapable of filling any appellate vacancies. I disagree with Moscow Mitch on pretty much everything, but he was right to prioritize the appellate vacancies – there’s no point to having good district judges if their rulings will just be mangled on appeal by Fed Soc hacks.
The (largely) disappointing nominees is in line with a general pivot by the administration toward the center in advance of reelection. Between supporting Republicans’ DC bill, adopting Trump’s asylum ban, and approving Murkowski’s drilling project, Biden is trying to get as far away from anything remotely progressive as possible. I’d be surprised if judges were exempt from this (in my view, futile) attempt to appeal to conservatives.
On NDIL in particular, it’s pretty obvious that Keren Sheley (the only pick left with any progressive background) is playing a similar role that Corey Stoughton did on the list for the NY Court of Appeals nomination. The selection committee seems to have included her to protect themselves against allegations they’re excluding candidates from non-Big law/private practice backgrounds, but it’s just for show and she’s unlikely to actually get the nomination. As a result, it’s no surprise that Daniels was the nominee since (1) all the nominees have been people of color (and 3 out of 4 have been Black), and (2) he clerked for Virginia Kendall, who is next in line to be the next Chief Judge of the district and I assume was pulling for him behind the scenes. Gowen will likely be nominated to Durkin’s seat, and I’d care more if I weren’t concerned that the administration might let the CA7 vacancy linger until 2025.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Hank
“I’d be surprised if judges were exempt from this (in my view, futile) attempt to appeal to conservatives.”
This is true and the worst part. All these awful nominees will still not be expediated on the senate or be voice voted and will still get Republican denunciations as extreme leftwing. So, what’s the point?
LikeLike
Maybe it has to do with the Washington group think (which is accurate) regarding the United States being a center right country and the need to be seen as middle of the road as possible (which Hank noted as such). Of course, the general public doesn’t care about judicial nominations, and nominating conservative candidates won’t win the Democrats any additional votes.
LikeLike
Here is a great article about the LA nominee: https://www.nola.com/news/politics/president-taps-baton-rouge-trial-lawyer-to-new-orleans-court/article_ae8a1376-c754-11ed-8f1f-b74a4c1c1dbb.html
LikeLike
Less than 24 hours and still no agenda for the SJC nominations hearing tomorrow? Smh
LikeLike
Sometimes it isn’t until the evening before when those are posted.
LikeLike
Wed hearing is well, disappointing – 2 nominees…This month has been a complete waste…One lousy hearing, only 4 district court nominees from the WH…
LikeLike
I can’t even use the language I want to right now. I’m so angry. Wamble downgraded & still can’t get a hearing. I’m beyond myself at this point.
LikeLike
This is what is so insane…They should have kept Wamble on the Circuit court seat, where blue slips don’t matter….If the KS senators don’t like it, well F them….Which is exactly what Senate GOP said to CA, NY, & NJ senators from 2017 – 2021 when they didn’t approve of a circuit court nominee. The nominations proceeded and ended with confirmations to the 2nd, 3rd, & 9th circuits.
LikeLike
Wamble said that he wanted the district court appointment instead of the circuit court appointment, so it doesn’t make sense to nominate someone who doesn’t want the job they are being appointed to serve.
LikeLike
If they were so worried about the blue slip battle, they should have focused on remaining blue state vacancies then pulled the trigger.
I’m not going to do the Biden is a coward/failure garbage that some folks have but it’s not wrong to say this five weeks sans confirmations has been a let down.
LikeLike
This Tweet below sums it up exactly. I will no longer blame Republicans. I’m at the point where I’m actually rooting for them to block each & every single district court nominee unilaterally now. It’s no longer on them They did what they were supposed to do.
They filibustered a SCOTUS nominee back when LBJ nominated Fortus FIRST. They held open a SCOTUS seat because it was an election year FIRST. Then they ramrodded a SCOTUS nominee onto the court after an election started FIRST. They eliminated the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees FIRST. They eliminated blue slips for circuit court nominees FIRST.
Honestly at this point this is on Durbin. If he doesn’t reform, alter or eliminate blue slips then I truly want Republicans not to turn in a blue slip for ANY district court nominee. I want this to hurt. I want Democrats to know what it’s like not to act when they have power only for the other side to do the exact opposite. I want to see Durbin’s face when each SJC hearing only has two nominees. I would cheer if they only had one nominee. It seems nothing short of a 9-0 SCOTUS, each & every right being taken away or complete & utter embarrassment won’t budge the Democrats to stop holding on to these old senate norms that only one side abides by.
I want them to either succeed big or fail big but no more in between.
(https://twitter.com/markos/status/1638294175727730691?cxt=HHwWhoC-3e33sbwtAAAA)
LikeLike
Dequan, To be fair to Durbin he isnt going to do anything regarding blue slips without the direction of Schumer and Biden. He really is just the one managing the Judiciary Committee.
LikeLike
Yea agreed. Schumer & Biden need to get on board
LikeLike
It should be noted that the Democrats did get rid of the filibuster for non-SCOTUS nominees first. But you make a fair point.
LikeLike
Something happened with Wamble’s nomination that we don’t know about, as we saw confirmations to the 6th and 3rd circuit (and will soon see an additional couple to the 6th and 9th) where blue slips are being ignored.
Whatever it was, there should have been a back up nominee ready to go.
I think it will get filled but boy, it’s annoying that it’s taking so long.
LikeLike
@Zack Jones
Part of the problem is the ABA. It’s taking them way too long to issue a rating. Senator Roger Marshall says he’s waiting for their rating before he decides on the blue slip.
LikeLike
You believe that story ? lol
LikeLike
I defend Biden & The White Houe a lot. I will defend them on the Chad Meredith non nomination because they ultimately did the right thing regardless of the reason. I defend them on Biden being a coward because I think he’s been the best Democrat president on judges since FDR. But this Wamble situation is getting to the point of being indefensible.
I don’t care what they are telling us, it just isn’t making sense that he went through all of the time it takes to apply, be interviewed, vetted & announced to all of a something decides he wants to downgrade to district court. And to down grade hi & we still don’t have blue slips turned in is absolutely infuriating.
LikeLike
The position Wamble is up for now is the one he wants. No one put a gun to his head and said he had to take it.
LikeLike
It is frustrating. I was (still am) all for continuing the blue slip tradition but the fact that Wamble and Colom can’t even get hearings is especially frustrating. Especially considering that we knew they have plenty of GOP support. We will see what happens to the LA nominee next month.
Maybe Biden, Schumer, and Co are building their case to abolish it, but I really hope there is movement on those two nominees soon.
LikeLike
In addition to McConnel, Durbin, Fetterman & Feinsten, senator Barrassoo missed the Iraq vote today. He was out most of last week too. If he’s out all week then the Dems will a east have an outright majority.
LikeLike
RE: absences
Gosh, if there were just one non-Senator who had the power to break ties so that we could move nominations along when we have absences…
LikeLike
Haaaaaa… Paging VP Harris. Please report to the senate floor
LikeLike
Gallagher confirmation scheduled for noon tomorrow at least.
LikeLike
Attn: @Frank
The sooner the Cardin/Durbin type is no longer in power, the better. Boomers gona boom.
LikeLike
I’m all for seeing a change in leadership for both parties. The Wamble situation has clearly been botched, and while the Colom situation is less clear it is beyond time for someone to ask Hyde-Smith why she is refusing to turn her blue slip in, especially as he seems quite qualified for the position he is being appointed to. I’m all for keeping the blue slip, but only if both sides are working in good faith.
LikeLike
Yeah it’s past time for a public ultimatum with strict deadline for the MS and KS senators, or else they’ll just keep dragging their feet and stringing Durbin along. Enough with the behind closed doors negotiation.
LikeLike
As much of a lack of Black men nominated to the circuit courts in the past decade, it is good to see seven Black men pending in the SJC for district court seats. Here’s my thoughts on if any of them can be considered for elevation;
Scott Colom – He absolutely should be the front runner for a seat on the 5th.
Jeffrey Cummings – While his background is solid, unfortunately he is more than a decade too old to be considered being born in 1962.
Kato Crews – He is a good pick but there would be better picks if a vacancy occurred on the 10th.
Jabari Wamble – I’ll keep my mouth closed here… Lol
Jeremy C. Daniel – While he is young enough & a veteran which is underrepresented on the circuit courts, I just don’t see much of a progressive background for him.
Matthew J. Maddox – He is young enough but I just don’t see much of a progressive background for him.
Darrel J. Papillion – While he is a bit older than I would like, born 1968, I wouldn’t be too upset if he was nominated for the 5th if it was late next year. I’m sure he could be confirmed fairly quickly & easily with the support of Cassidy & Kennedy. That would be better than risking a loss in the election & a Republican filling the seat.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Regarding Papillion…Do you mean if another vacancy became available in Louisiana? Because the only current 5th Circuit vacancy is in Texas.
LikeLike
Oh yea, I’m not talking about existing vacancies. I’m saying if there was a future vacancy in the circuits the seven Black men were in.
LikeLike
Again ignore any troll who wants to bring back blue slips after mcconnell and GOP disregarded it and confirmed right wing hack after right wing hack over the objections of democratic senators. The notion that gop senators like cruz and hawley will work in good faith is asinine but again expected from a troll like frank
LikeLike
Don’t hate the player…hate the game! Your anger is misplaced Sir or Madam. The only people with the power here is Biden, Schumer, & Durbin.
LikeLike
They won’t, but it’s not a partisan thing, since Washington and New Jersey also have hacks who refused to turn in blue slips under Trump.
LikeLike
I’m open to ignoring blue slips, but only for judicial emergencies such as in Texas.
LikeLike
I will repeat again that biden is a coward. So after all the sucking up and pandering and working in good faith with right wing senators black men like colom and wamble still can’t even get a hearing? It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so insulting.
Let me remind people on here the only reason we don’t have nominees to open circuit vacancies in the 10th, 5th and 7th is simply because biden is too scared to ignore the GoP senators and simply treat them the exact same way trump did to democrats which is ignore them and shove right wing federalist society hacks down their throats ie Kenneth Lee and Patrick bumatay.
Trump had courage and wasn’t afraid to use his power to further advance the Conservative agenda..
Biden is a coward. He would rather pander and submit to the GOP republicans senators whose only goal is simply to stall and delay in bad faith hoping the vacancy is still open at the end of bidens term in office.
Biden and the whitehouse are more afraid of pissing of charlatans like Ted cruz and Roger Marshall than nominating qualified Liberal judges to the bench. The exaxt opposite of trump. Thats the crux of the issue most people on here want to desperately avoid talking about. The Whitehouse cowardice.
I repeat this is the same man who picked a milquetoast centrist prosecutor in merrick garland , instead of Sally Yates as his attorney General, why? Because chuck grassley and lindsay Graham were going to throw fits and a tantrum if he did not and to biden That’s clearly more important than advancing any serious policy goals.
At the end of biden term there will be several appellate vacancies left open.
We won’t see any nominee to the 7th circuit seatthis year because republican indiana senators will stall and stall and biden will be scared to go against them simple
We also won’t see any replacement for delaney nomination if he is pulled because the white house is incompetent.
They have left circuit seats vacant for over a year why should this be any different now?
Just total incompetence.
LikeLike
Sally Yates was never a serious contender for AG since Biden would have needed every Democrat to vote aye (which wouldn’t have happened) and Garland was in any case much more qualified. Just stop
LikeLike
The Biden White House has been emphasizing states with two Democratic Senators. This is not shocking or unprecedented. The Trump, Obama, and Bush Administrations did the same thing.
LikeLike
True, but the Trump administration had much more cooperation when they turned towards filling seats in states where that wasn’t the case. That is where the argument on eliminating blue slips is based on.
LikeLike
What I would be interested in seeing is how many blue slips Democrats turned in for Trump nominees versus Republicans for Biden nominees at the current point of each presidency. I know Dequan and others have made the point that the difference between the full Trump presidency and Biden today is stark, but I haven’t seen anyone compare by days in office yet (by the way, how does it look for number of overall nominees confirmed? I haven’t heard a comparison on that for some time either). Even still, it probably reinforces that argument those in favor of trashing the blue slip are making but I don’t know for sure.
LikeLike
I don’t know the breakdown as to numbers of days into Trump’s term versus Biden’s as of today, but I know overall Democrats turned in about 120 blue slips & Republicans less than 30 so far for Biden. As for confirmations, Trump had 230 & Biden is at 113 so far if you don’t count doubles.
It’s good to see GW Bush appointee Yeakel retire. I’m not sure with blue slips if he will be replaced by the end of the term but either way nice to see him retire.
LikeLike
Judge Earl Yeakel (GWB appointee) of the Western District of Texas is taking Senior Status. God Bless him.
LikeLike
Likely to be filled by the next Republican in office. Best wishes to Yeakel going forward.
LikeLike
This may as well be a judicial vacancy in Siberia, for how out of reach it’ll be for filling it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Losing Yeakel is very bad. Yeakel is one of the more liberal Bush judges who has ruled in favor of abortion rights and shot down Abbott’s anti-mask executive order. I have zero faith that Ted Cruz will cooperate and so this could very well lead to a liberal being replaced by a conservative.
LikeLike
Here’s my recap from todays SJC hearing;
Senator Padilla chaired the hearing today with Durbin out with Covid. He immediately talked about how two of the nominees home state Republican senators turned in blue slips. He then turned it over to senator Kennedy in the absence of senator Graham. He only welcomed the nominees, getting a response from Padilla saying the hearing was running very efficiently so far. Kennedy joked back the two of them should be in charge all the time & Padilla quickly joked back he agreed.
Senator Kennedy grilled Kato Crews over a dozen cases that he issued rulings for & was reversed. He then asked him about the Brady Motion, which Crews was not familiar with. Senator Padilla then spoke up for & defended Crews reversals.
Senator then questioned Crews about qualified immunity. He brought up Black Lives Matter.
LikeLike
For all the Bjelkengren detractors:
What do you think about Kato Crews not knowing what a Brady motion is? Brady v. Maryland is one of the most important precedents in our common law system, even more well taught than the fifth amendment (for the non-law school goers: law courses go much more in depth with actual caselaw than the general amendments).
As a district court judge, Crews will absolutely need to rule on Brady motions, probably on day one on the bench.
Can you manage to not be hypocritical?
For the record, I don’t care. He’ll do fine boning up, just as Bjelkengren will. I just want to see how consistent you are.
LikeLike
While I have not attended law school, I would assume knowing the articles of the constitution that established the judiciary along with the executive & legislative branches are probably taught fairly early in the first year. I’d venture to say possibly the first week. The articles of the constitution are fundamental cores of how our government was formed. I think not knowing that is more damning than not knowing about a case that was decided 187 years after the inception of the constitution.
I would vote no on Charnelle Bjelkengren because she didn’t know the basic articles that established the constitution. As a matter of fact she looked like a deer in headlights when she was asked. And she was asked about three articles so it wasn’t like she just forgot one or the order they came in. She went 0 for 3.
I have never cared if a nominee didn’t know about a specific case other than the obvious cases that even us non law students would know about such as Loving, Roe, etc. In addition at least Crews was able to give a slightly bs answer versus looking like he had never heard of the case. So I don’t see the similarities & would enthusiastically vote yes for Crews.
LikeLike
Of course you would. This is what I wanted to highlight, thanks.
“I have never cared if a nominee didn’t know about a specific case other than the obvious cases that even us non law students would know about such as Loving, Roe, etc.”
Brady is! Every third-rate courtroom tv show has it. It’s as embedded in our common/layman legal knowledge as Miranda rights.
Crews’ “BS” was acceptable but Bjelkengren’s “looks” wasn’t reminds me of the premise of the book: “All the Women Are White, All the Blacks Are Men, But Some of Us Are Brave.”
Can’t wait to see her confirmed and maybe elevated at some point.
LikeLike
She probably will be confirmed, I said that before. If asked, I would advise a no vote on her. Yes Brady is an important case but as I’ve said before, I don’t take too much stock in a nominee forgetting the details of a case when under the cleg lights of a nominations hearing. That’s different than the basic articles of the Constitution that establishes the entire judicial system. Hell I would have given her a pass if she didn’t remember the order of the articles but she didn’t even know 3 of the first 5. Not a clue. Not even a bs answer that at least Crews was able to give. I could have given a bs response & have never stepped foot in law school… Lol
If I owned a car mechanic shop & was hiring a mechanic, I wouldn’t hire somebody that doesn’t know anything about the basic structure of a car like an engine or even tires. I would be ok with hiring one if he didn’t remember an important part of the engine that was invented 187 years after the first car but at least knew something about it versus looking completely lost.
LikeLike
Agreed with Gavi that Brady is just as fundamental as any of the articles of the constitution – it’s arguably even more relevant to the job of a federal district judge because most judges carry a criminal caseload where this will come up regularly, whereas actual constitutional questions (especially involving Article II) are much rarer.
I don’t think either performance was disqualifying because Kennedy’s little gotcha quizzes are hardly the best way to assess whether a candidate will be a good judge (some of the appointees who had no issues with his questioning have turned out to be horrible judges). But there’s no material difference between Bjelkengren’s performance and Crews’, and if one is disqualifying then so is the other. A federal magistrate judge should definitely know what Brady is, whereas a state court is much less likely to deal with federal constitutional issues (especially Article II).
Wouldn’t be surprised if Moscow Mitch and his ilk start making a fuss about how Crews is unqualified too – even though Mitch would love to abolish Brady at the first opportunity (and his puppets on SCOTUS may soon do just that). Dems should push through any nominee McConnell makes a fuss about just out of spite.
LikeLiked by 3 people
In Bjelkengren’s case, it’s not just her not knowing the most basic of questions. While I completely disagree not remembering any specific case isn’t worse than not knowing the most base of fundamental pillars of our government, even if I did believe that I still would have issues with her. For instance in her SJC questionnaire when she was asked to name ten cases she’s worked on she could only name six.
Now to Gavi’s earlier point, I try to remain consistent here (And in life in general). Some of the Trump nominees that were tanked by senator Kennedy & others were for similar reasons. I am all for packing the courts with Democrat appointees but I do think when a nominee seems to be completely under prepared for a hearing they know about a month in advance on top of not being able to list ten cases when the question specifically ask for ten, that would be a nominee I would absolutely reject had Trump nominated them.
This is a seat in a blue state with 21 months left in the term. She can be replaced & the new nominee confirmed. And best thing for her is she would still be a state court judge so it’s not like she goes back to the drawing board.
I will admit there are factors that I would be inconsistent. If this was July 2024 or later or if this was a red state seat in which Biden would have to go back to the drawing board to find a nominee I would say screw it, confirm her. A bad Democrat judge would be better than a right wing, conservative hack in their 40’s.
I also would be inconsistent if the nominee were super progressive. Nominees like Dale Ho, Nancy Abudu, Rachel Bloomekatz & others should be confirmed at all cost, even if it means throwing principles & consistency out the window. I would happily vote yes on any of them under the same circumstances & admit to Gavi then I was being inconsistent… Lol
LikeLike
Right, Hank. This hypocrisy was what I wanted to proof, and I think I did it successfully haha.
But yeah, matters of Article II powers, if they do come up, are vastly more likely to come up in DC district courts, not Colorado.
Law professor don’t usually say: “what does Article II say?” Instead, they’ll say: “Brady v Maryland touches on certain constitutional principles. What was the holding and what principles does it touch on?”
If you’re into identify policy and grievance you’ll see that this episode proves that a black woman gets shorter shrift than a black man in the exact same (even better) situation. (But I was done with this after I proved my point haha.)
LikeLike
@Hank
While I disagree with the first half of your statement, I completely agree with the last. Did you see Justice Thomas last week question over turning the right to counsel? He’s insane
LikeLike
As I’m sure everyone on here knows, if we were to fill the 4 vacancies on TX-W, there’d be a 7-6 Dem appointee majority. I don’t know if what Cornyn said about having sent names to the WH is true, but this would be a real win if the WH could get it together.
LikeLike
I actually believe senator Cornyn. I’m sure they did send Biden the names like he said. The problem is how many of those names were viable for a Democrat president to nominate. He didn’t mention that part which is surely the main sticking point.
I remember under Obama the Democrat House members were closely involved in the process. I haven’t heard from them under Biden so far.
LikeLike
That list of names was for the 5th circuit seat and if I am not mistaken, those names were generated by the WH, so they’d be viable.
LikeLike
Oh no, I was only talking about the district court seats in Texas since blue slips are involved there. Cornyn did say they sent the White House 10 names for the 5th but I’m less worried about that since their blue slips aren’t required for that seat.
I stand by my advice. I think the White House should start with hard left names such as Rochelle Garza or Lee Merrit. Then they should work their was slightly to the right as long as it involves a package deal to fill all of the district court seats, including backfilling the seat of a judge they elevate to the 5th if that’s the route they take.
LikeLike
Sure, my point is, if those on the list are good for CA5, they should be good for district courts, depending on where in the state they live/will be stationed.
LikeLike
Ah gotcha. Yes theoretically albeit I’m sure some of the names on the list are sitting district court judges. If I had to guess I would say around half of the names. But not all 10 so The White House should call their bluff for the ones who aren’t district court judges. Same thing I said they should have done for the vacancy Tennessee district court seat with Camille McMullin.
LikeLike
@Dequan
There may be incompetence at the White House Counsel’s office.
The Senators from Texas were sent a list of names as firmly requested, than sat on it for months. If the list was unacceptable, they merely could have said “Send me another list” or made some kind of counteroffer. But instead, nothing for months. Everyone was left twisting in the wind.
As for Florida, let David Leibowitz be one of the nominees. The arrangement for large states is that if both Senators agree to a White House of the opposite party on judges, than the Senators get to pick one out of four nominees. Rubio is passionate about him and Leibowitz is qualified (a former Federal prosecutor), isn’t hard right, so no reason for the delay. The White House will get to pick the other three, provided the Senators are willing to sign off on them.
Miami litigator Detra Shaw Wilder seems to have emerged as a consensus nominee and she would increase diversity there. She’s obviously a Democrat and she’s been signed off on by Florida Democrats, so nominating her should be a no-brainer.
So either the White House dropped the ball on Texas and Florida nominees, or they are overplaying their hand.
LikeLike
I know I’m getting a little ahead of myself but if all pending blue slips are turned in, the next SJC hearing will likely have six nominees. Black men would be five of the six. I wonder what the record is for Black men at a SJC hearing. I can’t imagine more than two nominees at once.
LikeLike