Judge Matthew Maddox – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

The District Court of Maryland has a history of elevating magistrates to lifetime appointments, with Judges Stephanie Gallagher and Deborah Boardman elevated in the last few years. Two more have now been nominated, including Judge Matthew Maddox.

Background

Matthew James Maddox received a B.A. summa cum laude from Morgan State University in 1999, and subsequently was selected as a Fulbright Scholar, while also spending some time in the Teach for America program. Maddox subsequently obtained a J.D. from Yale Law School in 2011.

After graduation, Maddox clerked for Judge Gerald Bruce Lee on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and then for Judge Andre Davis on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Maddox subsequently spent two years at Hollard & Knight LLP before becoming a federal prosecutor for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland.

In 2022, Maddox was appointed to be a U.S. Magistrate Judge for the District of Maryland to replace Judge Thomas DiGirolamo, where he currently serves.

History of the Seat

Maddox has been nominated for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland to replace Judge Paul Grimm, who took senior status on December 11, 2022.

Legal Career

Maddox began his legal career as a law clerk on the Eastern District of Virginia and then on the Fourth Circuit. After his clerkships,she worked as an associate at Holland & Knight. During his tenure there, Maddox represented the video distribution service Sky Angel in a breach of contract action against Discovery Communications LLC. See Sky Angel U.S., LLC v. Discovery Communications, LLC. et al., 28 F. Supp. 3d 465 (D. Md. 2014).

From 2015 to 2022, Maddox worked as a federal prosecutor in Maryland. In his role, Maddox represented the United States in federal prosecutions before both the district and appellate courts. For example, Maddox argued before the Fourth Circuit where the Defendant challenged the seizure of his MacBook Pro, iPhone, and iPod at an airport, and the subsequent warrantless search of the devices. See United States v. Aigbekaen, 943 F.3d 713 (4th Cir. 2019). The Fourth Circuit found, contrary to Maddox’s arguments, that the searches were not justified under the “border search” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. See id. at 723. However, the Court nonetheless ruled in the government’s favor under the “good faith” exception. See id. at 725. Judge Jay Richardson concurred, finding that he would have found the search justified under the “border search” exception. See id. at 726 (Richardson, J., concurring).

Jurisprudence

Maddox has served as a U.S. Magistrate judge in Maryland since his appointment in 2022. In this role, he handles settlement, discovery, and makes recommendations on dispositive motions, while presiding over cases where the parties consent.

Maddox’s short tenure as a magistrate has left him with few substantive decisions under his belt. In the context of reviewing administrative denials of social security benefits, Maddox affirmed an ALJ decision that a plaintiff’s seizure disorder was not of a seriousness that prevented him from working and caused him to be disabled. See James L. v. Comm’r, Civil No. MJM-21-1718 (D. Md. Sept. 30, 2022). Maddox also granted summary judgment to Walmart in a slip-and-fall case, noting that it was not disputed between the parties that the store lacked actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard that caused the plaintiff’s injury. See McLaughlin v. Walmart, Inc., Civil Action MJM-21-1305 (D. Md. Mar. 20, 2023).

Maddox also presided over a bench trial in a case alleging damages after an EKG technician allegedly walked in on a female patient’s medical examination without permission. See Neal v. United States, Civil Action No. MJM 19-1033 (D. Md. Jan. 23, 2023). Maddox found in favor of the plaintiff on claims of professional negligence and negligent supervision, awarding $5000 in compensatory damages. See id. (Memorandum of Decision). Maddox found in favor of the defendants on the other claims. See id.

Overall Assessment

Compared to fellow nominee Hurson, Maddox should have the easier path to confirmation. There is little in his background that should cause controversy, although, as other experienced nominees have learned, the Judiciary Committee hearing can snag even those otherwise poised for confirmation.

661 Comments

  1. aangren's avatar

    Another federal prosecutor who spent years putting people in prison and also a corporate lawyer who worked for large multinational law firm. This could have as well been a Trump/Bush Selection. D Grading, Terrible nominee , a disgrace that a blue state such as maryland will have another corporate stooge/prosecutor on the district court bench.

    In other news
    I am legit pissed off and angry! How dare republicans demand and dictate that sinema and manchin must be the only two replacements? If schumer has any common sense he will reject that absurd proposal. Feinstein Is an absolute disgrace. She should never have put Democrats in this position. Her stinginess and selfishness is why Democrats are here.
    Honestly I would rather a republican win the arizona senate seat over sinema if a Democrat gallego can’t win..keeping a grifter like sinema out of the senate permanently is worth it even if a GOP like doug ducey or kari lake gets in. She is just a grifter who only cares about sucking up to the wealthy elites and hedge funds, the audacity to think they can demand sinema be put there is insane! I blame feinstein she is ultimately responsible. In no sane world should a 89 year old be in any public office.

    Schumer and Democrats being the cowards they are I fully expect him to acquiesce and to put sinema in the judiciary committee. Imbecile.
    GOP senators are truly scum of the earth and its why i am so angry biden treats any of them with any thing less than contempt and disgust

    Like

    • shawnee68's avatar

      I don’t have a problem with Manchin or Sinema on a temporary basis. Heck, they have voted for all of Biden’s judicial nominees.

      I guess it’s safe to assume that Feinstein won’t be receiving any get any “Get well soon” wishes nor flowers and candy from you.

      We need to get back on track and start confirming the nominees that we can until Feinstein gets back.

      Lastly, what kind of people do you think are in federal prison? These aren’t people who were ripping off candy bars from Target.

      I am pleased we got names announced before the weekend.

      Like

      • joeyfalconi's avatar

        I don’t understand the Feinstein Problem. Since the SJC allows for proxy voting, Feinstein doesn’t need to be present or get a “temporary replacement” for committee votes. (Of course, the full Senate must still confirm nominees.) But isn’t that the exact same issue with Fetterman? Smacks of ageism.

        Like

  2. Mitch's avatar

    Judge Maddox combines diversifying the Federal bench with a traditional background and lack of anything the opposition would find inflammatory. If his hearing goes well, he should be confirmed by a fair margin.

    Like

  4. Dequan's avatar

    There are three young Maryland magistrate judges & three Maryland federal judicial vacancies. If Maddox & Hurson are chosen for the two district court vacancies & the other young magistrate judge Ajmel Quereshi is chosen for the 4th circuit, then this pick is fine. Maddox really doesn’t have anything progressive in his background but he will probably be to the left of the other young Black man that resigned, George Hazel.

    If the pick for the 4th circuit is not a solid pick then this makes the Maddox pick look worse. I know reports are Biden & senator Cardin were at an impasse over the 4th seat. If Maddox was Cardin’s pick for the 4th & the negotiation was for his to get the district court seat while the more progressive Biden pick for the 4th seat, then that’s a good negotiation. I’ll reserve my judgement on the Maddox pick until I see who we get for the circuit court. Hurson is an outstanding pick regardless however.

    Like

    • Frank's avatar

      Never going to happen. The Democrats wouldn’t have the votes needed anyway with Sinema and other western senators complaining about being in session too long as it is so there’s little point in discussing this as something that will even be considered.

      Like

      • Gavi's avatar

        @Frank
        “there’s little point in discussing this as something that will even be considered.”

        Wow. Something that has happened and now being encouraged to happen again by a former senator isn’t worth discussion? Just like any number of things that wasn’t going to happen ended up happening?

        Maybe it’s just the vast chasm between our generation. I suppose the post-war generations are easily satisfied with politics moving only by mere inertial forces, and not wanting or even imagining change happening too quickly.

        Well, thank god things are different now. I think if the pace of confirmations doesn’t pick up, the call will certainly grow louder by a growing section of the Democratic base. And if you’re going to cancel a summer recess, 2023 is the one to do it.

        I particularly liked this passage:
        “While the end of 2024 may feel a long way off, in political terms, it’s right around the corner. By the end of this year, campaigning in home states, either for senators’ own elections or in support of their presidential candidate of choice, will begin to take priority over senators’ day job in D.C.”

        Like

    • Dequan's avatar

      2024 is a year of political headwinds for Democrats in the senate. They need to energize their base. Judges use to only energize the right but times are changing. Just last night my home state governor who usually has been Trump like signing ceremonies, sighed a 6-week abortion ban at 11pm in a closed door ceremony with only one official photo released of him doing it. Republicans know it’s a losing issue in the general which is why they continue to ban abortion for their base but want to talk about Hunter Biden, Hillary Clinton’s emails, the weather in Uganda & anything else except what they are doing on abortion.

      People on this blog need to remember that we the people send our elected officials to their seats. There have been numerous things that we the people have gotten our government to do that they initially weren’t expected to do. If Feinstein not showing up for work another month or two hampers judicial confirmations with a split screen tv showing judges continuing to take away our rights, the calls for cancelling the August recess will grow louder. So will calls to ditch blue slips, Feinstein to resign & other ask. The idea that the Democrats would spit in the face of the very voters that will decide if they remain in power the following year & do nothing isn’t as likely as some on this blog makes it seem.

      I know some will say there were calls to cancel last year’s Summer recess but it wasn’t done. There are some differences. First, it was s 50/50 senate. So if senator Sinema wasn’t on board, it wouldn’t have mattered if all Republicans showed up. Second, it was an election year. So there was much more campaigning going on last year making canceling recess that close to the election less likely. Third, the president wasn’t up for reelection. He is next year & likely would be more vocal behind the scenes to get more done. Fourth, the senate was still confirming judges at a record clip as of last year. That has slowed dramatically to the point we are almost at the point where Trump confirmations will pass Biden equal to days in office.

      Last, remember last years Summer recess was four weeks. This year it’s five weeks. I don’t think anybody realistically thinks they would cancel all five weeks. Even if they just cancelled one week, that could confirm 4 or 5 circuit court nominees or every district court nominee. Hopefully Biden picks up the pace on nominations or of course this all becomes a mute point by the Summer.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      The article says “ And the Senate should allow multiple nominees to be considered simultaneously and reduce the floor time allocated to post-cloture debate of circuit court nominees.”

      I am not familiar with how easy this could be done. Is this something that would require unanimous consent (Meaning it’s dead in arrival) or is it more simple of a process to do?

      Like

      • Gavi's avatar

        Yes to UC, in theory, but DOA as you say.

        In reality, it would take using the same mechanism Reid and McConnell used to change the rules: a simple majority vote to overrule the Parliamentarian’s ruling that the new thing (<30 hours for COA nominees, etc.) is out of order. I don't see Manchin voting for this and probably not even Sinema. So I don't see a path forward for that change.

        As for considering multiple nominations simultaneously, it's unclear to me what Feingold is asking for. At the moment, the Majority Leader has to weave in and out of executive session to consider each nomination, a precedence set by Senator Byrd. Maybe Feingold is suggesting that Nominee A's and Nominee B's post-cloture debate time run concurrently. That is, instead of Nominee B's 30 hours starting only when Nominee A's 30 hours expire, both post-cloture time should run simultaneously. So, instead of 30+30=60 hours, it would be just 30 hours.
        Sorry if this isn't clear.
        At any rate, if I understand Feingold correctly, this will also take a reinterpretation of the rules and probably crash against the rock of Machin/Sinema's opposition.

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        No that explanation was fine & what I thought. It’s just one of those things that I’ve heard mentioned more than once so I was wondering if I was missing something. So while I agree with Feingold on virtually everything related to the judiciary, I think this idea is not possible.

        Like

      • Gavi's avatar

        I don’t think it’s worth changing the post-cloture time for COA nominations, because it’s rare for the senate to use all 30 hours. Sometimes the Majority Leader doesn’t even call up the nomination for a vote after the expiration of the time. Remember Kahn?

        I do, however, support the concurrent post-cloture debate time as opposed to the consecutive time we have now. But I concede that this would be a major departure for the senate.
        Think about it in legislative terms: it would be like lumping the debate time for two or more bills together. So instead of 100 senators getting 30 hours to debate the Supreme Court Expansion Act, 30 hours to debate the 5th Circuit Jurisdiction Reduction Act, and 30 hours to debate the Federal Climate Change Policy Nonjusticiable Act, those 100 senators would only get 30 hours to debate all three bills.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. Joe's avatar

    I definitely agree that Schumer should ignore the calls for Sinema/Manchin on SJC. There are plenty of other D senators that are boring and non controversial and any of them would be fine. If it doesn’t get unanimous consent I hope he immediately makes a motion for a full floor vote. to set a precedent that this behavior won’t be rewarded.

    If the senate can remain focused on judges for at least 3 or 4 of the next 5 weeks they would be completely caught up on all the judges awaiting floor votes. I understand there may be 1-2 votes that will be tricky, but everyone else should be able to be confirmed even without Feinsteien. I hope things get ramped back up next week.

    Like

    • Dequan's avatar

      Please tell me this is a joke. I literally mentioned Irma Carrillo Ramirez to @Ethan just last night for the district court as a compromise pick. She’s older than Costa. This is ridiculous. And de Alba is ok but not even the best California district court Latina by Biden. She’s not even in the top two. Uuugffhhh

      Like

      • Ben's avatar

        If she was chosen in a deal with the senators to ensure the district court seats also get filled, we better see those soon. I don’t know why they wouldn’t announce at same time though. As that’s the only defensible reason for this. You don’t negotiate down for a candidate like this in exchange for nothing.

        Like

      • Jill's avatar

        Of course the Administration & many of you wanted a Latino woman for the 5th Circuit and didn’t want to see a DC Judge elevated. So you got it! I’m just glad that she’s experienced & well-qualified as a long serving Magistrate. She’ll be confirmed swiftly!

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        @Jill

        You got me there. We got a Latina & don’t have to backfill a district court seat. I guess I’ll be more specific in the future & ask for a nominee not born during the filming of The Honeymooners & at least a little progressive too… Haaaaa

        I do hope she will be confirmed swiftly. Nothing worse then a pick like this still taking the usual cloture vote, 20 plus hours post cloture time then confirmation vote. It would be a nice gesture if they don’t even hold her over from the SJC for a week after her hearing.

        Like

  8. aangren's avatar

    This is a joke a 59 year old milquetoast centrist judge to replace costa? This is indefensible. This is an outrage and this should cement the idea that biden is a coward.
    She is literally older by several years than costa, its outrageous.
    This is the ”good faith” work with hacks like cruz and coryn they got all they wanted, 1. Very old nominee.
    2. Very milquetoast/rightwing
    3. No inkling of a progressive background.

    This is an insult to anyone who cares deeply about courts. trump nominated justin walker in his 30s to the D.C. circuit while biden is nominating people in their 50s.

    This is an absolute disgrace.
    Ted cruz and john coryn played biden and got everything the cold hope for a nearly 60 year old milquetoast nominee. Absolute disgrace.

    Ana de alba is an amazing pick, A plus, dequan i disagree with you there, she is one of biden best district court picks. She worked for the ACLU for immigrants rights. No qualms here.
    The issue is the atrocious 5th circuit pick biden got played like a fool by ted cruz and coryn whose goal from the beginning was to get biden to pick the oldest//most conservative option, they won.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      I don’t have a problem with de Alba, I just said she isn’t even the top two Latina nominees by Biden for California. Monica Ramirez-Almadani would have been my first pick & Araceli Martinez-Olguin would have been my second. I would have given both of them A+. But de Alba I give an A-. She worked with the ACLU Immigration Rights a project but only for one year. The other two I mentioned had years upon years of similar work.

      But I’m good with her. I absolutely 100% agree with everything you said about Irma Ramirez however. I literally wrote @Ethan last night telling him I see 5 Obama nominees for a Texas that didn’t get confirmed & 3 were renominated by Trump. I asked him if he thinks the other 2 had a chance of getting nominated. I was half way joking. Less than 24 hours later we get this absolute crappy pick. I would rather have Costa back.

      Like

  9. Gavi's avatar

    Irma Carrillo Ramirez
    This nominee gets an automatic F from me. Last year I repeated time after time that it would be malpractice if Biden nominates someone older than the judge being replaced. Ramirez is a full decade older than Costa. I care more about her race than age. If Biden had nominated a 59 black man, I’d be just as pissed. If a 45-year-old white man was nominated, I’d be very happy.
    As Ben said above, **maybe** this pick would be more palatable if it’s a part of a package deal. But why not nominate the full package? Does the WH trust that the Texas senators will give in their blue slips for the district court nominees after they’ve gotten an old judge on the 5th? Most ridiculous.

    Ana de Alba
    A decent nominee, I’d say. Not familiar with her rulings since she took the bench last year. Harsh will have to dust off and update his writeup of her.

    But yeah, folks. As I mentioned and what the sycophants can’t bring themselves to admit, the days of Holly A. Thomas and Dale Ho are far behind us. Look for Republican-lite nominees going forward.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      Ramirez may surpass Childs as Biden’s worst circuit court pick in my view. I may put her above if I see some district court nominees for Texas & none of them are out right Republicans. But without the picks coming at the same time as Ramirez, this now means we have to trust Ted Cruz to keep his part of the deal. I don’t trust him any further than I can throw him.

      Like

      • Ethan's avatar

        SO MANY BETTER LATINAS THAT COULD’VE BEEN PICKED THAT WERE YOUNGER.
        -Marina Marmolejo
        -Diana Saldaña
        -Amparo M. Guerra
        -Luz Elena Chapa
        -Diana Song Quiroga
        -Nadia Medrano

        Better be a good deal out of this. Only other way it’s defensible is if some of those other people declined a nomination (on the conservative 5th circuit, it’s not completely implausible).

        de Alba is not bad, but once again, one less Black man on the circuit courts. Brian E. Nelson or Lamar Baker could’ve been good picks.

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        Good point Ethan. With one less Black man on the circuit courts, I fear this puts Julian Neals in play for the 3rd circuit seat. Senator Booker is a HUGE supporter of his, he’s a former Obama nominee (As is the Ramirez pick for the 5th from today) & was the first Biden confirmed district court pick.

        Biden already elevated his first circuit court pick to the SCOTUS. I was betting Esther Salas was the likely pick for the 3rd but now that we have gotten two Latinas, I might have to move Neals & his 1965 birthdate up on my list of possibilities. After mentioning Ramirez to you just last night, I sure hope I don’t speak that pick into existence next.

        Like

    • aangren's avatar

      Thank you gavi for your honesty and straight talk.
      People on here are too afraid to criticise biden and call a spade a spade, he has woefully failed on judical nominations since the new congress begun.
      He has clearly shifted to milquetoast centrist nominees.

      This was what john coryn and ted cruz wanted all along, a very old biden nominee, a very centrist/moderate nominee that even george bush could have nominated , no nominee with any progressive background.

      If you are ted cruz and senate republicans you couldn’t have wished for a better judge from a democratic president than this. You can even argue trump CA9 judge bennett and a few others are on the same par as her in terms of leanings left/right.
      Biden was played to the tee.
      This will repeat itself all over and over again. The days of myrna perez and arianna freeman are over.

      1.CA10 seat Red state KS senators
      2.CA7 seat two red state indiana senators
      These nominees when finally released i predict
      Will be all In their mid/late 50s and also very moderate/milquetoast when they have wasted enough of biden time.

      Liked by 1 person

    • livesofthelaw's avatar

      I don’t think you can really call any of Biden’s 2023 nominees for the District Courts ‘Republican-lite’, with the exception of Robert Kirsch who is an actual Republican.

      YMMV with regards to the Appellate nominees. Delaney – who looks like a major misstep – is probably the closest fit, but even his main issue is litigation tactics rather than an apparent fondness for Originalism.

      Like

    • Frank's avatar

      The shift towards more mainstream nominees is directly linked to the change in the COS and council, which is a shame as there are still not many judges from non-traditional backgrounds and and those in charge are continuing to look in the career areas that are already well overrepresented. I think we could still see some district court nominees next week, so I’d hold off until then to see if there is a package (but I am quite skeptical that there is one as well).

      That being said, the ageism is quite tiring from many on this site, and in my opinion is quite overrated. Look at Pauline Newman, who was nominated to the Federal Circuit at 57, and is still technically an active member of the court today at 95. Just because a nominee is perceived to be old doesn’t mean that they won’t outlast judges that were confirmed at a much younger age.

      Speaking about Newman, she has been pulled off of sittings for May and June and has hired council to defend against the complaint from judge Moore: https://twitter.com/fedjudges/status/1646888571306123265

      Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        @Frank

        The the ageism you feel that is quite tiring & overrated from many on this site is not shared by conservatives. They have no problem complaining about when Republicans nominate older & moderate judges & guess what… SURPRISE, they are winning. So sorry but I would rather you be a little tired today if that means we get to keep our rights in 40 years. I’ll take that trade off.

        And remember she isn’t just about today or when the judge will retire and/or die while active. It’s about setting up possible SCOTUS nominees for the future. Ramirez is older than 5 of the 6 Trump judges he put on the 5th & is older than FOUR current SCOTUS justices. This is a horrible pick just based on age alone, not to mention nothing progressive in her background.

        Like

      • Ryan J's avatar

        The comments in the article suggest it may be personal rather than political.

        1) Newman frequently dissents, and according to the comments, her dissents are more on point and better written than the majority opinions and that’s why she takes longer to write. Some comments even argue that the Federal Circuit’s majority has effectively made patents useless and Newman is one of few Fed Cir judges to give patents “the respect and validity they are given by the law”.

        2) Chief Judge is a GW Bush appointee so I doubt this is for political reasons. However, some believe that the chief thinks she can get Biden to nominate her friend to the Federal Circuit. A key argument for this motivation is that the Chief was ok with Newman hearing cases in senior status.

        Nevertheless I think this move is baseless as they haven’t provided sufficient evidence that Newman is incompetent to do her judicial abilities.

        Like

  11. Joe's avatar

    I think Alba is great for the 9th circuit. No issue at all there, other than the fact that we’ll need to backfill the seat.

    As for the 5th pick I don’t like her age. As a rule, we shouldn’t be nominating anyone born in the 1960s and honestly no one before 1975. Hopefully this is part of a broader package they are working on to fill numerous seats, because at this point with limited circuit spots remaining for Biden to fill, every nominee from here on out should be a rock star rather than a compromise.

    Liked by 1 person

      • Joe's avatar

        Not an absolute rule, Frank, just a guiding principle. I do think that 1964 is too old, though it isn’t an automatic “F”.

        In my opinion, the absolute most important thing is that she is a reliable liberal and retires one day under a Dem president/senate. As long as that happens I can overlook her age at appointment.

        Like

  12. Zack's avatar

    The 9th Circuit nominee IMO is solid.
    The 5th Circuit one..not so much but not shocking either.
    I still say the same reason Costa left is the same reason you weren’t going to find many young progressive nominees who wanted to put up with a toxic working place for the next 40-50 years.
    Hated being right on that.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Gavi's avatar

    @Frank

    You think it’s tiring? Can you imagine how we feel?
    It’s not ageism. The federal judiciary isn’t supposed to be a nursing home!
    Literally no one is saying, “Oh, she’s only 59? How young and exciting.” The shock of her advanced age is causing the opposite reaction (outside of Frank’s 1950’s, of course).

    Between the disappointment of Dems possibly bending to Republican demands about the SJC and this latest “batch” of nominations, I needed this laugh (see Geoffrey Spear’s reply):

    Like

  16. Hank's avatar

    Good that we got nominees, but yes the CA5 one is disappointing though not entirely surprising. Hopefully they did a lot of vetting to make sure she’s not going to go senior under a Republican president, but I doubt this WHC is doing that thorough of a job. I also don’t believe for a second that Cruz is going to return his blue slip, so a halfway decent WHC (which Delery is not) would’ve pushed through a younger or more clearly progressive nominee. But still better than leaving this seat vacant, which I was very worried would actually happen.

    On a related note, does anyone know if service as a magistrate judge count for the rule of 80? Since she’s been an MJ for so long, Ramirez could go senior as soon as she turns 65. If not, it won’t be until she turns 70.

    Like

    • Gavi's avatar

      Per my reading of 28 US Code § 377, yes. The retirement law for magistrate judges follows a similar age-to-years of service standard, but the years of service is 14 instead of 15. And a regular Article III judge needs to serve a base 10 years, whereas a magistrate judge only needs to serve for 8 years to qualify.

      Like

      • Ethan's avatar

        All time, there have been 8 (including Carrillo Ramirez) Magistrate Judges elevated directly to a circuit court:

        Under Clinton
        -Barry Silverman (9th circuit).

        Under G.W. Bush
        -Bobby Shepherd (8th circuit).

        Under Obama
        -Patty Shwartz (3rd circuit).
        -Robert Bacharach (10th circuit).

        Under Trump
        -Bridget Bade (9th circuit).

        Under Biden
        -Dana Douglas (5th circuit).
        -Doris Pryor (7th circuit).
        -and now Irma Carrillo Ramirez (5th circuit)

        The only one who has gone senior is Silverman.

        Like

    • Hank's avatar

      The lack of anything progressive is more of an issue than her age – if we’re dead set on putting moderates/centrists on the courts (as this new WHC has apparently decided to do), then older ones are fine cuz they’ll be eligible to go senior sooner. We just need to make sure that they know that Fed Soc is trash and cannot be allowed to pick their successor. From her record, I can’t tell Ramirez’s leanings but would guess that she’s probably comparable to Dana Douglas.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Geeeez, I just realized even one of GW Bush judges on the 5th circuit is younger than Ramirez. A second GW Bush judge is only one year older than Ramirez. We are just not the same when it comes to understanding how important age is for federal judges.

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        @Jill

        Below is Congresswoman Sylvia Garcia (D) statement. It seems to praise judge Ramirez pick because it she adds representation, diversity, equity, and inclusion to the 5th circuit. All of us agrees with that. However the exact same statement can be made about James Ho. Nothing in her entire statement specifies this pick will counter James Ho. It’s your basic run of the mill statement that you could say about almost any “first” diverse pick.

        Now my guess is Ramirez is probably a centrist Democrat. And perhaps this pick will be like a fine wine & age nicely once we see the district court picks & see how worth the negotiation was. But if we get the standard 3 for 1 type of a deal for the district court vacancies, I would have to agree with @aangren that this would be Biden’s worst circuit court pick, yes even worst then J. Childs (And we all know how I feel about her).

        Remember it’s not just about age. Beth Robinson is the same age as Ramirez & I think she was the best choice for the Vermont 2nd circuit seat. Maria Khan is also the same age & while I think that pick was average because Connecticut had much younger picks that would have been as good, at least she had a progressive background. Ramirez not only seems to not have anything progressive in her background, but she even has some opinions that if you erased her name from the judgement & replaced it with a Trump appointee, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised by the outcome.

        (https://foreignaffairs.co.nz/2023/04/15/mil-osi-usa-congresswoman-garcia-statement-on-judge-irma-carrillo-ramirez-nomination-for-the-fifth-circuit-court/)

        Like

  22. Mitch's avatar

    John Cornyn and Ted Cruz have signed off on the nomination. She’ll be confirmed with little fuss. However, their praise is for Judge Ramirez is very mild.

    Interestingly, Congresswoman Sylvia Garcia called the choice “fantastic.”

    Like

    • Dequan's avatar

      No wonder Cornyn & Cruz was in a rush to turn in their blue slips for Ramirez. She was the judge that threw out the case from family of Botham Jean against the city of Dallas after a Dallas police officer entered his apartment, shot & killed him. The officer, a White woman, was drinking & thought she was entering her own apartment when she killed Jean, a Black man.

      She also fined former NFL star Deion Sanders for missing a court hearing. I updated some of her opinions on her Wikipedia page.

      (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irma_Carrillo_Ramirez)

      Like

      • Mitch's avatar

        @Deequan

        With this development, I expect a package of District Judges to be coming soon. There are seven vacancies across Texas. Under tradition, Ted Cruz and John Cornyn get to pick one out of the four nominees if they work in good faith with White House.

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        The 3 to 1 ratio should occur when the circuit court nominee is solid. Pennsylvania is a great case. We got Freeman for the 3rd then a 3 for 1 deal which was fine. But a 59 year old judge that threw out the Botham Jean case should mean Biden gets to pick all 7 district court nominees.

        With the exception of Ramirez being a Latina (Which is great), everything else about this nomination is terrible. Even if this pick was in the pre blue slips this would be bad, let alone now. 5 out of 6 Trump judges & even one GW Bush judge on the court is younger than she is & she’s not even progressive.

        Absent some really good district court nominees to justify this pick, she will be Biden’s worst circuit court nominee IMO. I sure as Hell hope the senate doesn’t have to waste cloture time to confirm her. Cornyn & Cruz should carry her to the senate floor for a voice vote.

        Like

  24. Rick's avatar

    Wasn’t Dutbin able to work with the Trump WH on a couple of 7th Circuit nominees last admin….Perhaps this is that rare case when 2 red state senators will sign off on a nominee, albeit one that isn’t that great anyway..

    Like

  26. aangren's avatar

    Frank you are a right wing troll who wants to bring back blue slips your not worth engaging in because your a troll.
    Now on to the substance.
    So not only did biden allow Ted cruz and John coryn who are right wing charlatans to pick his appellate judge, he picked an anti black racist who sees nothing wrong with drunken cops walking into black people by apartments and summarily executing them and also is apparently also very harsh on crime and petty offenses.
    If I was a Democrat I would vote against this pick. This could have been a george Bush or Donald trump pick. This is way worse than michelle childs you is still a solid liberal.
    This woman is a borderline right wingers and anti black.. I would confirm delaney before her. She is terrible.
    This is spitting in the face of black people while claiming you care about racial justice.
    Another screw you to black people by biden and the white house counsel. A disgusting cretin like Ted cruz should have no single say in who a Democrat appoints but in this cruz and coryn won and got biden to appoint a tough on crime anti black racist who thinks nothing is wrong walking into a black guys apartment by mistake and killing the man.

    Like

    • Joe's avatar

      After sleeping on it, I think I would give de Alba an A- or B+. Good experience, some progressive background (though not as much as I’d like in an ideal world) and young. As a 44 year old Latina judge, she may even be in position for elevation at some point if additional scotus vacancies open up. But I’m getting ahead of myself.

      With Ramirez, she has a lot of experience but little progressive background. I am not sure if she will be a consistent liberal vote on the 5th. The fact that Cruz/Cornyn returned blue slips for her (twice) is a red flag. But hopefully the WH has vetted her well. One underrated quality is that the 5th needs judges who can be consensus builders and play nice with the conservative judges. If Ramirez can do that, it would be a boon to that court. Age is also a negative, but as long as she can be relied upon to retire under a dem president/senate then it isn’t as big of a deal. Overall I give this pick a C due to lack of progressive background and concerns over how reliably she’ll rule.

      Like

    • Dequan's avatar

      @Jill

      I do not believe that is correct. During senator Cornyn’s comments in the SJC hearing when he was talking about the timeline he & Cruz recommended the nominees to Biden, he talked about the process under Trump. He said the same committee you’re talking about now recommended the nominees for Trump & Trump picked everyone of them recommended & all of them were confirmed. So unless Cornyn was lying (Which I’m not saying is impossible) then your incorrect.

      Like

      • Jill's avatar

        I was born & raised in Texas and once the Republicans turned Texas from Blue to Red in the early 90’s for state wide elections, I know too well how the political game is played here. When a red state has the backing of a Republican President & a Republican Senate majority….FED-SOC is in complete control of nominations.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Mitch's avatar

        @Dequan & Jill

        IMHO, the Texas District Court nominations will be the result of months of offers, counter-offers, and negotiations. Few to none of them will be exciting to progressives, but all will be acceptable to one degree or another.

        Just my prediction based on observation.

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        You’re probably right Mitch. That’s why I think the circuit court pick mine as well been better. At the very least one of the Latina state court judges we have been throwing around. That way no need to backfill a district court seat, they would have been younger & more progressive.

        What a missed opportunity to move the 5th in the right direction. In BOTH cases Louisiana & Texas have vacancies in the district courts yet we get centrist picks without a package deal at the same time to fill all of the seats. We should have 9 more pending district court nominees in addition to Darrel J. Papillion. That would have been enough to fill two full SJC hearings.

        Like

  30. Gavi's avatar

    @Dequan
    You are really too patient haha. When I grow up I wanna be just like you.

    But yeah, as you originally said, Cornyn was telling the truth about judicial commissions in Texas. One need only look at the SJC questionnaire for any of the district court nominees from that state over the years to confirm this. Kacsmaryk was a product of that commission.

    Also, both things can be true. Just because Texas always has a judicial nomination commission, doesn’t mean that the senators don’t lean on their FedSoc background/contacts to verify the conservative bone fides of the nominees.

    See the last page:

    Click to access Kacsmaryk%20SJQ.pdf

    Like

  31. Joe's avatar

    I’ll be very interested to see what the WH does. With 8 vacancies there is a tremendous opportunity to start the process of balancing the courts in that state. If Ramirez is how that gets done then it’ll improve my opinion of the pick a good deal. But for now I am skeptical.

    Like

    • Dequan's avatar

      I’m very skeptical as well. If we get seven Dale Ho’s then I’ll up my grade for Ramirez to a D+. If we get a Pennsylvania 3 for 1 type deal where the conservative pick isn’t too bad AND they fast track her & most or all of the district court nominees then I’ll give her a D+. If any of the district court nominees is a Chad Meredith type or if she requires the normal two votes & floor time then she’s a flat out F.

      Like

  34. Mike's avatar

    Oh wow, 59 year old Irma Carrillo Ramirez to the 5th Circuit is definitely a head scratcher, it does look so dumb that there’s got to be more behind it than what we see.

    In her defense, I doubt she’s as conservatives as people here think since she had both state senators support under Obama and now under Biden but Trump never nominated her so at worst, she’s not some FedSoc drone.

    Would she qualify for senior status in 6 years? I assume she must’ve assured folks she intends to serve longer than Bidens Presidency if he’s re-elected.

    Like

  35. Mike's avatar

    Ok.

    So even though she’s not young, she can’t get senior status for at least 10 years that’s something.

    Plus, she wasn’t conservative enough for Trump and FedSoc to recommend her for any of the 18 District or 6 Circuit Texas vacancies Republicains confirmed.

    If this nomination was to grease the wheels for 3-4 District setas in Texas then not too bad. If it was just because Biden wants to pretend the bipartisanship of the 80s and 90s is still around then it’s still super dumb.

    I guess we’ll see.

    Like

    • Gavi's avatar

      Right, Magistrate and bankruptcy judges have their own retirement system. I don’t think it transfer over when one turns into an Article III judge.

      @Dequan
      Not sure if you saw my comment from earlier today confirming that the Texas judicial nomination commission is always in place.

      Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        Oh yea. Funny @Gavi… Haaaaaa

        I try to be patient in life in general. My patience is running thin with this new White House Counsel’s office but I’ll try to remain patient so I don’t let you down. All bets are off if we don’t get another batch in the next two weeks… Lol

        Like

  37. aangren's avatar

    I hate when folks on this forum wish cast and don’t want to deal with reality and want to absolve biden of his incompetence.There is no ”deal” to fill all the district court vacancies in texas, biden got played by ted cruz and cornyn who made him pick a nearly 60 year old right of center milquetoast nominee that george bush could have nominated to the circuit court. Biden was too much of a coward to nominate a strong liberal to the 5th circuit and disregard the senators feelings, like trump did to democrats severally. When republicans are putting blatant hacks like ho and bigot kyle duncan on appellate courts biden should be returning the favor by nominating strong progressives, instead he lets ted cruz dictate and demand to him who to select.
    The fact that a disingenuous hack like ted cruz is supporting the nomination should tell you this isn’t someone that is going to be fair and impartial, she is clearly right of center and will rule that way.I would vote against this nominee if i was a democrat, i rather have ninth circuit trump judge mark bennet than ramirez, who you can argue is way less bias. Just a terrible pick.
    Why didn’t biden treat Ted cruz and John cornyn the exact same way trump treated his vice president and dianne feinstein? Why did he give them veto over his 5th circuit judicial nominee?
    Remember trump nominated right wing hack Kenneth Lee to the california seat on the ninth circuit and Harris and feinstein where strongly against it. You know what trump did? He nominated Lee anyway and shoved it down their throats despite their strong objections. Why is biden so much of a coward to simply treat the republicans with the same contempt and same standard they treated his vice president and feinstein? Because the man is a coward. He rather nominate a Conservative judge than piss of Ted cruz who voted to throw out votes of states he won.
    That’s why this is so infuriating . He rather appease evil men than use his power to make the bench more fair and equal

    Like

    • Frank's avatar

      Gregg Costa was supported by Cruz and Cornyn. Is he a conservative as well? Also, I think it’s funny since you claim to be a progressive that you’d rather have a FedSoc member and Republican with Bennett than a non-FedSoc member and experienced Latina who has devoted years of public service to her country. Some progressive you are.

      Like

      • Gavi's avatar

        @Frank
        That’s not a fair point, Frank. Gregg Costa NEEDED Cruz/Cornyn support to get on the bench back then. A 5th circuit nominee doesn’t need their support now, as you know. While Obama’s hand was tied back then, Biden’s is not.
        I highly doubt that Ramirez is some great compromise pick for a package deal. She’s a terrible pick. By overwhelming consensus. You don’t have to agree with this and are free to praise it, but don’t disregard the opposition to her. Aagren has a right to feel betrayed.

        Like

      • Jill's avatar

        Frank allow them to have their moment of feeling betrayed by Biden on this 5th Circuit nomination since they didn’t get the young progressive Latina they wanted, but those of us with ties to Texas know too well that every nominee has to get Cornyn & Cruz’s support first. The WH wanted a Latina. So Judge Ramirez was obviously who Cornyn & Cruz’s Bi-Partisan Judicial Selection Committee recommended. So end of story, and I would hope that a well-qualified dedicated public servant as Judge Ramirez will get confirmed swiftly!

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        @Jill

        Why would a 5th circuit nominee need to get Cornyn & Cruz’s support first? They do for district court nominees but why for the circuit court? Biden has already had several circuit court nominees from other states confirmed without blue slips & Trump had many too.

        Like

      • Thomas's avatar

        I think the reason for nominating Ramirez is to get the district vacancies in Texas filled with support of the home state senators, too, otherwise the idea of nominating the youngest and most progressive Latina is charming, but not realistic, blue slip in progress or not.
        As we see now and in the past single district court judges like Matthew Kascmarcyk have tremendous influence, so filling them and preventing to keep them open to the next Republican President is imminent and not less important than getting someone to the Fifth Circuit, though I also hate the idea, that the court will even move further to the right, but in the end there’s just one of seventeen seats, and the composition of the panels won’t change much.
        The fear, that Cruz or Cornyn may try to obstruct is real, but if there are no blue slips for the (hopefully) coming district nominations, there is also no hurry to confirm her ASAP, there are many other ones waiting.
        At least there was some movement at the district attorney positions in Texas, otherwise than in Arkansas, Alabama, Missouri and Oklahoma, just naming those, who have more than one district.
        And in the end, if you want all, you might get nothing.

        Like

  38. aangren's avatar

    Leave it to the charlatan and breitbart troll frank who wants to bring back blue slips so GOP senators can obstruct biden nominees. Gavi save your breath he is a notorious troll. ignore him let the imbecile rant.

    Anyone that’s not a bad faith troll realizes picking a nearly 60 year old right of center milquetoast nominee to an appellate court consisting of hacks like ho and Duncan isn’t serious about balancing the courts at all.

    Ramirez is the worst appellate judicial nominee and I would argue biden worst overall nominee..she should not be confirmed at all.

    Like

  39. Rick's avatar

    Sen Klobuchar was on ABC with Jonathan Karl and he asked about replacing Feinstein on the SJC…She mentioned Bob Dole was replaced on the committee when he ran for president so there is precedent

    Of course, the senate in 1996 is basically the stone ages compared to today….Back then, most , if not all, district court nominees were voted unanimous consent or voice vote, and even if nominees were dragged out, they still received a vote…..

    Like

    • Gavi's avatar

      Of course there’s precedent. This happens often enough to not be an issue.
      Here’s the granted UC request to take Dole off of committees and add his replacement, Sheila Frahm, to them:

      https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/senate-resolution/267/text?s=4&r=4&q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22party%27s%22%2C%22membership%22%5D%7D

      In the pitch heat of the 1996 presidential election race and the GOP’s absolute hatred of the Clintons and determination to defeat them, not one Dem objected to this request. And now they want to play with fire? Grassley is not going to live/serve forever.

      Like

      • Gavi's avatar

        @Dequan
        Sorry, I didn’t see that comment. But that’s not true. We went over this earlier this year.

        Feinstein can vote by proxy to block something, vote by proxy to move on something, but not vote by proxy where her vote is the deciding vote for something.

        It’s easier to just read it for yourself. There are three relevant links that I’d like to share, but as you know, there’s a one link limit on WordPress so I’ll just copy and paste the text here. If you want me to send the links separately, I’ll do so:

        US Senate Rule XXVI:
        Paragraph 7 (a)(1):
        “…except that no measure or matter or recommendation shall be reported from any committee unless a majority of the committee were physically present.”
        (3) “The vote of any committee to report a measure or matter shall require the concurrence of a majority of the members of the committee who are present.”

        SJC Rule III. Quorums, paragraph 1:
        “No bill, matter, or nomination shall be ordered reported from the Committee, however, unless a majority of the Committee is actually present at the time such action is taken and a majority of those present support the action taken.”

        This is the standard for the senate for all congresses when membership is not equally split 50-50.

        Now let’s look at a third, the power-sharing deal for the 117th congress:

        S.Res.27 — 117th Congress (2021-2022):
        Nothing!
        Because that power-sharing resolution did not change the rules cited above. It just made it easier for the senate to take up tied votes.

        I hope we can put this to rest now. Anyone who cares about the rules should save this for future reference hahaha.

        Like

  41. Hank's avatar

    Not loving Ramirez (and Jill’s claim that Texas is somehow special when it comes to judicial nominations is BS), but every administration will nominate some less than ideal appellate nominees in states where the other party dominates. Biden nominating Ramirez is comparable to Trump nominating Bennett (who was 65 at the time) for Hawaii’s Ninth Circuit seat. Obama similarly nominated Hurwitz, who was 65 at the time, for the Arizona Ninth Circuit seat back when both of Arizona’s senators were Republicans – and now he’s been replaced by the much younger and (hopefully) more progressive Desai. The Fifth Circuit seat is also less important than the other circuit vacancies because the court is so dominated by conservatives, so Ramirez does not seem as bad a nominee as Childs was for CADC.

    My issue is more that the WH even bothered wasting time negotiating with the likes of Cruz – I would not be surprised at all if Cruz pulls a Ron Johnson and retracts his blue slip for Ramirez or still refuses to OK any district court nominees. Getting district court nominees would make Ramirez more OK, but the truth is that filling the Texas district court nominees is less worthwhile than filling vacancies because the Fifth Circuit will just reverse any good rulings a Dem appointed judge nominates. A more competent WHC would’ve done as Harsh suggested on Twitter and moved (or at least credibly threatened to move) this CA5 seat to Mississippi and nominate Colom just to spite the TX senators – if Texas wants to keep electing trash like Cruz, then it should suffer the consequences.

    Like

    • Hank's avatar

      Also, I would’ve thought Sunshine Sykes would be the nominee the Watford vacancy given the administration’s focus on demographic diversity – there’s still has never been a Native American appellate judge, and breaking that barrier probably would’ve gotten Murkowski’s vote since Native voters are a key part of her base up in Alaska (Murkowski voted yes on the clearly progressive Deb Haaland because of similar pressures).

      But maybe Padilla was pushing for de Alba – perhaps because of all the California CA9 judges, only Callahan currently sits in E.D. Cal. (Sacramento). I don’t think Almadani or Martinez-Olguin were likely – this new WH Counsel probably thought they were both too liberal/difficult to get confirmed (Martinez-Olguin required Harris to break a tie, and I wouldn’t be surprised by the same on Almadani). I’m glad they moved pretty quick on this unexpected vacancy though, and I’ll be interested to see de Alba’s SJQ when it comes out.

      Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        Martinez-Olguin only required a tie breaking vote because three Democrats were out the day her vote was scheduled. The administration probably figures they will get another crack at the 9th with the number of judges eligible for senior status.

        So Sykes still has a chance. I think Padilla is close personally with de Alba similar to Corey Booker is to Julian Neals (Which is one of the reasons I think he could be the 3rd pick even with his 1965 year of birth).

        I agree with everything you said in the Ramirez point except for moving CA5 seat to Mississippi. I don’t think the solution is moving a seat from one red state to another. I think the solution is threatening to nominate Rochelle Garza to the 5th seat & work your way slightly to the right to fill all the district court seats & ditching blue slips for certain senators, Hyde/Smith included.

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        Except when Donald Trump is president & nominating circuit court judges in blue states. Then apparently elections don’t have consequences because he put judges in their 30’s & 40’s, hard right conservatives on the 2nd, 3rd, 7th & 9th over the objections of Democrat senators without batting an eye.

        But yes apparently when Joe Biden is president elections have consequences & we get a 59 year old centrist at best for a state ripe with young progressives even if you just narrow it down to Latinas. There hasn’t been a young progressive put on the 5th from Texas since before the Olympics was held in Atlanta. Now the court will move farther to the right under Biden because elections have consequences only for Democrat presidents.

        I’ve been advocating for Biden to ignore working with some Republican senators to fill circuit court vacancies, Durbin to ditch blue slips for district court seats & Schumer to keep the senate in for 4 day work weeks & cancel 1 of the 5 weeks of the August recess. Maybe all along I should have just been advocating for the Democrats to just follow the same rules Republicans did under Trump…smh

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        I hope you’re right but some of Ramirez past rulings give me concerns. I’m not too sure Ramirez will be to the left of Costs plus we lose 7 years of age even if they are similar. I’m happy the 5th finally gets Hispanic representation, I just wish it was another judge with a more progressive background.

        Like

  42. Hank's avatar

    To exactly nobody’s surprise, it looks like the GOP will not agree to replacing Feinstein on the SJC and Schumer has no intention of overriding the 60-vote requirement (I would guess because Manchin/Sinema won’t vote for it): https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2023/04/17/no-gop-favors-for-feinstein-00092278?cid=hptb_primary_0.

    With so many nominees on the floor and the WH’s snail-like pace of nominations, this isn’t likely to immediately slow down confirmations – in fact, it may force Schumer to finally schedule votes on Abudu/Bloomekatz/Rikelman/etc (Dems still have a 50-49 majority).

    The calls for Feinstein’s resignation have also made it less likely IMO that she will actually do it, so I’m not sure where things go from here. If Feinstein resigns from either the SJC or the Senate overall, does it still require 60 votes or UC to get her replacement on the SJC?

    If so, we might be looking at a 10-10 split on that committee for the rest of this Congress despite a Dem majority in the actual Senate – I know Schumer is limited by Manchin/Sinema, but you would think being unable to seat an actual majority on a committee is a red line. If Schumer frames this as McConnell obstructing/undermining the institution of the Senate, maybe he could get at least Manchin (who famously does not get along with McConnell) to support an override? Wouldn’t hold my breath though.

    It would be absurd if future nominations by a Democratic president getting out of committee in a Democratic senate will turn on Graham going forward – all because of Feinstein’s ego.

    Like

    • Gavi's avatar

      @Hank

      To answer your question, whether Feinstein steps down or resign outright the process is absolutely the same. Either action would still require a UC or 60 votes to approve the new make up of any committee. I noted this yesterday when I showed that the senate still needed to vote on Bob Dole’s replacement after he resigned from the senate in 1996. This is not Feinstein’s fault. This is the Republicans’ radicalism.
      Maybe Republicans would be more inclined to approve a UC for new committee membership if Feinstein resigns. But I wouldn’t hold my breath. Anyone who believes in the better angels of Republicans does so at their own extreme peril.

      —

      In other news, New York Senate Judiciary Committee will hold back-to-back hearings for the nominations of chief judge and associate judge of the Court of Appeals today (CJ) and tomorrow (AJ). The action starts today at noon:

      https://www.nysenate.gov/calendar/meetings/judiciary/april-17-2023/judiciary-meeting

      Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        @Hank

        This possible Republican obstruction on Feinstein’s replacement really pisses me off. Even if I didn’t already agree with ditching blue slips, between this possible response along with Tubberville’s blanket hold on military promotions would be enough for me to ditch them just as a punishment for unprecedented obstruction.

        @Jill

        Your end prediction may be right but I don’t necessarily believe for the reasons you stated. Cruz reniging on the district court deal doesn’t hurt him In his race next year all that much. I just don’t think he ultimately is likely to do that more so because the nominees agreed upon are acceptable to him & well worth a 59 year old centrist for the 5th. I still disagree with nominating Ramirez without simultaneously the district court nominee because I hate Cruz having any more power then he already has.

        @Gavi

        That’s great news. The NY senate should move swiftly before Hochul realizes she made two good picks & decided to rescind them after finding out Rudy Giuliani & The My Pillow Guy have expressed interest in sitting in the bench… Sorry, I couldn’t resist. I have to have at least one Hochul dig per week to satisfy myself. Please forgive me… Haaaaaa

        Like

      • Gavi's avatar

        I cannot forgive you because you should be harder haha.

        Broadly speaking, I find that sycophancy is self-defeating because it encourages complacency. For example, if all Biden hears from his base is how much of a great job he’s doing on judges, he might feel like he can take his foot off the gas. If all he hears from his supporters is that they love the quality of his appointees, he might be OK with nominating people like Chad Meredich.

        Like

  43. Joe's avatar

    I agree Hank, it is absurd. The senate rules package with a 11-10 SJC split was passed unanimously back in January. This amendment is really just a common courtesy to a colleague who has a serious health concern.

    Maybe it’ll get 60 votes and the point will be moot, but this along with the holds on large numbers of military promotions really grinds my gears.

    Like

  44. Joe's avatar

    I will add that I do think Schumer should bring this up for a floor vote. As annoying as it is, it is worth the second half of this week and the first half of next week to get this done and prove a point to the GOP that stall tactics will not be rewarded. Since I suspect that Feinstein will not come back to SJC anyway, this could be critical to moving nominees for the rest of the term.

    Like

  46. aangren's avatar

    So republicans won’t even allow Democrats to replace an ill member on a committee now? So even if feinstein was to resign and rep Lee take her seat she wouldn’t even be able to get a seat on the committee as a replacement. This is a very dangerous precedent.. this isn’t governance.

    This are the scumbags biden is bending over and backwards with, he is giving them veto power over who he chooses as circuit judges and they can’t even return a modicum of respect by simply allowing Democrats replace their own members..

    Biden is a coward . Ted cruz and John cornyn forced him to pick a nearly 60 year old right of center milquetoast nominee and he was too much of a coward to ignore their opposition and wishes, like his predecessor did to his own vice president [kenneth lee] and nominate a strong Liberal to the 5th circuit. Ramirez is the worst nominee biden has nominated thus far and if I was a democrat i would vote against her nomination. You can’t fight evil with two hands tied behind your back..you can’t use swords when the opponent is using guns.
    Fight fire with fire. If you would have told me before biden got sworn in that Ted cruz and Roger Marshall two charlatans, would have any influence /power over which judges biden would choose I would have called you insane.. yet here we are..

    I yearn for the day when a democratic president will treat the GOP opposition like the dishonest bad faith hacks they are, not this way of appeasing and pandering and try to find a middle ground with people who aren’t interested in anything like that

    Like

  47. Mike's avatar

    Honestly, it’s the Senate Dems leadership fault for keeping Feinstein on the Judicial Committee after they miraculously kept control last election. It’s not like she wasn’t showing signs of her age last year.

    Should’ve parked her on some harmless or widely bipartisan committee instead. Something that doesn’t need to vote on 100s of nominees. It is annoying that Dems don’t plan strategically nearly as often as Republicans.

    Like

  49. Joe's avatar

    I agree. Especially given that she had already declined the opportunity for SJC chair in 2021 and then Pro Tem in 2023. Maybe she viewed completely leaving SJC as a bridge too far, but clearly that has backfired.

    Like

  50. Zack's avatar

    https://www.daines.senate.gov/2022/12/09/daines-statement-on-bidens-ninth-circuit-judicial-nominee-anthony-johnstone/
    On the 5th Circuit, I go back to what I said before on this.
    Despite one person that keeps insisting he’s a coward, Biden hasn’t withdrawn Anthony Johnstone’s nomination despite Sen.Daines calling him a liberal activist judge.
    I honestly believe it’s because they couldn’t find someone the same as Costa or younger willing to put up with the garbage on there for the next 30-40 years.
    I’m not happy with this nominee either but it sadly appears she will be the nominee.
    As for some progressives complaining about this..have to be blunt.
    If folks on team blue had shown this level of concern about the courts in past years, Trump nor W for that matter wouldn’t have been president.
    Laughable to see them lecturing or complaining about Biden now.

    Like

    • Gavi's avatar

      @ZACK
      “they couldn’t find someone the same as Costa or younger willing to put up with the garbage on there for the next 30-40 years.”

      You never miss a chance to repeat this ridiculous take, and without any evidence. A smoking gun only obvious to you.
      The reality is Biden is nominating an old woman not because the WH couldn’t find another acceptable candidate in that massive state. Biden nominated her because he’s still treating blue slip as de facto in operation for circuit court judgeships. And the fact that Biden nominated a few others without home state blue slips doesn’t change that.

      Also, I am sure the WH thinks that by going with such an undesirable candidate, the Texas senator will return blue slips for district court nominees, which is to be seen.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        One judge may not alter the makeup of that court but it’s a start. The 4th circuit was the most conservative circuit in the nation at one point. After Biden finally fills the Maryland vacancy (I’m still mad we don’t have a nominee there), it will be majority Democrat appointees. When I first got involved with caring about the judiciary, the entire Florida Supreme Court was Democrat appointees. 23 years later it’s entirely Republican appointees.

        We have to stop looking at it as one judge won’t matter. What if one of the Republican appointees on the 5th has a life altering event next week & decides to retire. Then what if another hits the lotto the week after & decides they want to retire. Then what if another dies (God forbid) the next week. That one judge in Ramirez could turn into one out of five in Biden’s first term. Imagine how much different the 5th could look at the end of Biden’s first term if we have 5 Dale Ho’s on it.

        Things can happen. Things do happen. But change doesn’t happen if you believe no one vacancy matters & fill them with old centrist.

        Like

      • shawnee68's avatar

        I don’t understand what you are saying. You make it sound like Biden selected a James Ho clone. That’s clearly not the case.

        Yes, the 4th Circuit was conservative but Obama had several nominees to that court.

        When was the last time you had a Democrat as Governor of Florida? That’s the issue: not winning elections.

        It was made clear from the beginning that age would be a consideration but not all of the time.

        You wanted a Latina candidate and now you have one. You’re a hard person to please.

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        No not a hard person to please at all. All I wanted was a Latina at least the same age (But preferably younger) than the judge they are replacing that has the slightest progressive background if all I was asking for. That’s three things. Ramirez had one of the three. Hell even if she had two of the three I wouldn’t be complaining… Lol

        And let me help you understand what I’m saying. Responding to your comment this is just one seat on a dominated conservative court so it doesn’t matter that much (I’m paraphrasing what you said), I’m showing you instances in the last that shoe one seat can lead to two, then eventually five. Your reply about when was the last time Florida elected a Democrat governor is exactly my point. When I first moved to Florida in 2000 the Florida Supreme Court had all Democrat appointees. Now they have all Republican appointees. Imagine if they filled them all with 60 year old centrist. Florida Republicans would be kissed they keep winning elections but nothing changes. That’s how I don’t want to feel about the 5th circuit.

        Like

    • Hank's avatar

      @Zack I agree with you on most things, but I highly doubt that nobody younger/as qualified/more progressive in the entire state of Texas who wanted the Fifth Circuit seat – it is still a federal appellate judgeship with all the prestige, benefits, etc. that come with it, and I’m sure the district judges at least put their name in. It’s just obvious that the administration decided to work with Cruz/Cornyn on a consensus nominee for reasons that are still unclear – maybe they do have a deal on the district court judges, maybe Ramirez had stronger support than the other potential nominees among Texas Dems, who knows.

      The difference between this and the Johnstone nomination is that Johnstone has a Dem senator’s backing – Jon Tester, Montana’s other senator. The better comparison with Ramirez is Andre Mathis, who the administration supported over the objections of TN’s right-wing senators because Steve Cohen (the Dem representative for Memphis) backed him. I think a more likely theory is that the WH will pick a nominee for a red/purple state vacancy if there’s a Dem senator/representative lobbying hard for them (though I admit this wouldn’t explain the Wamble situation), and otherwise this WH’s instinct is to work with the Republicans. It’s 100% fair for folks to be frustrated at them for bothering to work with Republicans, but unsurprisingly this is what we get when we elect old-school moderate Joe Biden.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Gavi's avatar

        @Hank
        “unsurprisingly this is what we get when we elect old-school moderate Joe Biden.”

        100%. As a moderate myself, I totally agree. I like to say that I am a moderate, not a pushover. But this is heresy to Biden’s sycophants who thinks he’s the second coming of Jesus.

        Also, Wamble had a high-profile backer, Rep. Cleaver from just over the border. But I take your point. Also, I’d say that the Wamble situation is indeed another example of Biden bowing to Rs, even though one of those senators actually supported Wamble for CA10.

        Like

Leave a reply to Ryan Joshi Cancel reply