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.
The Vetting Room 
I agree, Hank. Texas is a gigantic state and every single District/Magistrate judge or Assistant US Attorney would leap at the opportunity to be a Circuit Judge.
I think the issue is just that Ramirez was recommended by both senators and the Administration liked her, so they nominated her without paying too much attention to age or progressive professional background. The Biden administration is likely hoping that this will lead to a slew of district nominees with blue slips. Now we can argue over whether that is fair or not (personally I do not agree with it) but that was likely the thinking.
LikeLike
They chose her because of her qualifications & dedicated public service but it could have easily gone to Mormolejo as well. She & Mormolejo were probably top 2 Latinas who the Texas Bi-partisan committee recommended. I think Ramirez had the edge because there is no backseat to fill, and she didn’t get confirmed to the DC Bench under Obama, because the clock simply ran out. The only thing now is to wait & see if a deal was struck to get any of the DC bench vacancies filled & by whom.
LikeLike
No Gavi, not all of us consider Biden to be the second coming, we just think posts calling him a coward again and again because he’s not Bernie or someone else progressives wanted is redundant.
On a different note, Republicans have made clear they aren’t going to grant Feinstein’s request so this is going to get messy.
And even if she resigned, the new member would have to get 60 votes regardless.
Going to be a mess and one Democrats should have avoided by putting her on a different committee.
LikeLike
Marmolejo was my original prediction. I would have given that pick a B most likely, though having the backfill would be a drawback. If Ramirez can get a big package of district nominees through (at least 4) then that would be a huge point in her favor.
Just looking at the four Texas districts, if Biden were able to fill every current/pending vacancy we would be looking at the following splits:
SDTX: 10D – 9R
EDTX: 5R – 3D
NDTX: 10R – 2D
WDTX: 7D – 6R
Obviously the 5th could still overturn any ruling they want to, but filling all 8 of those vacancies would go a long way to balancing out the courts in such a huge state.
LikeLike
Unfortunately every one of those R’s are actual Republicans. Not all of those D’s are actual Democrats nor is it likely all 8 of Biden’s district court judges will be either. They should be, that should have been the trade off for a bad circuit court nominee but now that Ramirez was announced before the district court nominees, I highly doubt that will be the case.
But Even if that was the deal, I highly doubt Cruz would have any incentive to keep his end of the bargain. If anything Biden should have announced the district court nominees first then once the blue slips were returned announce Ramirez.
LikeLike
I agree with you. Unfortunately, I think the best we can hope for is a 3/1 PA type of deal or maybe a handful of Brookman/Lochner types. Which is another reason why I’m leaning more and more towards just abolishing the blue slips altogether.
LikeLike
They could still condition giving Ramirez a hearing base upon the senators turning in their blue slips for district court nominees. I doubt that will be considered, but it is an option.
LikeLike
@Frank
That is something I thought of as well but there are two words as to why I don’t think that will happen. Those two words are Kathy Hochul. I know your probably saying what does New York governor Kathy Hochul have to do with the vacancy on the 5th circuit but hear me out.
As we all know Kathy Hohucl nominated Hector LaSalle for the NY Court of Appeals. NY senate Democrats voted the Hispanic judge down (Thankfully so). The subsequent list of recommendations did not include any Hispanics, so we got two judges picked by Hochul, neither of whom were Hispanic.
Now fast forward a couple months to the 5th seat. I have heard from some that senate Democrats should tank this nomination. I don’t see that happening for a number of reasons, one being I don’t see Democrats wanting to be responsible for tanking two Hispanic nominees to the highest court in NY as well as the second highest level of courts on the federal judiciary in as many months.
Ramirez is a bad nominee, I give her a F outright & depending on the package we see for the 8 district court vacancies I at best could up her grade to a D+ if we got 8 Dale Ho’s (Which we all know we won’t). But as bad of a nominee Ramirez is, I don’t think if I was in the senate, I would even vote against her with the backdrop of the LaSalle nomination. At the end of the day, I blame Kathy Hochul & Biden/ The White House Counsel’s Office for us being in this position. This nomination shouldn’t have happened but now that is has, Democrats risk losing more by tanking her nomination at this point in my opinion.
LikeLike
“Not all of those D’s are actual Democrats”
I disagree on that, because I’m pretty sure that all of them voted for Biden in 2020 & Beto in 2022.
LikeLike
@Jill
Actually you’re wrong. I can think of at least two conservative Obama appointees from Texas.
Amos Mazzant was mentioned in this very blog as being a possible candidate for elevation by Trump. He is very conservative & has ruled against Obama himself.
(https://vettingroom.org/2020/08/19/thirteen-federal-judges-president-trump-may-elevate-to-the-court-of-appeals-in-his-second-term/)
George C. Hanks Jr. was considered for elevation under GW Bush. He is also conservative.
LikeLike
There is no way George Bush was gonna appoint a Black man to the 5th Circuit in Texas who wasn’t a staunch member of the Fed-Soc. So if Hanks was considered back then as you say, it must’ve been on his qualifications alone & reputation as a brilliant legal scholar. Any nominee such as Sotomayor, Hanks, most recently Ramirez, and so many others I truly admire for garnering bi-partisan support & being confirmed UNANIMOUSLY, because they aren’t & will never be activists judges.
LikeLike
Sotomayor was elevated by both a Republican & Democrat Presidents. Does that make her a conservative is my point? Many judges are appointed solely on their qualifications. Heck you had a lot of Judges appointed by Republican Presidents who voted for Biden.
LikeLike
@Jill
Correct. But that is not the case in the two examples I gave you. One is very conservative, worked with Ted Cruz & was considered for elevation by Trump. The other was considered by GW Bush for the 5th before Obama put him on the district court.
Sotomayor was part of a package deal that allowed the Democrat senator of New York to recommend her. Then she was elevated by a Democrat president to the 2nd then another Democrat president to the SCOTUS. That’s similar to what happened with judge Bennett but that is to my point, Obama nominated him as part of a package deal even though GW Bush considered him for the 5th. Those two judges are not Democrats unless they had some life altering conversion since being on the bench that I am unaware of.
LikeLike
I think the point is… because Texas has Republican senators, Democratic presidents have to settle for package deals. GOP presidents can fill the seat with whatever Federalist Society hack they want.
LikeLike
That was exactly my point @ Ryan Joshi. The fact that Obama nominated a Texas district court judge doesn’t mean they are Democrats. Especially when we have actual evidence that shows they are not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree, I don’t see anyone voting down Ramirez. Nor should they honestly for the reasons you mentioned.
LikeLike
I like that the Republicans who have already come out against replacing Feinstein aren’t trying to hide their reason. They are not saying it would be unprecedented, or against regular order or any process or rule. They are blatantly saying that they will object to the majority party deciding who they want on committees because they want to prevent the senate from eventually being able to confirm Biden’s judges. No pretense of principle. Just raw power. Bravo. Your move, senate Dems.
Since it’s now obvious that Rs won’t grant a UC to add a new Dem to SJC, maybe Dems will have to negotiate. I could see Rs asking for another slot on the committee, maybe to give to Eric Schmitt (R-MO). This of course would mean that SJC’s membership would get even more bloated since Dems would also get another seat on it. This is without commenting on the fact that Rs are holding the senate hostage or whether it’s wise for Dems to bargain with them.
In other news, Rowan Wilson is well on his way to the chief judgeship of New York.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I love it. I actually hope Republicans fight the replacement to the death. I want them to do the unprecedented move of blocking the majority party from appointing their own members. I also hope they continue to work in bad faith on blue slips.
I hope they do it now in 2023 because that will give Democrats the option to retaliate in kind in the next year & a half or continue to act as if this is our grandfathers Republican Party.
Oh can all the people who say Republicans will not ditch blue slips for district court seats once back in power please check in. I just want to hear your reassurance again about how Republicans will play nice once back in power. It will help me sleep better tonight knowing I can trust Mitch McConnell, Ted Cruz, Tommy Tubberville, Tom Cotton & the rest of the senate Republicans so no need to act while Democrats have power.
But hey I guess there’s nothing to worry about since “There’s plenty of time”. Thanks in advance
LikeLike
ATTN: Frank
LikeLike
Paging Frank… Haaaaa
Oh & it’s good to see senator Collins is “concerned” again. Last time she felt that way we got a justice on the SCOTUS that promised to uphold Roe. How did that work out again? Oh it’s ok, we got so much time I guess I can look it up… Lol
LikeLike
Yes, there’s like 19 month’s.
LikeLike
Haaaaaa
Thank you @shawnee68. Seeing the senate come back after 2 weeks off today only to have one cloture vote gave me pause. Then seeing Republicans unprecedented obstruction to replacing Feinstein on the SJC gave me more pause. Then seeing senator Tubberville put holds on otherwise non-controversial military promotions which could lead to hundreds of them needed actually floor time to confirm versus the usually en bloc voice votes gave me more pause.
Then I thought about the slowed down pace of even getting nominees in the first place from this new White House Counsel’s office that gave me a little more pause. And of course, blue slips allowing any home state Republican from allowing the nominee to advance even if they were announced gave me more pause on top of everything else.
But hearing you tell me we have 19 months left makes me feel much better. I am sure the 3-day work week, 5-week August vacation, numerous Mondays already scheduled off & presidential election next year won’t cut into that 19 month. Nor should red state Democrats voting no on some nominees to show independence meaning all other Democrats will have to be present for more votes over the next two years (Something that hasn’t happened since last August).
I will sleep good tonight with the comfort of knowing we have 19 months left which is plenty of time.
LikeLike
The nominees can wait so I think you can do the same. There’s a lot going besides the judiciary. Just saying….
LikeLike
The funny part is I didn’t even add other non-judiciary business to my list. I would think that makes my case even stronger that there isn’t all this time some claim there is.
The Iraq repeal vote took a week. I’m sure the debt ceiling will take up at least that much time. That’s just TWO non-judiciary items that will take up at least two weeks of that 19 months. But hey, I guess we have plenty of time.
LikeLike
I absolutely would not negotiate and if Manchin/Sinema will not agree to amending rules then Unfortunately it looks like a backlog will just build up until she gets back.
On the bright side at least the full senate will be forced to vote on the 5 circuit and 13 district nominees currently awaiting votes.
LikeLike
Wow. From Cruz to Collins. The full spectrum of the Republican caucus.
Now, the senate is at the mercy of Manchin/Sinema. If they are against using the nuclear option for this, no more Biden judges. Unless pre-approved by Republicans. Simple.
There goes the 60 vote threshold:
LikeLike
Feinstein resigning won’t change the fact even her replacement would need 60 votes to get onto the committee.
Hence where Manchin and Sinema have to agree to do the nuclear option.
LikeLike
Yikes. I’m still for her nomination, but she’s basically on the same oil barge as Jennifer Rearden:
https://www.nysfocus.com/2023/04/17/caitlin-halligan-steven-donziger-chevron-hochul/
LikeLike
Decided to rage-reread senate rules.
Senate Rule XXV 4(c) in black and white:
By agreement entered into by the majority leader and the minority leader, the membership of one or more standing committees may be increased temporarily from time to time by such number or numbers as may be required to accord to the majority party a majority of the membership of all standing committees. When any such temporary increase is necessary to accord to the majority party a majority of the membership of all standing committees, members of the majority party in such number as may be required for that purpose may serve as members of three standing committees listed in paragraph 2. No such temporary increase in the membership of any standing committee under this subparagraph shall be continued in effect after the need therefor has ended. No standing committee may be increased in membership under this subparagraph by more than two members in excess of the number prescribed for that committee by paragraph 2 or 3(a).
Even if McConnell is inclined to enter into such an agreement (not saying that’s the case at all), his conference is way out ahead of him against it. How can anyone work with these people?
https://www.rules.senate.gov/rules-of-the-senate
LikeLike
Much to @Dequan’s point. As with the filibuster, so with the district court blue slip. This level of obstructionism is not cost-free. How Republicans don’t know that they are radicalizing Dems, I just don’t understand:
(Sorry for the multiple posts. Really awful day with this. We are staring at the prospect of very few Biden judges going forward.)
LikeLike
And to those who persists in thinking that this situation would resolve itself if Feinstein resigns…
LikeLike
Well that’s that, Republicans willing to burn two years without letting a single new Judge be moved from the committee.
At this point, nothing else to do but nominate people, have hearing and hold them over for another month or two until she’s well enough to fly to DC for an hour and approve all the waiting nominees.
There are 18 judicial nominees sitting and waiting in the Senate, so it’s not like the current ones waiting need a vote this week, those 18 will probably take at least 2-3 weeks to get confirmed if the Senate only focused on them and it doesn’t look like that’s the case even with 50 D votes right now.
LikeLike
I have a feeling that tomorrow’s nominations hearing might get canceled. They still haven’t posted the nominees. Though that doesn’t mean that the members of SJC haven’t already been notified as to what nominees will be present.
LikeLike
I’ve been refreshing the website constantly & still no nominees. This would be a new record for nothing posted so close to the meeting without it being cancelled. We’re already up to 3 missed SJC slots for the year.
I was expecting the 4th to be in 2 weeks but tomorrow is definitely a possibility sadly. If Feinstein was a Republican & they were in the majority, she would he retired & moving meat at the San Francisco Fish Market by now…smh
LikeLiked by 1 person
WTF… We waited all this time for THREE nominees??? They could have cancelled the meeting. Why not both Maryland nominees?
(https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/committee-activity/hearings/04/18/2023/nominations)
LikeLike
I see the names listed. IMHO, Jeremy Daniel is not controversial at all and Darrell Papillion is not very controversial. Look for Brendan Hurson to receive the most fireworks.
LikeLike
In another issue, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing in New York City. Republicans are charging that DA Alvin Bragg has misused Federal funds and neglected his core duties for partisan gain. Their witnesses were crime victims who told harrowing stories.
LikeLike
What day is the House Judiciary Committee holding a hearing in Washington D.C. on Justice Clarene Thomas???
LikeLike
I don’t see that happening. And it doesn’t have the emotional impact of a traumatized crime victim.
LikeLike
If Durbin had any spine he would have said “ok GOP, you’re not going to let us substitute for Diane Feinstein, well then “F” those blue slips, were holding a hearing on Wamble and Colom”… But no, Durbin lets GOP walk all over him….Just once, I like to see Democrats show some damn fight – just once!
LikeLike
@Rick
Thank you. That’s exactly what I was saying. Soctt Colom should be on the first flight from Jackson tomorrow morning. What the Republicans are doing with Feinstein’s replacement is unprecedented. What do we get in return? A SJC hearing with THREE damn nominees tomorrow with eight pending (Six of them eligible for a hearing tomorrow). We don’t even get both Maryland blue state nominees tomorrow.
Is there a Black man limit in the SJC? Tomorrow’s hearing should have been four Black men & Hurson, even not counting Colom. And still no Wamble. I’m PISSED. Wable would be on the 10th by now had they just left him alone.
LikeLike
Very confused as to why Maddox wasn’t included. Was it a paperwork issue or something else?
LikeLike
It’s possible he’s decided that he doesn’t want the seat any longer, or had a conflict preventing him from joining. He’s controversial enough that he’s going to need all of the Democrats on the committee for him to pass through.
LikeLike
This very moment as we speak conservatives are trying to justify and demonize the innocent black kid getting shot in kansas for ringing a wrong door bell just as they did with travyon Martin and tamir rice. Sean hannity even Interviewed zimmerman on his show helping him with legal fees.
Why do I bring this up? Because we have a coward as a democratic president who wants to work in good faith with charlatans and bigots like Ted cruz and Roger Marshall vile people who have excused racism, police brutality and are against black progress and racial quality in this country.
This are the devil’s and scumbags biden is trying to work with. People who will find any single reason to justify or equate why a black person deserved what wrong/ill have befallen unto them, people who are fighting tooth and nail to make sure black folks can’t gain equal footing in the society.
That’s why I call biden a coward. To me republican senators and politicians are vile evil people and I use the word evil intentionally. Their goal is to create a white supremacist Christian utopia where white men and white men alone call the shots and everyone else answers to them and they use their radical judges to further that agenda.
A democratic president should be using every power he has to confirm Liberal judges that will usurp that fascist white supremacist evangelical agenda but biden is bending over and backwards to these devil’s.
They can’t even allow Democrats to replace an 89 year old ailing member on the committee they are evil and no compromises should be done whatsoever. Abolish blue slips and stop caring what gop senators think for God’s sake!
LikeLiked by 1 person
@aangren
I will be watching very closely what Durbin says at todays SJC hearing. I initially had no intentions of watching todays hearing out of protest for there only being three nominees other than me being the person that uploads their pictures on Wikipedia. But then I thought to myself, this may be the day Durbin is so pissed off that he might actually pull the trigger on blue slips & say enough is enough.
I’m not too confident but if there is going to be a day, today might be it. After Pocan, Colom, Tubberville’s military holds, scores of red state vacancies still with no nominee & now this unprecedented blocking of Feinstein’s replacement, if not today then it might be never until Republicans get back into power & surely will ditch them.
LikeLike
I hope you actually read his post, because his post is just filled with a bunch of conspiracy theories and incoherent rants which have practically no basis in reality. I dislike how far to the right the Republican Party has gone, but practically nothing he said has any grain in truth. Ignore him when he goes on his tirade and expletive filled conspiracy rants, which are aimed to simply divide Democrats. Never mind that abolishing blue slips wouldn’t fix the current problem which is that the Democrats don’t have a majority on the judiciary committee, and won’t unless they can get Feinstein back, if ever, or change the organizing rules.
LikeLike
I guess Maddox could theoretically go before SJC on May 3. He is the only other nominee who would be eligible unless Wamble miraculously gets blue slips. I guess there could be other non judicial nominees that day too
Ramirez/de Alba would be May 17.
LikeLike
Enough! Let’s deal in reality. There will be no abolishing blue slips for district court nominees. Why? Biden and senate Democrats are cowards. That’s why.
There won’t be any replacement for feinstein either which means total blockade of judicial nominees getting voted off to the floor.
That’s the cold reality of the situation. Republicans will exploit and use every lever to obstruct while Democrats will bend over backwards to work with the charlatans
The fact that only 3 nominees are on the hearing today is an absolute outrage! A disgrace!
I will never forgive biden for demoting a black man[jabari wamble] from an appellate position to the district bench simply to appease a racist and bigot like senator Roger marshall, a charlatan who voted to throw away votes of states biden won in the 2020 election.
This is the goon that biden is taking orders from and humiliating black men because of..
Imagine Elizabeth Warren dictating to trump and mcconell which nominees she would and wouldn’t accept. She would be laughed out of the room and her opinions thrown in the dustbin
When it comes to biden however, he rewards the bad faith republican hack senators by nominating a nearly 60 year old right of center milquetoast centrist nominees that judge Bush could have nominated as well.
Its not an equal playing field at all. One side goes all out by any way necessary the other being the Democrats fight with two hands tied behind their backs.
It gets me so angry! It pisses off right now knowing Ted cruz is having a kick that he forced biden to pick such a terrible and milquetoast centrist nominee while he voted for federalist society hacks like ho and Kyle Duncan. Its an absolute disgrace
LikeLike
Cruz didn’t force Biden to do anything, because Judge Ramirez is well-qualified and will be an excellent jurist on the 5th Circuit. Just because you didn’t get who you wanted, don’t discredit Judge Ramirez’s stellar qualifications as a dedicated public servant.
LikeLike
Except Warren did tell who Trump could and couldn’t nominate when he was president, and was listened to since there were blue slips in place. So that’s simply wrong. If the Republicans really were going all out, why didn’t they get rid of blue slips when Trump was president?
LikeLike
I agree that at this stage blue slips look unlikely to stay in place. Not because of “cowardice” on Biden/Schumer’s part, but it’s more so because I don’t think Manchin/Sinema will vote for any district nominees over the protestations of home state senators. I could be wrong on that, but if it’s the case then there would be little upside to changing the rules if none of your nominees are going to get confirmed anyway.
I suspect instead that they are going to take at least the rest of this year and exhaust every single opportunity to work out deals with red state senators. If there are still large amounts of vacancies perhaps they will reconsider at the end of the year and try to sneak through some floor votes when Rs are out.
Again, that’s not what I would do, just a prediction about their strategy.
LikeLike
@Frank, let’s just say he’s one of the posters I simply ignore at this point, as his posts screaming about how Biden is a coward aren’t matched in reality but more to the point, progressives in many cases didn’t show up to vote or voted third party in 2016,14,10 and 2000 when SCOTUS and other courts were on the ballot and now they want to act outraged about how Biden or others aren’t doing enough on the courts?
Utterly laughable.
As to Feinstein, the best example in recent history to compare her to is former MS Senator Thad Cochran.
There were reports of him having medical issues in late September but it wasn’t until March that he finally resigned.
I hope it won’t take that long with Feinstein.
LikeLike
The imbecile and right wing troll frank rears his ugly head up again. For newcomers on here frank is a right wing troll who wants to bring back blue slips for appellate judges so even more bad faith gop hacks can obstruct biden agenda.. I have a policy of not responding to imbeciles especially right wing ones. He is always defending republicans and deliberately plays coe. He is a troll
Now in response to Joe I doubt that’s the case because manchin and sinema have supported every biden nominee thus far even the controversial ones like Vera and Clarke, and that’s a committee issue
I see no way The next gop senate majority with the GOP president doesn’t abolish the blue slips for district courts especially with Democrats resistance it’s just a matter of time now. I am of the opinion there isn’t alot of time especially when you factor in elections and the campaign cycle. Time is critical. Scott colom should have had a hearing today and be confirmed irregardless of what a bigot senator from Mississippi thinks.
Installing progressive judges in red states will prevent this forum shopping nonsense. Take the advantage and strike while the iron is hot
None of this is likely to happen because I repeat Democrats are cowards who don’t want to fight republicans like the nasty trolls and bad faith hacks they are..that’s all
LikeLike
Aangren, good point on Vera/Clarke (and others). I certainly hope you’re right in that they would at least consider voting for some nominees lacking blue slips if it comes to that, particularly if it’s clear that the nominee is very well qualified and the senators denying blue slips are doing so in bad faith (like Hyde Smith and Marshall are).
Perhaps Biden/Schumer are “making their case” with Wamble and Colom and plan on pushing the issue in the near future. Hopefully those conversations are happening with Manchin/Sinema behind closed doors.
LikeLike
Those nominees had blue slips turned in though from all of the senators involved, just like every other district court nominee in a blue state. I don’t see how that erases that point at all even though they were controversial to the Republicans.
LikeLike
Actually aangren, the more I think about it the more Arianna Freeman is actually probably the best cause for hope on Manchin/Sinema supporting a blue slip change.
Vera, Clarke, Sweeney, Sung, and Thomas all needed discharge votes but all at least had home senator support. Freeman did NOT have a blue slip from Toomey but Manchin/Sinema voted to discharge and confirm her anyway. As far as I can remember, she is the only nominee thus far where that was the case.
LikeLike
And Mathis. Didn’t Manchin also vote for some Trump COA nominees who didn’t have Dem blue slips?
LikeLike
That a good point, Mathis also didn’t have home state support. He did get voted out of committee, though, via Kennedy.
I can’t remember which Trump judges did or did not have home state support, but I do believe Manchin voted for all but the most objectionable nominees so I’m sure there were some then too.
LikeLike
@Frank
Will you cut it out?
As I’ve said before, I rarely feel the need to read or respond to your comments, being so often devoid of reason and (non-1950s) reality. But since you insist on telling us who to listen to and agree with, I thought I’d lay bare your nonsense.
I know this is a hallmark of Boomerism, but you don’t get to tell people what form of protest they should engage in, based on its acceptability to you. You have some views that literally only you adhere to in here, which is fine, but who accuses you of trying to divide anyone? Should we think that you’re some rightwing troll trying to push an agenda that helps your side when you argue that Dems should unilaterally reinstate all blue slips? At this very moment Republicans are literally trying to deny the majority party the ability to choose their own committee membership! But yes, it’s still better for Dems to take that and go back to the old custom.
Based on your logic, this blog is very powerful. You think that it’s someone’s mission to go through the trouble to get on here and use it in the hopes that their words on a screen will cause actual voters to say, “you know what, yeah, I won’t vote Dem anymore.” And in doing so, this mighty blog will swing elections. Isn’t that a whopper of a conspiracy theory? The worst part is, it’s not even your original thought. A former user decided to start calling aagren a troll. So you call aagren a troll and dismiss his opinions and passion, most of which I agree with and share. Now, that user no longer uses this blog and has left you holding the bag, which you feel obligated to still carry. Ironically, it was that user who spoke openly about not voting for certain Dems due to certain situations. Isn’t that divisive? Isn’t that trollish?
(@Zack, I know we have short memories, but need I remind you that that user hated your guts and also called you a troll with multiple accounts on here?)
Feel free to keep pushing to bring back the Eisenhower days, that’s your right. As is ours to decide who we agree or disagree with.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Once again, I’m not a boomer and don’t see my positions as matching what boomers are in favor of, but whatever. If you want to continue to defend the user who says that Republicans are seeking to “create a white supremacist Christian utopia where white men and white men alone call the shots and everyone else answers to them and they use their radical judges to further that agenda.”, be my guest. That’s nowhere near a moderate position though, and is a conspiracy with no basis whatsoever in reality. You should be smart enough to know that is nonsense. My posts are simply my opinion, and I don’t expect anyone to flip to my position simply on a whim. I simply give my perspective on a topic through a long term perspective, as I think that’s how the issues should be viewed by. Getting rid of blue slips, like Reid getting rid of the filibuster for non-SCOTUS nominees, was a short-term decision pushed by the same “activists” which failed to show up and vote in subsequent consequential elections such as in 2014 and 2016 and led to it being extremely easy for the Republicans to confirm their FedSoc hacks. **In my opinion** it would simply be repeating the same mistake to get rid of blue slips to only pass through a small number of well qualified nominees before losing power again.
LikeLike
So we have an Executive Business Meeting Thurs..
I’ll believe it when I see it
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/committee-activity/hearings/04/20/2023/executive-business-meeting
LikeLike
Perhaps they will at least vote on a handful of less controversial nominees just to keep that pipeline going.
LikeLike
I assume the Attorney and Marshal nominees can be confirmed. Beyond that, I’m not sure.
LikeLike
I assume that Brailsford and Federal Claims nominee Molly Silfen could be voted out if nothing else. Those two are new. There is a nominee for US Marshall and a nominee for US Attorney as well.
I would think that everyone else besides maybe Delaney, Almadani, and Bjelkengren would have been voted out as well. I mean Kirsch is a registered Republican. But apparently not.
LikeLike
Holy cow, that’s a lot of them. Has Lindsay Graham promised to support them all?
LikeLike
No they always list all of the pending nominees as well as the nominees that will be held over. In the past even when they have had to hold nominees over for a second time because if are issues they still were listed similar to all this for this Thursday.
LikeLike
Durbin started off talking about blue slips mentioning the Louisiana nominee. He said there are several issues pending before the committee that he will not go into today.
Senator Graham they are trying very hard to be reasonable. He said he was in Durbin’s shoes & never entertained getting rid of blue slips & hopes Durbin doesn’t. Graham said he finally met with The White House Counsel’s office & the meeting went well.
Both Maryland & Louisiana senators spoke about their nominees. Senator Kennedy with his Southern accent spoke glowing about Darrel Papillion. He said he believes he is a Democrat because President Biden nominated him but he has received so many positive endorsements about him from Republicans that you could stacks the papers, stand on them & paint the ceiling.
Senator Padilla spoke about judicial ethics without mentioning Justice Thomas by name.
Senator Kennedy gave his law exam. The three nominees were clearly prepared & knowledgeable & answered his questions in detailed. Jeremy Daniel couldn’t give an answer as to why police can conduct road blocks without all of the drivers having reasonable suspicion but not because he didn’t know the law. He answered the initial question which was based in law.
Senator Welch asked questions for the first time in the SJC since becoming a senator.
Senator Lee tried to give his own senator Kennedy like law exam. He spoke in depth to Darrel Papillion about his role on Covid restrictions in Louisiana.
Senator Bloomethal asked questions from his office due to him breaking his leg last week. Chairman Durbin made sure he pointed out he returned to work despite his broken femur.
Senator Blackburn followed up she was concerned about Papillion’s role in the Covid case as well. She also said she was concerned about Hurson’s comments regarding fentanyl.
LikeLike
That Dequan for the write up. Sounds like a pretty uneventful hearing, but then again that’s a good thing.
Hopefully Graham will be reasonable and agree to support a large number of nominees in the executive committee on Thursday. That would certainly help smooth things over and make Feinstein’s absence less of an emergency.
His comments about meeting with the WH counsel is interesting as well, hopefully we can get a SC nominee soon.
LikeLike
Your welcome. I was disappointed Durbin didn’t go into details about the “other pending committee business” but hearing Graham say he finally met The White House Counsel was definitely a positive. It really was inexcusable they hadn’t met prior. There should be some nominees that can get voted to the floor Thursday. Unfortunately the Idaho & Federal Circuit nominee are showing in red so that means they will be held over for a week. Both should be voted to the floor without opposition at the next meeting.
LikeLike
@Dequan
Good point about the red-colored listing, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Amanda Brailsford and Molly Silfen got voice votes.
LikeLike
True, I forgot both were new. You’re right, most likely held over unless they do a voice vote.
I agree though. Graham has low key been one of the biggest allies of the WH, they should be consulting with him. Glad that is finally happening.
LikeLike
Workarounds to Sen Feinstein, plans A-D
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Rick
Some of the nominees listed have bipartisan support. I think at this time, Durbin and Schumer are planning to have votes to get the other ones out of committee.
LikeLike
@Rick
WOW. Actually there are some really good ideas. I mean the best idea would be for Feinstein to just resign but that would require her putting the country ahead of her ego so that idea is dead on arrival. I honestly didn’t think about any of the other ideas but I like it.
After yesterdays sham House judiciary hearing live from New York (As if Jim Jordan or Matt Gatez gives a damn about crime in New York since it’s a lower crime rate then many of the red districts for members on his own committee), the precedent has been set that meetings can indeed be held outside of Washington. I actually like that idea the most. Show how serious you are about the judiciary.
If Democrats did that, they could confirm all of the judges that Manchin & Sinema are good with. The handful that either of them are against, simply wait for Feinstein to return to confirm then. Then when Feinstein goes out again for additional weeks because of (Insert your reason here), just rinse, recycle & repeat.
LikeLike
For whatever it’s worth Schumer said yesterday that he’s talked with Feinstein and she plans on returning “soon”. Not sure if that means in a few weeks or if it’s this fall/never. But for now I would simply vote out the ones we can and wait on the others until she can make it back to Washington.
LikeLike
Yeah, “soon” is rather vague in this case….I mean, if the pizza place says your pizza will be ready soon, that’s probably 10 minutes…If the airline pilot says were landing soon, that’s probably about 30-45 minutes… If Dequan says I’m giving Rick $2 million in cash, I’ll get it together soon, probably take 1 hour, LOL!!
But when Feinstein says she’s returning “soon”, that’s a scary word….Soon to her could be after the summer recess, or after Memorial Day, or ?????
LikeLike
@Rick
Haaaaaa… I might just start working over time to make that $2 million dollars to give to you SOON. All I need in return is 51 Democrat senators to show up for work at least 80% of the time through the end of next year, Biden to get re-elected & senate Democrats keep at least 51 senate seats through 2026. If you can, throw in a Democrat House majority as well. Hell if you can give me that, I might throw in a flight so the captain can tell you your about to land SOON & a pizza pie that will arrive to your house SOON too… Lol
@Gavi
So Schumer wants to send Mr. Play Russian Roulette with a 4th circuit seat to the SJC huh? Well he may be better than a broom stick but probably not by much. But either would he better then Feinstein so I would take it at this point. I truly wonder why some of the others like Warren, Cortez Masto or Warnock don’t want it.
I do think Schumer should hold the vote even with it wasting floor time despite Republicans saying they won’t provide the 10 votes so they are officially on the record for this unprecedented obstruction. That way if Democrats ever grow a spine & vote to lower the threshold, eliminate blue slips & start doing some of the other things we have mentioned, Republicans can’t come back & say they were going to provide the 10 votes.
LikeLiked by 2 people
A terrible choice, since he’s blocking a nominee for the 4th circuit! But I’d take a broom that can vote, at this point:
LikeLike
In the moment the situation is not nice, but also not that bad, as we still have 5 & 13 judicial nominees to be confirmed by floor vote, before running out of nominees.
It’s also not probable, that all nominees will be stalled for the next two years, sooner or later a Republican member of the SJC will also miss, and then the votes can take place, not very comfortable, but also no drama.
Best solution is Feinstein will return and stay healthy for the next two years, if a replacement is necessary, it’s not sure, that he or she gets the necessary 60 votes or even UC.
From today’s hearing all nominees made a good impression, Daniel was not that confident as Hurson and Pappilion, but the last one will get no voice vote, I suppose after the comments of Lee and Blackburn.
Durbin will likely talk in the executive meeting, that’s the right place for, at first, because the nominees are there for testifying, and at second, because most of the senators aren’t present when DC nominees are there.
I would not expect too much either, that mostly ends in a disappointment. Realistic is the marshal, the attorney, and Brailsford, not Silfen and nobody else.
LikeLike
The issue is that all Republicans can vote by proxy, so even if they can’t make one of the executive sessions it is not a problem for them.
LikeLike
I’m not sure why Schumer wants to waste time holding a vote on anyone to temporarily replace Feinstein, when Republicans said OUT LOUD that they won’t support this
Schumer would be better off voting on as cloture motion to advance the nomination of Rachel Bloomekatz
LikeLike
@Rick
I absolutely agree with Schumer still holding a vote. The sense of the senate is not expressed in individual senator’s one line tweets.
What’s more, it’s good to have everyone on record by setting the precedent. Republicans will have denied the majority party a chance to reorganize their membership on a committee, even though fully supported by the rule. This will give Dems the chance to do the same, if they so choose.
LikeLike
I agree. Glad they are holding a vote on it, even if it will inevitably fail 50-49. Get everyone on record.
I also agree that Schumer should retaliate by spending the next four weeks confirming all 18 judges currently on the senate floor. GOP obstruction also seems like a great way to help convince Manchin to vote for Abudu, Rikelman, Ho, and others too.
LikeLike
Good read below. Senator Manchin spoke about replacing Feinstein temporarily saying “I definitely oppose”. The article also speaks about the state of blue slips. It states “ Schumer said after Tuesday’s Democratic caucus lunch that Durbin and members of the committee were also considering what to do about the current requirement that home-state senators return blue slips for district court nominees in order for the committee to take them up. It has not always been enforced in the past, and Durbin is under pressure to disregard the tradition going forward.”
(https://rollcall.com/2023/04/18/gop-blocks-attempt-to-put-feinstein-substitute-on-judiciary/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletters&utm_content=04/18/2023)
LikeLike
No filed clotures today so they won’t vote on any judges this week, I’m officially angry.
LikeLike
“Sen. Joe Manchin (D), the Senate Democratic Policy & Communications Committee Vice Chair, voted Yea against his party.”
Manchin now has a leadership position so GovTrack’s gonna put an asterisk next to Manchin’s name every time he votes against his party. They better get used to putting a lot of asterisks.
LikeLike
Interesting position by Manchin, especially considering it won’t pass anyway. I think at this point that more or less means Feinstein needs to return or resign, no middle ground is possible.
Thursdays business meeting should be interesting.
LikeLike
So they asked for UC, that failed, and now they’re not going to hold a vote over it? I don’t see it scheduled for tomorrow either.
So with Manchin opposed, it looks like the only option is to wait it out until Feinstein recovers or resigns (from either the SJC or the Senate overall). I would’ve thought Manchin would be amenable to overriding Republican opposition if Feinstein straight up resigns from the SJC, but now I’m less sure – they have plenty of nominees to work on confirming now, but this will be a problem soon.
The article quotes Graham and McConnell (who is about as honest as George Santos, so take that for what it’s worth) claiming that this is about a few nominees that can’t get out of committee without Feinstein’s vote. Unless Graham is pulling a 180 and voting against all the nominees, it seems like most of the actually progressive ones are already on the floor? My best guesses are:
1. Bjelkengren (not going to shed tears if this one falls through to be honest – less about her not answering questions correctly and more that she has little federal court experience)
2. Almadani (woman or minority or especially both + progressive career seems to be what leads to a no from Graham)
3. Delaney? (Graham sounded pretty favorable to him given Ayotte’s support though)
4. Gaston? (Graham voted twice for Margaret Guzman, a PD turned state judge who was more controversial)
5. Hurson? (though Graham has voted through public defenders who became magistrate judges, especially the white ones)
The more likely result is that we won’t see any future nominees that excite folks on this blog. Though to be honest, seems to have already been the case with Delery in charge anyways.
I also haven’t crunched the numbers on this, but it seems like a disproportionate number of nominees that don’t get any Republican support have been women of color (Abudu, Sung, Kato, Clarke, Merle, Choudhury the second time around). White nominees with PD/progressive backgrounds have largely gotten Graham’s vote in committee (ex Margaret Strickland, Sarah Geraghty, Nina Morrison). Dems should start pointing out that all of the nominees that Republicans claim are “radical” and “unqualified” just also happen to fit the demographic profile of people the Republican Party hates the most…
LikeLike
It’s official. New York’s court of appeals finally has a liberal chief justice. I’m happy governor Hochul was embarrassed into making the NY courts better. And look at the speed between nomination to confirmation. I wish the federal courts worked anywhere near that speed. Congrats chief justice Wilson. I believe he is the only African American man to be any of the 50 states chief justice right now.
(https://twitter.com/SamMellins/status/1648445024303190019?cxt=HHwWhsDQlYGBuuAtAAAA)
LikeLike
Donald Beatty, a black man, is the Chief Justice of South Carolina. His term is up next year, though.
LikeLike
He is still the South Carolina chief justice? I remember Obama tried to nominate him to the South Carolina district court in 2016.
LikeLike
He is. He was actually a part of the recent ruling upholding abortion protections in the state.
Unfortunately one of the other Justice’s term ended in February and then Beatty is limited by a mandatory retirement age in 2024. So I believe a new Supreme Court will reverse that decision in the near future.
LikeLike
Yea…we basically have to hope Feinstein can come back at some point because I don’t see Manchin or Sinema breaking the filibuster even with a new Senator in place.
LikeLike
WOW… So even if Feinstein resigns they won’t allow a replacement? That’s insane. That alone should be enough for Durbin to ditch blue slips. This is utterly ridiculous. Democrats are in a worse position with 51 senators than when they had 50. There needs to be a forceful response to this. The usual responses will not do any longer.
LikeLike
Next step is their refusal to allow the existence of the SJC under a Dem president, and thus zero nominees allowed. That’s how ridiculous they are with abusing norms and rules to meet their goals of controlling the judiciary.
LikeLike
Yep Manchin himself stated as much: https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1648371862643130378.
Honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if Manchin (and likely Sinema) reacts to Durbin trashing blue slips by refusing to confirm any district court nominee who doesn’t have them – he probably considers appellate nominees differently because the Republicans were the ones who abolished blue slips there, but I also wouldn’t put it past him to just be inconsistent. I can kind of see the logic from Manchin’s POV – I’m sure he hates voting to confirm progressive judges, and now he can avoid all of that by supposedly claiming to protect Feinstein or whatever.
Also, what folks who want to abolish blue slips are missing is that it doesn’t actually change anything or get Colom (for example) confirmed if Manchin/Sinema won’t vote to confirm district court nominees without blue slips. Even if the Republicans will abolish blue slips for district nominees the next time they’re in power, what’s the point of Durbin doing it for them now when it won’t get any Dem judges confirmed in the first place?
I’m also not sure what “forceful response” people are expecting if Dems only have 48 votes for anything. As frustrating as this is, the only move seems to be privately pressuring Feinstein to resign from the Senate entirely and nominating centrist judges in the meantime. If only Dems had won one more Senate seat (or were smart enough not to put a dementia patient on the only committee that does anything in a divided Senate)…
LikeLiked by 2 people
When I advocate for ditching blue slips, of course there needs to be private conversations with the entire Democrat caucus prior. There already has been. I doubt Manchu & Sinema would refuse to confirm nominees who don’t have blue slips returned. They already have voted to confirm some circuit court judges without them.
And by forceful response, there are several things that can be done. For one, as a user posted yesterday there are several scenarios Durbin can initiate to get the nominees moved to the floor. Move an executive meeting to Feinstein’s California living room for all I care. Is that normal? NOPE, but neither is the Republican unprecedented obstruction. These are not normal times. They can’t be met with the same old, good ole boy club, outdated normal responses.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You have more confidence in Manchin/Sinema than I do – I would be very surprised if they are willing to support Dems breaking a senate rule/tradition (blue slips for district court) versus just following a precedent the Republicans themselves already set (abolishing blue slips for circuit courts). You’re right that for abolishing blue slips to be effective in getting more nominees confirmed, it would require full buy-in from the whole caucus – I would say this means that any campaign to get rid of them should focus on Manchin/Sinema, but honestly that would probably be counterproductive and make them dig their heels in.
And yes I saw the Twitter thread about holding the SJC hearings in California or at Walter Reed – CA is unlikely if not impossible (the senators on the SJC would have to fly back and forth for the committee hearing and then to vote on the floor – good luck convincing them of that). The Walter Reed idea should be considered though, and they can just frame it as wanting to get Feinstein the best possible care in the world while respecting her desire to fulfill her senatorial duties (or something).
Sure a lot of things can be done, but whether they are likely when Dems really have 48 reliable votes is a whole different question.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I do think that if Feinstein does resign (or die) then one of Manchin/Sinema will eventually come around and agree to a reorganizing bill along party lines. But yeah, Tester is probably right and we shouldn’t be counting on it.
But yeah, I hope Feinstein is able to return sometime this summer and the point becomes moot.
LikeLike
Same here, although I agree with Hank (in a pretty rare occurrence) that Manchin and Sinema are unlikely to vote for district court judges that don’t have blue slips turned in. Now I don’t see that as an issue when the Republicans gain power should they actually decide that blue state district court seats mean much to them and want to get rid of them, but IMO the Democrats need additional votes (which they don’t have) to confirm any district court nominees that don’t have blue slips turned in.
LikeLike
I think Colom will get a hearing. Smith-Hyde is being unreasonable and Biden has worked in good faith to fill the vacancy.
I don’t think they will drop the blue slips altogether. It may be something that is done on a case by case basis.
She waited until after the nomination to object when she knew it was coming. That’s dilatory tactic and the George Soros accusation is a pretext to block a good nominee.
LikeLike
Just because Smith-Hyde is being unreasonable and using dilatory tactics doesn’t mean that Manchin and Sinema don’t care about norms any longer. They do, and they aren’t interested in looking like they are simply another Schumer puppet.
If the Democrats get rid of blue slips on a case by case basis, the Republicans will get rid of them completely on day 1 of the 118th Congress.
LikeLike
We’re gonna see .I think that allowing Colom to go forward is reasonable considering is reasonable considering both Senators were consulted and one objected after the fact.
It’s even more dubious than than the Pocan nomination which involved a Democrat and a Republican Senator.
I was surprised to see that along with Senator Wicker there are several Republicans supporting Colom.
LikeLike
Will it be reasonable to Manchin and Sinema though. If it’s not to them, then it doesn’t matter if he’s given a hearing.
LikeLike
Have to see what Manchin does IF Feinstein does resign, as that might be a bridge too far even for him.
I agree though at this point, the blue slips for district courts need to go.
I understand why they held off on doing it but at this point, it has to be done, as it’s clear any conformity is long gone IMO.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yup.
Feinstein shouldn’t have been put on the Senate Judiciary committee with her issues and it’s not wrong to call out Schumer/Durbin there for messing that up.
LikeLike
This is why district court judges are important, abolish the blue slips and pack liberal judges in red states , to prevent judge shopping.
Why is there even a trump appointed judge in NY ? ugh! why didn’t schumer block them like the washington state senators did to trump? sigh..
LikeLike
Yes, district judges are important. But, I think they are more important in red states which tend to be more rural like Kansas.
However, in Trump documents case the judge in Florida -Cannon was reversed by GWB and Trump appointees.
Also, the makeup of the circuit could make a big difference in righting preceived wrongs by district court judges. That’s why any notion of a Dale Ho in Texas would not fly. The 5th Circuit would flagg any outlier rulings or judgments that are appealed.
So, even if this District judge in New York made an unsupported decision the 2nd Circuit would likely address it if it came before them.
LikeLike
It was part of a package deal with the Democratic senators. There was a judicial emergency which made it imperative that there be swift confirmations.
LikeLike
On another note and thinking ahead, I’m concerned that Dems will have another Sinema on their hands with moderate Elissa Slotkin essentially being handed the Michigan senate nomination on a silver platter. Is this fear justified or am I just suffering from Sinema PTSD?
LikeLike
Slotkin is much more of a party woman than Sinema ever was. She may be a moderate in the same vein as a Mark Kelly or Maggie Hassan but I don’t see her bucking party orthodoxy just to be difficult or to cater to donors.
LikeLike
I think along the same lines Hank, considering her professional background and voting record in the House. She might be slightly to the left of Sinema on the issues, but I doubt she will budge on getting rid of the filibuster for much despite saying otherwise recently.
LikeLike
@Jill
No need to take my word for it. Here is the article from November 14, 2006.
(https://abovethelaw.com/2006/11/some-fifth-circuit-scuttlebutt/?rf=1)
LikeLike
@Dequan
Couple of things to note about your article.
1) Even by 2006, the 5th Circuit had a reputation as being a far right court that simply rubberstamped whatever Republicans wanted them to uphold, law and precedent be darned.
2) Alas, the part about where Jennifer Elrod couldn’t move the court further to the right turned out to be dead wrong.
She was far worse then Patrick Higginbotham, the Reagan judge she replaced and IMO, never should have been confirmed after Democrats took control of the Senate, same with a couple of the other George W judges.
LikeLike
The amount of judges the Democrat majority confirmed in GW Bush last two years is mind boggling. I think in 15 years we will look back at Durbin’s decision not to scrap blue slips now like we look back on that decision then.
LikeLike