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 
Ha just as I would’ve thought…Hanks was a diversity pick. He had no chance whatsoever of being appointed. Elrod was a staunch fed-soc member since law school, which is probably why she got the appointment.
LikeLike
@Dequan, only one of those judges was a liberal (Helene White.)
The rest were solid conservatives, with a couple of them (Thomas Hardiman and Raymond Kethledge) being on the short list for SCOTUS under Trump.
We could have flipped several seats once Obama won and if nothing else, the last two years of Bill Clinton, he either had to accept compromise AKA Republican nominees or no confirmations for him.
Only happened to W with Kethledge/White.
Confirmation that ticks me off the most was G. Steven Agee, who was confirmed in May of 2008.
Who cares if there were five vacancies on the 4th Circuit, it was clear Democrats were going to win at that point, why gift conservatives with that seat or others like Debra Livingston in the 2nd Circuit (horrible hack BTW.)
Democrats playing nice bit us in the butt.
As for blue slips, I honestly don’t care about district court ones as much.
The real damage done was with Circuit court ones and how Leahy couldn’t see that coming after the double standards with Clinton/W on them angers me to no end.
What’s done is done though, too bad there are consequences for that.
LikeLike
Thanks for another dollar!
LikeLiked by 1 person
When I just looked again & saw “LOCATION CHANGE” for tomorrows executive meeting, I swear if it said Senator Feinstein’s living room I would have flown to DC & kissed chairman Durbin… Haaaaa
(https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/committee-activity/hearings/04/20/2023/executive-business-meeting)
LikeLiked by 1 person
On the House GOP vs. Manhattan DA case, Trump appointee Vyscocil denied the DA’s motion to quash and it is now being appealed to CA2: https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1648805884041089025?cxt=HHwWgsC-3eeN3uEtAAAA.
I’m not as convinced that CA2 will reverse her – not because her opinion is legally sound (Vyscocil was part of Fed Soc, so this is no surprise) but more that a panel of the Trump appointees like Park and Menashi would still affirm. Fortunately we have an actual liberal majority on CA2 now thanks to the new Biden nominees so a Trump panel can’t go too crazy, but CA2 rarely goes en banc. Nevertheless, this still shows how essential it is to fill every appellate seat.
Rare case of me agreeing with Frank – not sure what anybody gets out of the incessant complaining about Leahy. We can’t change the past.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree Hank, the past is the past.
The most important thing the senate can do is confirm the 18 nominees currently on the floor so that vacancies don’t lead to favorable rulings for ring wing cases. The second most important thing is to find a way to get more nominees to the floor.
If we can get the majority of nominees voted out of committee tomorrow plus Schumer filing cloture on some nominees (preferably 2 appellate but 3-4 district would be good too) then that would be a very good day.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Senator John Kennedy did another interview with Fox News. He claimed that some Biden judicial nominees are so ignorant, “They got their law degrees at Costco.” He also stated that some of the nominees are so radical and unqualified that even Senator Durbin has qualms about them.
The judicial wars are escalating.
LikeLike
He definitely misspoke and clearly meant many of Trump’s appointees. Anyone who has Steve Bannon as a supporter is a further threat to our democracy!
LikeLike
Awesome. The 2nd circuit will be one of biden best judicial legacies. The trump district court federalist society hack ruling was just stayed by LGBTQ judge beth robinson. Nice
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree aangren. Lots of great work on remaking the 2nd as well as the 3rd. Hopefully some more circuits can follow over the next 18 months.
LikeLike
On the 2nd Circuit, it’s scary to think what it would look like now if Trump had won a 2nd term and Republicans had kept the Senate.
Beth Robinson replaced Peter Hall, a liberal/moderate George W judge who passed away from cancer in 2021, only a few months after Robert Katzmann, a prominent liberal did as well.
Would have been two pickups for Republicans.
Happy that didn’t happen.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Caitlin Halligan was confirmed to the NY Court Of Appeals last night.
I know some folks don’t like her because of some of her corporate work especially with Chevron but I think she’ll be a part of the liberal/moderate wing of the court and not the conservative part more often then not.
More to the point, Hector Lasalle was defeated because there was unified opposition to his nomination from all wings of the party in NY.
There wasn’t with Halligan and there was never going to be.
LikeLike
Good news on Caitlin Halligan‘s confirmation. I am one who was dead set against Hector LaSalle & usually am against anything governor Hochul has to do with in general. But these two picks were great for Wilson & good for Halligan. If she was good enough for Obama to nominate to the second highest court in the land, then she’s good enough for New York’s highest court.
@Mitch & @Jill
Was senator Kennedy talking about Biden or Trump’s judicial nominees? I’m confused after your post & subsequent reply.
LikeLike
Biden’s appointees, which is laughable considering all the unqualified activist judges Trump appointed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The SJC business meeting is about to start (so far, it’s running late!).
What’s the running bet for the number of GOP votes Republican Robert Kirsch is going to get today?
LikeLike
I bet Lee, Cruz, Hawley, and Blackburn will still vote against. Lol.
LikeLike
Delaney and Bjelkengren not voted on as expected. But Almadani, Cummings, Farbiarz, Hsu, Hunt, Kirsch, and Merchant voted out. Thanks to Graham for making the difference on three of them. The others got multiple Rep votes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
From todays SJC executive meeting…
Chairman Durbin spoke about senator Feinstein.
Senator Graham said he wants to keep the committee moving in Feinstein’s absence when they can agree. He then spoke about the whistleblower situation. He then spoke about Hunter Biden & said “We are not going to let this go”. Durbin then said he commended President Biden for retaining Trump’s US Attorney in Delaware.
Senator Blackburn then spoke about her request for a roll call vote for US Marshals. She said the request is because of the new standard Casey Arrowood, the Tennessee US Attorney that was not renominated.
On to the votes. Ramirez-Almandsni got 12 yes votes. It sucks she wasn’t the 9th circuit nominee but happy to see her on the district court at least. Hopefully a promotion is in her future.
Robert Kirsch, the New Jersey Republican passed on a 13 – 8 vote. That makes the pick even worse. We mine as had a flaming liberal or at the very least an actual Democrat. The New Jersey picks continue to get worse. I’m afraid to open the White House batch with the 3rd circuit nominee in it. At this point I’m hoping for Esther Salas (Normally I would not be happy with a 1968 year of birth date) because I figure that’s the best we can hope for. I’m more & more convinced it will be Julian Neals (1965) however.
LikeLike
Oh and forgot Gaston. She’s also stuck in limbo until Feinstein returns. But only three stuck was better than I feared.
LikeLike
Ha @Joe.
Once again, that unfailing optimism failed you again on Robert Kirsch. Just two R votes. What a wasted nomination.
I am surprised by the vote for Michael Farbiarz. Lee and Cotton? He’s not even old. What do they know about him that I don’t?
LikeLike
Lol, what can I say? I’m an optimistic guy.
I am a little pleasantly surprised Almadani made it through. That’s good to see.
Glad we have a few more candidates in the pipeline now. Now let’s just hope Schumer files cloture on some nominees this afternoon. The next four weeks (or at least three of them) before Memorial Day really should be almost exclusively judges. I have a feeling a lot of time is going to be spent on the debt ceiling in June, so the sooner we can clear the backlog the better.
LikeLike
With Delaney, I think his nomination is in trouble regardless of what Republicans do given the statements some Democrats have made.
As for Bjelkengren, her performance at her hearing doesn’t any better with repeated viewing.
She’s a great state judge and IMO, that is where she needs to stay.
LikeLike
@Zack Jones
Those who be my two no votes on top of Childs, Pan (For the DC circuit) & O’Hearn if I was a senator. I do think Delaney might be the only one that might actually fail to get confirmed. I’d give him about a 65% chance on getting confirmed, which is pretty low for a caucus that has a 51-49 advantage.
On a lighter note, if anybody needs a good laugh, take a look at this. Who’s gonna be the person to tell senator Rubio he’s “They”… Haaaaa
I live in Miami & we have been out or low of gas since Saturday. I waited in line about 30 minutes to get gas Sunday & that wasn’t bad compared to some other gas stations. And this idiot is asking why “They” can’t get gas to South Florida. Meanwhile the governor is in South Carolina campaigning for a job he hasn’t announced for yet. And when he is here, he’s picking fights with Mickey Mouse. My God how did my state get scabs leadership.
(https://www.huffpost.com/entry/marco-rubio-roasted-gas-shortage-florida_n_6440c8cde4b0408f3e5130ec)
LikeLike
I think Bjelkengren will ultimately be confirmed, since she is only up for a district seat and has both senators supporting.
Delaney I am 50/50 on. I just wish that one would hurry up one way or the other.
@Dequan Hargrove, I agree on all the NJ picks. At this point Salas or Neal might be the best we can hope for.
LikeLike
I’m against Salas or Neal getting the nominated!
Sick of these old people getting nominated. I’m sorry that Judge Salas’s live was upended by crime, but tragedy doesn’t qualify you for a federal judgeship. She’s already a judge. Backfilling her seat would also give the bad NJ senators another chance to recommend another bad nominee. You have got to push these people to do better. Throwing up your hands and settling for semi-terrible candidates only encourages mediocrity at best.
Booker has now gotten the Alex Sammon treatment. I hope that’s chastened him enough for him to start doing better on judges. There’s no hope for Menedez, who should be in jail.
Remember, it doesn’t cost a thing to push for much better nominees. At worst, your push is ignored. Hopefully, it’ll be successful enough to move the window and put the senators on notice.
Stop worshipping these people out of fear that the alternative could be worse.
LikeLike
Oh don’t get me wrong, Esther Salas wouldn’t be who I wish the pick is. I’m just saying if we get another low energy pick, I at least hope it’s her. She’s Hispanic & a former public defender.
But of course I would rather we get a rock star of a pick. NJ justices Rachel Apter would probably be the most liberal & Fabiana Pierre-Louis would be the 14th Black woman nominated by Biden & first Haitian American woman circuit court judge ever.
There are so many great possibilities from @Ethan’s list. Farrin Anello, Ryan Haygood, Rajiv Parikih would all get A’s in my book. Jeremy Feigenbaum would get an A & possible A+ with his age.
LikeLike
Judge Esther Salas is THE most qualified. Therefore, I hope she gets the nomination if she made the shortlist.
LikeLike
@Gavi agreed that there are better picks than Salas or Neal and advocacy groups should be pushing for better ones. Realistically speaking, however, I don’t think anyone better will be chosen given (1) the whole Feinstein/SJC fiasco, (2) WHC Delery’s moderate track record, and (3) the NJ senators. I wouldn’t even be surprised if Salas can’t get Graham’s vote (since he just voted against a sitting state judge because she was a former PD). Probably not Weiner Apter either, but maybe Pierre-Louis.
I’d bet that whoever is eventually picked will likely have strong ties to Menendez (the senior senator) rather than Booker. Also, given that there’s been no pushback to Booker by any major liberal groups on his picks , I highly doubt he is going to feel chastened by some random journalist’s reporting. 100% agreed that it’s worth pushing for better nominees, but also good to recognize that the effort’s unlikely to succeed & not have unrealistic expectations. Honestly, we need a credible primary challenge to both Booker (who is all talk no action IMO) and Menendez.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My biggest fear with the 3rd circuit selection is we get a repeat of the Texas 5th circuit pick. I woke up last Friday & saw a Latina that wasn’t a district court judge whose seat we would need to backfill as the pick. And that pick was the worst Biden circuit court selection to date.
I would have much rather one or two of the Obama district court judges from the Southern District to have been the selection instead. I don’t want to wake up & see the 3rd pick & think to myself I would have much tether the pick had been Esther Salas. The New Jersey senators combined with this new White House Counsel’s office is capable of making that happen sadly.
LikeLike
a little ironic the republican NJ nominee received less bipartisan support than the democratic one
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s only ironic if you think that the Republicans handle judicial nominations out of any consistent principle. I’m actually glad he did as poorly as he did. But this lesson will probably be lost on the NJ senators and Biden.
LikeLike
Pleasantly surprised that Almadani got through, disappointed that Gaston did not (you would think Graham would’ve been more fine with someone who’s been a state judge for 8 years), and not surprised about Bjelkengren/Delaney.
The problem I see is that they’re going to kick Delaney’s nomination down the road until Feinstein returns or resigns (if she does either), and given thee timing, the options will probably be either to confirm him or leave the CA1 seat open. I’m no fan of Delaney’s, but I’d much rather fill the seat than leave it for some Fed Soc hack who we know will be anti-choice/women’s rights.
As Leah Litman accurately points out, the deadlock on the judiciary will likely mean a return to Obama-era nominees (federal prosecutors, Big law partners) because Graham is fine with those: https://twitter.com/LeahLitman/status/1649065734826258432?cxt=HHwWgMCz-Y6j1OItAAAA.
I’ll admit that it seemed like Delery (the new WHC) was mostly doing that anyways, but it is wild that the ability of a Dem Senate to confirm a Dem president’s nominee now turns on…Lindsey Graham?
LikeLike
I agree with others. Salas would be acceptable, probably a B grade for me, but NJ has so many other better options and I’d love to get an A+ nominee.
As far as Delaney, I agree with Hank. Would hate to see him languish to the fall (or worse) and then after several months Biden has to withdraw and start all over. That might risk the seat not getting filled at all.
LikeLike
I was doing some research to figure out how many joint judgeships are still in existent on district courts. (If you’re interested, by my count, there are 7 such judgeships held by 3 people in 3 states. For example, Judge Boom sits on both the Eastern and Western District Courts of Kentucky.)
Anyway, I came upon the following Senate floor speech. I challenge you to read the following with a straight face:
April 11, 2018
Mr. McCONNELL:
Mr. President, now on another matter, yesterday the Senate confirmed the first of six nominees slated for consideration this week, Claria Horn Boom to serve as district judge for the Eastern and Western Districts of Kentucky. She was confirmed 96 to 1. There was just one Senator in opposition.
This is the kind of uncontroversial nomination the Senate could typically dispatch by a voice vote, but not these days. Over and over again, we have had to file cloture and exhaust floor time on amply qualified nominees who then soar through their confirmation votes by lopsided margins.
Since President Trump took office, the Senate has had to hold 82–82–cloture votes on judicial and executive nominations. In the first 2 years of President Obama’s administration, there were only 12 such cloture votes–12 for President Obama, 4 for George W. Bush, 8 for President Clinton, and already, just a few months into President Trump’s second year, there have been 82. The numbers speak for themselves.
[…]
After Mr. Ring, the Senate will turn to the nomination of Pat Pizzella to serve as Deputy Secretary of Labor. The fact that this Cabinet agency has gone 15 months without its No. 2 official is yet another testament to the historic obstruction visited on this administration by Senate Democrats. He has been sitting on the calendar for 6 months despite his ample qualifications…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Haaaaaa… Senator McConnell being a hypocrite is probably the second most likely thing I’ve seen today only after the Sun rising from the East. How he is able to look himself in the mirror after some of the crap he spews is beyond me.
LikeLike
Ha! His breathtaking hypocrisy is always wondrous to behold.
If I were Schumer, I’d read McConnell’s full speech on the floor and substitute just the names where applicable. And say: “Oh, my bad, this seems to be a speech given by you, Sen. McConnell.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am very fine with esther salas and i say this as a black man who has criticized biden for his lack of black men appellate nominees. Salas has been through alot, she deserves it, she will be a very fair judge.I hope she get the pick here.I am far more worried about the possible and likely milquetoast centrist nominee the indiana senators will force biden to select to replace kanne seat on the 7th.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As explained already, whoever gets picked for the 7th will be much more liberal than Kanne was.
LikeLike
@aangren
I wasn’t as worried about the 7th pick when you first brought the subject up months ago. I will admit I’m much more worried about that, as well as the 10th picks now after the Ramirez nomination. When you throw in Feinstein’s situation combined with this new WH Counsel’s office, I definitely am more worried now.
There’s a real chance to get some movement on judges before the July 4th recess. There’s 4 more weeks the senate is in session. After that they have a week off then another 4 weeks in session before the Independence Day recess. If Feinstein can some how make it in for 3 of those weeks, I hope Schumer would prioritize getting the backlog of judges cleared before Feinstein is out again for weeks for whatever the next reason will be.
LikeLike
Never thought in a million years we’d agree on any nominee (lol).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow does NY move fast, Halligan was just confirmed yesterday and she is already hearing oral arguments today
LikeLike
I can’t believe the senate burned a WEEK on this Fire Grants and Safety Act, is the House even going to pass it?
LikeLike
@Mike
Haaaaaaa… A freakin week on the Fire Grants and Safety Act. At this rate I may have to up my prediction for the debt ceiling. Last week I said it would take a week but I may have to change that to THREE weeks now.
@Gavi
Do we still have plenty of time? Just making sure all those on this blog that keeps telling us wrong continue to reassure me… Lol
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Dequan
Ha! Plenty!
One silly bill like that took a week. I’ve already predicted that the debt ceiling bill will be a quite the ravenous floor time monster.
Also, I just saw that Jennifer Rubin, formerly a right winger, has an article up (behind a paywall) that’s very critical of Durbin’s chairmanship of the SJC. This is very surprising for her but I’m sure many would agree with her.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/04/20/durbin-hardball-judges/
For those who can’t surmount the paywall, here are some good bits:
In January, Durbin wrote a letter to colleagues essentially begging them to be more bipartisan and cooperative. (This Republican Party?) “Democratic Senators returned 130 blue slips for President Trump’s district court nominees. This enabled 84 district court nominees to be confirmed — nearly 50 percent of all district court confirmations under President Trump,” he wrote. However, “To date, my Republican colleagues have returned only 10 blue slips on district court nominees.”
Durbin’s appeals to shameless Republicans have accomplished nothing. Instead, he has allowed Republicans to run amok. Is it any surprise that when they were asked to approve the request from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to be removed from the committee, they balked? Plainly, they know they have nothing to fear from Durbin.
Democrats cannot attend to the threats to democracy if they play by Marquess of Queensberry rules and apply to Republicans’ nonexistent good faith.
The voters elected a Democratic Senate and Democratic president; they have a right to expect swift confirmation of qualified nominees when democracy remains vulnerable. Voters have a right to expect Senate investigations into questionable actions at the Supreme Court and elsewhere.
Durbin and his fellow Democrats need to learn to play hardball.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Excellent piece @Gavi. And so true. But as long as we still have plenty of time then I guess it doesn’t matter. It’s good to know the skies are blue, the birds are chirping & we have plenty of time to confirm judges… Lol
LikeLike
Frustrating lack of cloture motions…there are several district nominees and at least 1-2 appellate nominees that can be confirmed with just 50 senators. And possibly much more than that.
Another week with 10 pointless amendment votes on a VA Cannabis bill seem like a waste of time to me.
LikeLike
Jessica Clarke received her commission today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Joe_Biden#:~:text=As%20of%20April%2017%2C%202023,the%20United%20States%20district%20courts.
That’s what we’ll have to settle for good news these days since this senate has taken a vacation on confirming judges
LikeLike
No judicial votes on Monday so with cloture the earliest vote wouldn’t be until Wed.
Been defending Chuck here for a while but WTF you have over two dozen nominees and 50D votes ready to go!
LikeLike
@Mike
Actually there’s no votes at all on Monday because the senate is taking Monday off apparently. They are not back in session until Tuesday at 5:30pm. I guess after taking 2 weeks off then working 3 days this week they needed an additional day off next week Monday.
LikeLike
Simply put, there’s a push from the western senators (namely Simena) to have fewer working days, and there’s also less legislation that they need to vote on.
LikeLike
@Frank
Wait, WHAT… They need MORE time off? The 3-day work week is too much work for them? Haaaaaa
Damn, if it wasn’t for you reassuring me there’s plenty of time, I might be worried.
LikeLike
District court judges don’t take too long to confirm, but I agree it’s something they should work on over the next few weeks. There is still A LOT of time, but there are quite a few other priorities and recesses which will take away time from confirming judges over the coming months.
LikeLike
Glad to see that Graham is still being mostly cooperative. I was a bit concerned that he might become less cooperative if he thought that Feinstein might never come back. I am concerned about a Supreme Court vacancy, since Graham opposed KBJ’s Supreme Court nomination. If Feinstein can’t come back, the GOP could hold a Supreme Court seat open despite a Dem president & Senate, or force Biden to pick a center-right nominee like J. Michelle Childs.
LikeLike
If a vacancy occurs on the Supreme Court going forward& either party has the presidency & senate, either side would move Hell on earth to get that seat filled. Feinstein would be driven in by horse & buggy from California if she still can’t fly by that time.
I’m actually less worried about a SCOTUS vacancy then I am the rest of the circuit court nominees. Democrats would be hung from the ceiling by progressives if they left any pre-election SCOTUS vacancy unfilled.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t see why people are essentially calling Michelle Childs a conservative. It’s not true.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don’t even waste your time trying to convince these folks that she’s not (lol)! Once they’ve made up their minds that someone MIGHT BE a conservative, they’re doubling-down on it. Michelle Childs is sitting on the DC Circuit because she’s well-qualified to serve on that court. If they don’t get a nominee who they perceive as a left-wing progressive, they’re gonna trash-em, even though the nominee’s qualifications speak for themselves.
LikeLike
If someone said Janice Rogers Brown then yes she was a real conservative.
LikeLike
I think Michelle Childs is probably the most talked about & debated Biden nominee to date. Opinions range from shes extremely qualified & deserves her seat to she’s an unqualified conservative political hack that got her seat because of Clyburn.
Me personally, I’m closer to the middle… Lol
LikeLike
Although I currently think Childs is a centrist and possibly right-of-center, I could be convinced otherwise if she votes with the liberal judges in most of the cases of which the liberal judges and conservative judges take opposing sides.
LikeLike
I look forward to seeing how Childs rules on the D.C. circuit court. Particularly the en banc cases will give me a better idea of where she really stands.
LikeLike
If there is a Supreme Court confirmation they will probably medevac Feinstein in to vote.
LikeLike
Michelle Childs is a conventional center left judge. I’ve actually interacted with her a couple of times and a close friend of mine has argued in her courtroom dozens of times. She’s not a progressive but she’s very much a mainstream Democrat.
I think the main gripes were that she was older and also that it was a waste of a DC circuit spot that should’ve gone to a future SCOTUS nominee.
LikeLike
@Joe
Add on there was also a pending vacancy on the 4th circuit for her own home state & you hit the nail right on the head. Clyburn pushed so hard for her to get on the DC circuit partly because he wanted to get two picks & he knew his other pick, DeAndre Benjamin probably wouldn’t have gotten a WQ from the ABA for the DC circuit.
LikeLike
I believe you’re more or less right Dequan. I think this was Clyburns/SC Dems way of getting two of their favorite judges on circuit courts and getting Graham to go along with it.
LikeLike
@ Shawnee68
Agree with you 100% on JRB. And you would’ve thought Childs was JRB the way some of these folks trashed her nomination!
LikeLike
According to Darrel J. Papillion SJC questionnaire, senator Kennedy initially contacted him on April 7, 2022, for the vacancy on the 5th. I know Dana Douglas SJC questionnaire stated Cedric Richmond reached out to her about the vacancy. Once Papillion didn’t get the 5th seat, senator Kennedy spoke to him about the district court seat on May 16, 2022. The White House didn’t reach out to him until January 12, 2023.
So it’s interesting to see senator Kennedy did try to work in good faith to fill the seat & with a Black man. Biden went with Richmond’s recommendation, a 7-year younger Black woman instead. To me, Papillion is more progressive. He served on the board of the Innocence Project of New Orleans and the New Orleans
Legal Aid Bureau. And second, it took the WH almost EIGHT MONTHS to contact him about the district court seat once he wasn’t the nominee for the 5th. I truly hope that gap is reduced significantly moving forward.
(https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Papillion%20SJQ%20Public.pdf)
LikeLike
Very interesting, and when his nomination was first announced, I had a thought that he would’ve been a great candidate for the 5th Circuit. But like Hispanic advocacy groups wanted the first Latina appointed from Texas, Louisiana wanted to appoint the first African-American woman. Dana Douglas was fortunate to have then WH Senior Advisor Cedric Richmond supporting her nomination.
LikeLike
@Jill
I completely agree. I think the combination of Cedric Richmond’s support combined with the need to break/crush the 8 Black woman on the circuit courts is the reason we have Douglas on the circuit & Papillion in the district instead of the reverse. I wonder if Kennedy pushed harder for Papillion would Biden had gone with him instead.
By all accounts Papillion is more progressive. Kennedy could have made a deal with Biden that if he puts him on the 5th, he would support him for the Supreme Court as well should a second vacancy arise. I’m sure that would have been enough to close the deal. As much as I am big on youth, I would have been perfectly fine with losing the 7 years for Papillion instead of Douglas. This may be a rare case (Possibly only case) a Republican senator will recommend a better nominee than the one we got instead during Biden’s term.
LikeLike
@Dequan
“it took the WH almost EIGHT MONTHS to contact him about the district court seat once he wasn’t the nominee for the 5th.”
That’s what has always bothered me. I simply do not buy the argument that because the WH was focusing on blue state vacancies they couldn’t pick up the damn phone to continue the process for a candidate that more or less has Republican home state acceptance. But everyone here seems to be OK with it. I won’t apologize for demanding more.
It took the WH 6 months to get back to the ostensibly less cooperative Texas senators but 8 months to get back to the LA senators who’s already shown that they were willing to work in good faith with the WH on judges.
It would be a different thing if the WH had run the table on at least naming all or most blue state nominees. But that didn’t happen.
Anyway, I really don’t see how this will be any better now that the WH/DC is gearing up for a big election. I predict the opposite.
LikeLike
@Gavi
Yea I agree. 8 months just to contact him is inexcusable. Even with an election there no excuse for that. Especially when he was being recommended for the 5th. It should have been a pretty quick process to ask him if he was interested in the district court after Douglas was named.
Now I’m starting to wonder how many other red states have a similar time gap. Papillion was a no brainer. Hell me of all people would have picked him for the 5th over the judge we got that is 7 years younger. So there should have been no question about the district court.
I would say the same thing about Camille McMullin for Tennessee. And I’m sure there has to be some Obama retread nominees that could get easy home state approval such as Stephanie Finley & Edward Stanton. With any Obama nominee being 7 years older, it should be a fairly easy sell.
LikeLike
What I’ve learned along the way from following the process of nominations for the Federal Bench, is that sometimes all you need is just one very influential person or group in your corner.
LikeLike
It’ll be interesting to see if Stephanie Finley is on anyone’s shortlist still for the DC Bench, because it seemed that Kennedy & Cassidy didn’t fight for her the 1st go round.
LikeLike
I can’t think of any Obama retreads that should get much push back 7 years older. A last two years under a Republican senate majority Obama pick has to be the best red state senators can expect. And we all know Biden’s record on renominating Obama nominees even in blue states so red states should be a no brainer baring anything in their background disqualifying in the past 7 years which I highly doubt.
The other Texas Obama’s to not be renominates by Trump besides Ramirez is a guy in his 60’s so that’s out. But a couple other red states combined with Finley, Stanton & then call Blackburn & Haggerty’s bluff with McMullin would fill an entire SJC hearing slot.
LikeLike
@Jill
If I remember correctly, Kennedy was not a Senator when Obama was President.
LikeLike
This is so frustrating, the Chair of the SJC doesn’t know his committee’s own rules. How can that possibly be?
Even though we in here have settled this issue when I posted the plain languages of the rules, apparently Durbin’s staff of attorneys cannot comprehend plain English or understand recent precedent based on committee rules.
And before the permanently obtuse miss this point of this post: no, I am not making an argument one way or the other about subpoenaing anyone, or whether that will actually happen. My single point is the Chair and his staff aren’t just weak but also kinda incompetent:
So, a quick correction to Durbin is in order.
Yes, per the plain text of the rules and actual precedents, the SJC can issue subpoenas, even if the motion is carried by proxy votes.
Per the rules, proxy votes cannot be the deciding factor to **report** out a motion or measure to the senate floor. The issuance of a subpoena is **not** reporting something to the floor.
(Separately, I’d absolutely say Dems should compel Clarence Thomas’s testimony on his many scandals and judicial improprieties.)
LikeLike
Remember he sent his top aide over to the WH to assist with moving nominations along.
LikeLike
@Jill
Ha! How’s that working out for anyone involved? Also, the committee has multiple attorneys.
LikeLike
Id love to see them subpoena Kacsmaryk. Dude is such a clown.
LikeLike
SJC business meeting is scheduled for 4/27
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/committee-activity/hearings/04/27/2023/executive-business-meeting-1
LikeLike
Let’s see if Feinstein takes a 9th straight week off. The senate is only working 2 days next week so I doubt she will return so I only see Amanda Brailsford & Molly Silfen getting voted to the floor. I really want to get Micheal Delaney’s nomination moving. We need a definitive answer on if he will be confirmed or not in the next few months so if not, we can get him replaced.
LikeLike
I was shocked that Amanda Brailsford and Molly Silfen were held. No one has any problems with them.
LikeLike
I’ve tried to post this 2x before, but I’m going to try again. Hope Harsh doesn’t delete it.
Is it possible that Schumer is just a bad vote-counter? Schumer has 50 votes right now, who will vote for at least some of the 28 who are on the floor, and there are no more than 49 Republicans who might vote against. In most math schemes, that means he wins. But no cloture filed for Tuesday?
I know everyone wants to say it’s Manchin and Sinema, but they haven’t voted against any of Biden’s nominees yet, nor have they announced any opposition to anyone who’s been nominated. Put another way, I’ll believe they oppose some of Biden’s nominees when they openly oppose some of Biden’s nominees. Speculating is not the same as knowing, so if anyone here has solid knowledge of their opposition, please let us know.
LikeLike
I’m sure someone on Chucks staff can count to 50, it is crazy there are 25 nominees ready and they’ve made no process at all on confirming any of them.
LikeLike
I’m a math major, I’d do it for him for free.
LikeLike
@Ryan Joshi
Haaaaaa… Let’s see if we can get you on Schumer’s pay roll. Just send me the bill of how many hours it took you to figure out 50 is greater than 49 since apparently they can’t seem to figure it out… Lol
LikeLike
It took me 1 second… Chuck Schumer owes me $0.00416667 if he pays at a $15/hour rate.
LikeLike
Check’s in the mail… Haaaaaaa
LikeLike
Hahaha if he paid $18.01/hour he would owe me an actual penny… he gets away with it this time because $0.00416667 rounds to $0
LikeLike
I wouldn’t put it past him that he might be paranoid about another Freeman-style screw up if another Democrat is unexpectedly out next week. Because remember that he cares more about looking like they’re getting stuff done than actually getting stuff done.
LikeLike
While I don’t have insider information regarding if nominees have the support of the caucus, at least for non-judicial nominees Manchin is public as it pertains to his opposition for someone. Of course, it is hard to know in advance if he’ll have the necessary votes available to confirm the nomination.
LikeLike
Seriously, what is going on with Feinstein? Look, I know I haven’t been one of her biggest fans since her hug fest with Lindsay Graham at the ACB hearing but this is beyond ridiculous at this point. This is the EIGHTH consecutive week she has been out. Next week the senate is only working two days so we know that will be her 9th straight week. We really need an update, an actual update not just she’s returning “soon”.
I truly wish her well & a full recovery but this is not right. She’s 1 of 100 US senators. Her office isn’t answering or returning phone calls & all we are getting is a generic “soon” timetable. For God’s sake is there nobody around her that can get her to realize the severity of the moment?
Is she just gonna miss next week then come back after 9 weeks off or is she planning on missing this entire 5 weeks in session to jump into the next recess? We need answers, actual answers. Not about her medical history or break any HIPA laws. Just when she plans on showing up for work. And no, working from home gets you no credit when you’re a US senator & can’t vote by proxy so spare me that answer please.
LikeLike
@Dequan
I’ve been very critical of the anti-Feinstein commentary for a long time, certain way before her current illness. To me, it always seemed gratuitous and wildly unfair due to the double standard nature of it. Not going to rehash that.
However, I will say that Feinstein seems to be just outside the regular recover time for the disease (up to 6 weeks), making this call for her to resign even more unfair. The fact that over half of people over age 60 go on to develop a secondary disease, postherpetic neuralgia, might explain her continued absence. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that a 90-year-old doesn’t heal as quickly as a younger person.
Everyone knows that I don’t mess around with judicial nominations. Before yesterday, there were 19 (!) nominees gathering dust on the senate floor for Schumer to call up for a vote at any point. Now there’s 26!
Schumer does not need Feinstein or even GOP votes to confirm most of those nominees already reported out. In fact, after Feinstein’s absence, Schumer confirmed some *without* Feinstein’s and Republican votes. What stopped him from doing the same for others? These are the facts. The very provable facts.
It might be more effective to pressure Schumer into actually teeing up and scheduling votes on nominations than trying to get someone to give up power, whether you like it or not.
Schumer has largely given up on confirming judges for a while and Feinstein’s return won’t change that.
As you formulate a response, let this number burn into your mind:
19 (now 26!)
19 (now 26!)
19 (now 26!)
LikeLike
@Dequan, I would be very surprised if she is back before Memorial day. I think it’s closer to 50/50 if she’s back before the August recess. Would be thrilled to be wrong though.
LikeLike
@Gavi
I personally wouldn’t even mention resignation if Feinstein would just do the bare minimum I believe a US senator owes their constituents which is communicate.
She’s missed 8 weeks of work. That’s on top of the weeks she’s missed the rest of Biden’s term. That’s on top of the other issues that have been written about her (Initially from me but many others seem to be catching up & now on par with what I’ve been saying for about a year now).
And let’s be honest, when she returns, we all know it will just be for a period of time before she’s out weeks (Yes, I put a “S” on the end to make sure its plural) more for another reason. I’m sorry but if missing work was an art form, she would be the Picasso of the US senate.
I honestly would be willing to forgive & forget if she would just have her staff answer & return calls with concrete answers. I don’t think that’s too much to ask from one of the 100 US senators the country is afforded.
LikeLike
My biggest fear about when Feinstein returns is that Schumer won’t realize the urgency of the moment & go all out on judicial confirmations. When she returns in session, Schumer really needs to immediately start the confirmations before she goes back out again.
We have to come to the realization that when she is back, we don’t know how long it will be for. If we can get two months straight out of Feinstein showing up to work that would be great but I’m doubtful if will be that long. Once she returns, the ball is in Schumer’s court to knock out the heavy hitters before her next absence begins.
LikeLike
With all his controversy and he doesn’t seem like a hardcore progressive, couldn’t the WH have done better for the 1st Circuit than Michael Delaney ?
Why couldn’t they have nominated someone in the mold of a David Barron..
LikeLike
Simply put, the senators from NH are extremely close to him and weren’t going to accept any other nominee.
LikeLike
@Frank: Not trying to be argumentative, but knowing if he’ll have the necessary votes available to confirm a nomination before the vote is EXACTLY Schumer’s job.
LikeLike
I’m not talking about knowing that he’ll have enough votes. I’m talking about knowing he’ll have enough votes for whenever it’s scheduled for.
LikeLike
@rayspace
Delany did have the necessary votes before his conduct during that rape trial came to light.
LikeLike
What “conduct” are you referring to?
LikeLike
I don’t think Schumer is bad at counting votes, I just think he is (mistakenly IMO) prioritizing other votes.
Really the only nominees on the floor that might have any opposition from Dems are Ho, Kato, Abudu, and Rikelman. Vera already got discharge votes from Manchin/Sinema and Bloomekatz is supported hard by Brown so I feel confident she will get unanimous D support.
Everyone else should be able to get all 50 at worst.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Amending my earlier remarks–I count “only” 25 nominees out of committee.
Also, my earlier remarks didn’t deal with Feinstein, although of course I can see what impact her absence is having in SJC and on the floor. But Schumer has 50 votes without her and probably some Republican support on many (most?) of the 25. I agree with @Joe that there are probably very few nominees who’d get only 50D votes if they were put up right now. The rest should be scheduled for cloture and floor votes. Anything less is dereliction of duty.
LikeLike
Piggybacking on the conversation from yesterday, here is a list of Obama red or purple state nominees that were never confirmed that I can see still see being renominated by Biden. The only caveat is there is a current vacancy for them so somebody like Jennifer Klemetsrud Puhl is not included since North Dakota doesn’t have a vacancy in either the 8th or district court.
Mary Barzee Flores – Florida, albeit with 1962 that may be too old for me even in a red state.
Edward L. Stanton III – Tennessee
Suzanne Mitchell – Oklahoma
Terrence J. Campbell – Kansas. I certainly hope this is not Wamble’s replacement.
Stephanie A. Finley – Louisiana
Claude J. Kelly III – Louisiana, 1962 birth year but since senator Kennedy has been working in good faith, I could see this deal being made. Plus he is currently the Chief Federal Defender for the Eastern District of Louisiana so that is a good tradeoff for the age for a red state.
Patricia D. Barksdale – Florida
Philip R. Lammens – Florida
LikeLike
@Dequan
That reminds me. Jabari Wamble was first nominated for a judgeship in August 2022. He was nominated for another one a few months ago. But the ABA has never rated his nomination. What’s going on with them?
LikeLike
At this point I’m completely baffled about Jabari Wamble. If he currently was not in such a high-profile government job, I would suspect something was wrong with his background. But there’s no way he could currently be in his job without a sniff of a problem leaked into the news since August of last year. This is truly one situation that stumps me.
LikeLike
Wamble’s case still puzzles me as well.
IMO, something must have come up where they found something they thought wouldn’t make him a good circuit court nominee.
Makes no sense why he would be nominated for a district court seat given that though.
LikeLike
I’m wondering about a vacancy in Western Arkansas. The most obvious possible contenders are Magistrate Judges Mark Ford and Christy Comstock.
Ford was a longtime defense lawyer in Fort Smith, specializing in civil cases but sometimes taking criminal cases and even a little bit of civil rights law.
Comstock is a former attorney for a small trucking company who is a locally renown expert on transportation law.
I don’t know their party affiliations. But the Biden Administration seems to have a fondness for Magistrate Judges.
LikeLike
@Mitch, state judge Leigh Zuerker (a former public defender) is another name on my radar in Western Arkansas. But good luck getting Senator Cotton to return his blue slips for any judicial nominee.
LikeLike
For Arkansas, Missouri & Alabama, I don’t think the conversation is about finding a good & acceptable nominee. I think the conversation is will blue slips be ditched or the seats remain vacant. I see no middle ground for those three states outside of nominating a Chad Meredith type.
LikeLike
@Dequan & Ethan
The Obama Administration appointed four Federal judges with John Boozman in office. Don’t you think that Tom Cotton would defer to him?
LikeLike
When Obama appointed those judges, Tom Cotton was a private citizen. Now he’s a senator sitting on the SJC that ran unopposed in his last election & probably has national ambitions for the future. He ain’t differing to anybody on federal judges. I can assure you that
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cotton is much further right than Boozman.
LikeLike
There is no way Biden is going to find common ground with Cotton, unless it is a FedSoc type nominee as part of a larger deal.
LikeLike
Yea..sorry but any Republican in power will vote for far right judges no matter how moderate he or she will be.
I’ll take someone like Manchin whom I can’t stand 99% of the time over any Republican.
LikeLike
I agree. The “Ideal” result absolutely includes Manchin winning re election.
Justice probably would be much more like Moore Capito. Occasionally might be able to get him for some bipartisan bills, but that’s about it.
That being said with Tester/Brown re elected and Gallego replaces Sinema Biden would be able to have two more strong years on judges. That would also bode very well for 2026, where the Dems have pickup opportunities in Maine and NC and are really only defending Ossoff
LikeLike
Picture this, courtwatchers: you’re Chuck Schumer, and you have before you 25 judicial nominees waiting confirmation. They are overall very good nominees, who will be ruling for decades to come in most cases. Your party’s base is seeing its rights eroded on a daily basis by judges appointed by the other side. You have a chance to confirm about 20 of these individuals fairly easily over 2 weeks time.
You look at the list, and consider your options before you stand up and shout “But the republic will fall if we don’t first confirm the VA Under Secretary for Benefits!”
LikeLike
I’ll do you one better. Same scenario, except now imagine only working 3 days a week (And just 2 next week) instead of working 4 days a week every week the senate is in session. That extra day (Extra 2 days next week) would be enough to confirm all of the judicial nominees plus the VA Under Secretary for Benefits by the end of this 5 week in session. I swear I get infuriated when I see how much time the senate takes off.
LikeLike
@Dequan Better hope Biden gets re-elected and we have a new CA senator because Senate Democrats have decided that they’re not going to confirm judges anymore and if they do by any miracle it won’t be without Feinstein there so practically never until she is replaced
LikeLike
That’s nonsense nobody said that.
LikeLike
Exactly @Dequan
And the true elephant in the room–I bet most of the Senators from west of the Mississippi, especially those not up in ’24, don’t go home every weekend. So the excuse for the short weeks (Senators have to travel) is largely bogus.
LikeLike
I was looking to see if anyone talked about this yet but SCOTUS last night shot down Kacsmaryk’s rogue attempt to ban the abortion pill nationwide. The vote was supposedly 7-2. Alito & Thomas dissented.
LikeLike
Justice Thomas is such a disgrace is so many ways. Democrats should be hammering him daily on his blatant ethics violations. I truly wish Justice Marshall would have just done what he told his law clerks once & just stayed on the bench until either Bush wasn’t president any longer or until he died. He passed away about a week after Clinton took office.
I really wish him & RBG would have flipped so he could have stayed until he passed & she stepped down before she did. It will likely take 8 years if Biden & all 8 with a Democrat senate majority to have a chance to reclaim the courts. Sucks big time
LikeLiked by 1 person
It doesn’t help to re-live history. The result is always the same. Justice Marshall left in his words because he was “falling apart.” He was too ill to swear in Al Gore so Justice White had to step in.
LikeLike
I relive history mostly when I see it repeating itself. To an extent, Feinstein’s decision not to retire may be a slight repeat of RBG’s decision if some reports are true & she will not be able to return to the senate this year. If Biden loses or the Democrats lose the senate majority, that will turn out to be a disastrous decision along with the senate schedule of 3 work days or less a week.
LikeLike
Yeah sure 3 days a week.Do you say that in your sleep?Senator Feinstein will be returning soon. If , she quit now there’s no guarantee that a replacement will be permitted on the judiciary committee.
LikeLike
No, I don’t say that in my sleep because I’m afraid if I do they would change to 2 days a a week… Lol
REALLY, Feinstein is returning soon? Damn, you must have some insider information. All reports from unnamed sources I’ve read thinks there’s a possibility she won’t return this year or EVER. I hope your info in more accurate though.
LikeLike
She told Schumer that she would be back. That’s the word.In the meantime, the Senate will vote on nominees who are on the floor.
LikeLike
Haaaaaa… That’s what you’re basing your information on? She also apparently told somebody she was the mayor of San Francisco a couple years ago. I think I trust the word of those around her more than her word. At this point, it might take a Weekend at Bernie’s type mannequin to get anybody that closely resembles her back to the senate in 2023.
LikeLike
Thurgood Marshall was falling apart and by the time he retired, George Sr still had approval ratings in the 80’s.
I sadly can’t fault him for what he did.
That doesn’t extend to RBG.
Marshall’s story should have been a warning to her and others what happens if you think you can roll the dice, because you never know what can happen.
Marshall didn’t retire under Carter because he thought he could ride out eight years of a Republican.
He did but didn’t forsee Reagan having coattails that would give Republicans four more years in office.
RBG had survived two types of cancer yet was still arrogant to think she could determine her own fate unlike Marshall.
And we all know what happened with that.
LikeLike
The 92 race is still fascinating to me. If I remember correctly, after The Gulf War, GHW Bush had the highest approval rating ever by any president. I believe he was only topped by GW Bush after 9/11. I can’t believe somebody could blow that kind of approval in less than 2 years.
He really had a series of mishaps. The “Read my lips” followed by him raising taxes (Although I agreed with that decision & thought it took courage for him to do) is usually mentioned as his biggest mistake. Him checking his watch at the debate is another. But of course Ross Perot probably is most responsible for us getting president Clinton. The only time in my lifetime a third party sirens to my advantage.
LikeLike
I remember the reporting on MSNBC that Perot didn’t effect the 92 election that much, though he had a strong showing for an independent candiate.. Perot backers were pretty much split between Clinton and Bush as their 2nd choice
https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ross-perot-myth-reborn-amid-rumors-third-party-trump-candidacy-msna646596
LikeLike
I’ve seen that seat before. I never believed it. I think without Perot, Bush gets re-elected. I’m happy we will never know… Lol
LikeLike
I think we are overweighing the weight of spoilers, although Perot could have been a spoiler since GHW Bush + Perot got 55-56% of the popular vote.
The Nader 2000 and Stein 2016 campaigns were likely spoilers due to the closeness of the tipping point state (0.01% in 2000 and 0.77% in 2016). Many elections have multiple spoilers, and in the end it’s up to convincing the voters to not vote for those spoiler candidates.
For 2024, No Labels (which privately supports Trump takes money from Harlan Crow) is aiming to get a “moderate” candidate to siphon off Biden voters. Because of Trump’s polarizing nature, even conservative third party candidates could hurt Biden more than Trump.
LikeLike
No Labels is a total extension of a pro Trump party. I hope Democrats don’t (In the words of VP Harris) fall for the okie doke. I fully expect Trump to be the Republican nominee. I hope he brings some more losing senate candidates with him.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Before COVID, Trump was likely to win the 2020 election (idc if polls said otherwise we know polls have accuracy issues). The economy was booming and people credited Trump for it (even though it had nothing to do with Trump). Then, the economy crashed during COVID after Trump mishandled it.
I would have never forgiven Ginsburg for retiring in 2019, even if she was in the hospital half of the time and still died in 2020. But she fought and was about 4 months short of making it to a Democratic presidency & Senate.
LikeLike
I don’t think that comparison is fair to RBG. Honestly I think what Marshall did was worse because he chose to retire while a GOP president was in office. RBG didn’t choose to die while Trump was president.
LikeLike
I think what led to both Brennan and Marshall retiring is what happened with Justice William O Douglas. He was too sick to work but refused to leave.
It’s a out of print book but Edward Lazurus’ “Closed Chambers” is a good read by a former Blackmun clerk.
He said that when Scalia and Kennedy arrived at the court they had vigor and were aggressive in oral arguments. While Brennan and Marshall sat in silence “Sphinx” like well past their prime.
LikeLike
I’m sure that’s true. I just wish they understood they were 2 out of 9 votes regardless of oral arguments. But of course the SCOTUS, confirmation process & US senate were all vastly different back in those days. I don’t see Justices making those same decisions anytime again soon. The closest I could see doing that was Justice Kennedy. I thought he might have held out for the next president after Trump. But other than him, I don’t see it happening again anytime soon even if a Justice is on their death bed.
LikeLike
That’s true… Marshall probably didn’t expect that his successor would be the ultimate right wing reactionary.
On a bright note, Alito & Thomas seem to have galaxy-sized egos and I could see them staying on the court until they die. This would be very unlikely to happen under both a Dem president & Senate but if Dems held 1 or the other they could hold the seat open unless the GOP agrees to compromise.
LikeLike
Next year will decide the future of the country for decades to come. If Biden can win reelection & the Democrats can pull off a miracle & not lose a seat or even just lose one net seat to keep it 50/50, the 2026 senate map looks favorable. January 2029 would look like a long way away for all 6 conservatives to stay on the bench. And Manchin wouldn’t have to be as independent after next year because he likely won’t be running again in 2030.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Really, it was even closer since it took several weeks to confirm ACB.
LikeLike
I think the GOP would have found a way to fill the seat had RBG died a few weeks before New Year’s. It would be unlikely they could fill the seat after New Year’s because the GOP’s majority was slimmed down to 51-48 before Dems took the 2 Georgia seats and vice presidency.
LikeLike
For me the issue with RBG will always be the fact she had beaten two types of cancers twice and had a window of six years to retire safely but choose not to, in part due to her belief no one could be as liberal as she was but also that she could keep cheating death and decide when to retire.
Utter hubris that we will be paying the price for decades to come.
LikeLike
@Zack Jones
There’s more to her record than that. Ginsburg lived a remarkable life.
LikeLiked by 1 person
She certainly did. However, because she wanted to break some SCOTUS records and get her painting back in her office (not kidding, this was a real reason she once gave) she declined to retire and Amy Coney Barrett was able to vote to take abortion rights away from women.
LikeLike
Yes RBG had a great life time of service & career but unfortunately her misguided decision not to retire before 2015 was a gamble that we the people lost. If somebody commits a mass murder you don’t focus on all the great things they did throughout their life. You focus on their final act that had devastating affects.
RBG did many great things & I appreciate them. But her final act was to stay on the bench after multiple health issues when there was a Democrat president & senate. She didn’t think they were capable of finding somebody just as good as her. As a result, we got ACB. The argument about what she did throughout her career falls a little flat when her replacement is voting to over turn most of it.
LikeLike
Mitch, RBG did have a remarkable life but her choices at the end will overshadow all of that, especially since the person who replaced her will be undoing her entire legacy.
LikeLike
Tucker Carlson out from Fox News. I guess $787 million dollars can make a billion dollars company do what shame should have made them do a long time ago.
LikeLike
@Dequan
This is a big surprise. He has one of the highest rated shows in cable news history.
LikeLike
I’m not surprised. I actually mentioned it to @Gavi last week about me seeing at least one, probably more than one Fox News host getting canned in the near future. Looks like the second time I’ve spoken something into existence after mentioning it to him earlier in the week after me asking him if he had Irma Ramirez on his list the night before she was nominated to the 5th. I better not speak Julian Neals or Esther Salas into existence for the 3rd… Haaaaa
LikeLike