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 
Seems risky to fire Tucker when Smartmatic is still suing Fox.
Don Lemon also fired from CNN, lucky CNN did it today, nobodies’ gonna care.
LikeLike
It’s been quiet on here today… I found out that the Senate is voting on the equal rights amendment this week with no clue on whether it actually has a shot at succeeding. If it passes, it will be worth a week of senate time since the bill gets rid of the deadline, meaning state legislatures can ratify (or re-ratify) it once they come to their senses, however long that may be.
If it’s a failed vote, I can see Schumer using it as a tactic to call Republicans out, but in that case it will still be a week of senate time wasted.
LikeLike
This is yet another example of why there isn’t all this “plenty of time” some on this blog claim there is. I know it sounds nice to say mostly the senate will just be confirming judges while Republicans have the House but that was never true despite how nice it sounds.
It’s not even the end of April yet & already this year the senate has had to deal with the fire grants act, Iraq repeal & now this bill, each taking up a full senate week. We haven’t even gotten to the budget or debt ceiling yet. The senate has plenty of things that will take up time besides confirmations. Saying things just to make us feel good doesn’t translate to confirming judges.
And all of that doesn’t even account for the lack of nominees we have. We have already missed 3 SJC hearing slots this year & with no new batch this week, a 4th will occur in a month. With Biden announcing reelection this week, a new batch is unlikely this week.
LikeLike
There is plenty of time, Chucks burning it on things the House might not even take up much less pass and I’m having trouble trying to figure out why.
5 weeks in session would’ve been enough to clear all current pending confirmations, I’m sure there’s a reason they aren’t focusing on judicial nominees I just don’t know what it is. A bit worried they also think they have 2 years and don’t feel the need to keep their foot on the gas.
LikeLike
But that’s the thing. When people say there is plenty of time, you have to factor in Schumer not feeling the need to keep his foot on the gas into the equation. I actually agree with you on that & it’s one of the reasons I don’t think there’s all this time people keep talking about.
But of course that’s just one of the reasons. You also have the following;
Slow pace of nominations leading to 3 SJC hearing slots already missed this year.
3 day work week with numerous Mondays scheduled off this year.
Legislation taking full weeks of senate time.
Senator Feinstein’s attendance alone, let alone any of the other 50 senators that will inevitably miss time.
Unprecedented Republican opposition & obstruction.
The need to vote on nominees that in the past would get voice votes.
Next years election in which more Democrat senators will need to campaign.
The likelihood that we will not have 100% Democrat voting for judicial nominees this term.
VP Harris not being available for tie breaking votes as often leading to the possibility of more Arianna Freeman repeat scenarios.
LikeLike
I’m just hopeful that the last three weeks of this session can be dedicated to judges. The backlog has gotten too large. If they just desiccated a few weeks to that they’d be able to spend the second half of the year on legislation
LikeLike
Doesn’t a constitutional amendment require 2/3rds vote? Are they just repealing the deadline and leaving the amendment intact? And can they do that?
I remember when the 27th Amendment passed in 1992; it had been pending since the late 18th century, iirc, but didn’t have a deadline attached to it.
LikeLike
I would be very content with this if it became true:
LikeLike
Greetings all.
@Rick
As he said, it’s a real shot int he dark, but boy would I love for his aim to be true!
I would love to think that Biden and Cardin were waiting for the end of oral arguments to announce their nominee. She would *probably* instantly replace Holly A Thomas as my favorite Biden circuit nominee, and that’s saying a lot because no one in the world loves Holly A Thomas as much as I do, probably not even her family (jk!).
LikeLike
Actually, now that I’ve thought about it more, I’m thinking that this would be less likely. Someone of Prelogar’s intellectual heft would want to be on a more influential circuit court, like the DC circuit (or the 2nd, if she was a local). Much like Scalia, who turned down a nomination to the 7th Circuit for the same reason, these savvy people know that the DC circuit offers them the best path to SCOTUS.
LikeLiked by 1 person
True, but the DC circuit likely won’t be getting any vacancies for some time.
LikeLike
“These savvy people” Gavi? More like these arrogant people.
LikeLike
@Rick
That would explain the delay. But does Prelogar have any roots in Maryland? IMHO, that’s a factor in Ben Cardin’s thinking.
LikeLike
Just catching up so I’ll respond to all here in one reply;
Elizabeth Prelogar would be a great addition to the (Insert any of the 13 circuit courts) circuit court. I would she would instantly join Biden’s SCOTUS shortlist once confirmed, however she’s already on it. All that would change is she would move higher up on the list.
As for her possibly being the reason for the long delay for the 4th vacancy. I certainly hope not. She’s a phenomenal nominee but nobody is worth playing Russian Roulette with an appellate court seat in an election year where Democrats were showing they could lose the senate. I doubt that was the plan however & she likely will not be the nominee but great news if she was.
Great news cloture has been filed on Anthony Johnstone. Hopefully we will get a heavy dose of judges for the remainder of the 3 weeks the senate is in session. Either way they are off for a week then back for five consecutive weeks again .
LikeLike
Schumer has filed cloture on Anthony Johnstone. Not sure if more coming, but hope so.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@ Mitch
I don’t think Elizabeth Prelogar has any ties to Maryland.
I’d really like to see her be a SCOTUS nominee, but definitely would be happy w/a circuit court position….
LikeLike
If Prelogar has been living in Maryland for the last two years that’s connection enough for me haha.
Good news on Johnstone. I would love to see them use all of next week to knock out nearly all of the pending circuit nominees. Then the last two weeks of the session could be for district nominees. A man can dream haha.
LikeLike
While it’s nice to see Anthony Johnstone on his way to confirmation, it only makes what is happening with the 10th Circuit vacancy all the more puzzling and frustrating.
Blue slips aren’t an issue as shown by the fact Sen.Daines has made clear he opposes Johnstone being confirmed and Jabari Wamble
had a strong Democratic backer in his father in law so you still wonder what the heck came up to see him get demoted the way he did.
LikeLike
I’m happy for Johnstone (And at this point any confirmations too. But I’m still mad seeing Abudu, Ho, Vera & Kato get passed over because we have Feinstein still out. I really hope she can come back after the 9th week this week even just for 2 weeks to get them & Rikelman confirmed before she goes back out again. Most of the rest can be confirmed without her.
The entire Wamble situation is infuriating for the 10th, followed by him still not getting a hearing for the district court. I will probably read every word of his SJC questionnaire when he finally gets his hearing.
LikeLike
Sign the petition: Senate must cancel August recess to confirm judges!
https://www.dailykos.com/campaigns/petitions/sign-the-petition-senate-must-cancel-august-recess-to-confirm-judges?detail=emailnewsletter&link_id=4&can_id=ad54f97462608ff3c852d75773e977a0&source=email-sign-the-petition-senate-must-cancel-august-recess-to-confirm-judges-7&email_referrer=email_1894392&email_subject=sign-the-petition-senate-must-cancel-august-recess-to-confirm-judges
LikeLike
Just signed. Thanks for the link. Also the SJC website seems to be under maintenance. I guess this is a good time since there’s nothing to update anyway.
(https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/)
LikeLiked by 1 person
The website is working fine for me.
LikeLike
It’s back up. It wasn’t earlier but guess they fixed it now.
LikeLike
I signed the petition for the heck of it, but there’s no reason they can’t catch up completely on judges and also have four weeks off. They just need to stay focused
LikeLike
That’s the problem. This week they gave themselves FIVE weeks off for the Summer recess. The last two years it was only four weeks. And that’s on top of the additional Monday’s they gave themselves off even when there is no holiday like yesterday.
LikeLike
I agree, that is ridiculous. But I still think it’s more of a focus/attendance issue at the moment than anything.
Theoretically they could knock out every appellate nominee next week and then 3 weeks of voting to confirm each of the 20 district nominees. That could all easily be done by July 4 recess. Then after that all they’d need to do is confirm them as they come through.
The issue is when they spend whole weeks of legislation that may not even pass the House.
LikeLike
Senator Tuberville objected to the military promotions voice vote again today. Democrats really need to be making a bigger deal about that then they are. They need to start using the language Republicans would be using if it was reverse. Say there will be blood on his hands if he continues to play politics with our brave men & woman. I’ve heard more about Bed Bath & Beyond in the news then about this.
LikeLike
Didn’t Tuberville get the vote he wanted? The senate declined to end the abortion policy at the pentagon. Just rage inducing that he would vote to harm our military.
LikeLike
I do not believe the senate voted on what Tuberville wanted, nor do I believe they should. I wouldn’t want to set the precedent that politicians are making decisions that our military leaders really should be deciding in my opinion. I can’t imagine how complicated things will get if that precedent is set.
I will say I spoke into existence exposing Tubervilke’s bs. Last night on MSNBC, Alex Wagner had senator Warren on & they spent an entire segment on the schedule. This needs to be higher on the daily news cycle.
LikeLike
@Joe
Tuberville’s beef is with the abortion policy itself, not necessarily with getting a CRA vote on reversing it.
—
In other news, here’s one way in which the lack of movement on some nominations is affecting the courts. This time, Rachel Bloomekatz:
LikeLike
Reading post like that gets me so angry. The senate is working 3 days a week with an increase of 2 day work weeks with all these judicial vacancies piled up. I honestly wouldn’t care if they took 5 weeks off for Summer recess & took every Friday off if they just worked full days Monday through Thursday.
Almost all of the pending judges would be confirmed by now had they spent the extra time Monday 11am – 5pm & Thursday 3pm – 7pm confirming judges. Even if they took a Monday off but instead of coming in Tuesday at 5pm, came in at 11am like they normally do, they could get two district court judges confirmed in that extra time. It’s truly infuriating.
LikeLike
She would still have to receive her commission though, so it’s not a guarantee that would have an impact on things.
LikeLike
I’m not just talking about this case in particular. I’m saying overall. Senate Democrats need to meet the moment with the urgency it deserves.
LikeLike
OK, prediction time! The U.S. Courts site list 78 current vacancies now, and 6 more scheduled to occur in May.
How many current vacancies will there be on June 1st?
(I know, I know–it’s impossible to predict who else will resign abruptly or announce senior status on short notice, or be taken to the eternal court, but hey, it’s worth speculating. And we’re good at that).
LikeLike
If there are 84 announced vacancies my prediction is we will have 6 more announced by June 1st. I won’t say an actual number because we have no way of knowing how many judges will be confirmed between now & then so I’ll just say 6 more.
LikeLike
Total shot in the dark, but I’ll guess that they spend two weeks on confirming judges between now and then. I’ll guess 2 circuit and 12 district judges confirmed. So I guess that would take it down to 70 vacancies (78+6-14) depending on how we’re counting them.
Really hoping for much more than that though.
LikeLike
Hope you’re right @Joe.
@Dequan do you think they’ll confirm anyone besides Johnstone or are you going with 89? (78-1+6+6=89)
LikeLike
As I have expected, Schumer now goes on with more boring nominees as he got them after the executive meeting last week.
If I’m Vera or Cartwright I would seriously consider to withdraw being tired of waiting and seeing so many others pass advancing who are nominated much later.
LikeLike
I was thinking about how some of the nominees who’ve been waiting for over a year must be feeling.
I guess it’s frustrating but they’ve done the hard part, they can keep living their life and working and when/if they’re confirmed that’ll be that and they get a lifetime job.
LikeLike
I definitely think we will see a significant number of confirmations between now & June 1st. I’m not happy with the order we are getting because as evident today, Schumer is going for the low hanging fruits with the two New Jersey nominees & his personal friend Merchant from New York, all of who is by passing dozens of other nominees that have been waiting longer.
At this point Schumer just isn’t gonna bring up any of the heavy hitters until Feinstein is back. He doesn’t want to risk another Arianna Freeman embarrassment & waste of time due to attendance issues. This is Feinstein’s 9th week out. I’m not sure how much longer even she can drag this out so I assume she worked out a deal with Schumer to come back for 1 or 2 weeks to knock out the heavy hitters before she goes back out again with whatever her next excuse will be. Sucks but this is what we get with a 50.5 senate majority.
LikeLike
Vera should have the votes anyway. He got all 50 Dems last year on a discharge vote.
Anyway, I hope next week can be all judges. A four day week is about 16 votes, so they could potentially get Johnstone plus 7 or 8 district nominees. If they do the two following weeks they’d be all but caught up
LikeLike
Forgive me for being obtuse, but I still don’t get Schumer’s reasoning. Even without Feinstein, he has 50 votes; GOP has 49. No Dem has publicly announced opposition to any nominee on the floor. He just went way out of order and he must have Jill Pryor on speed dial in terms of telling nominees to be patient. I haven’t been willing to speculate on any Dem opposition w/out an official announcement, but nothing else makes sense. 50>49, always.
LikeLike
The problem is after Freeman, I’m sure Schumer is trying to avoid an embarrassing repeat due to attendance issues. The Democrats have a 51-49 advantage so theoretically 2 Dems can miss a vote & the nominee still gets confirmed if the VP is town. But when you take Feinstein out of the equation for 9 weeks, that doesn’t mean all of her 50 Democrats won’t have personal issues. You’re just one flu, family member passing away, leg breaking ir any other issue away from a Freeman repeat.
And I’m sure the VP’s schedule will be getting busier over the rest of the term so Schumer really needs 51 so any one senator can be out for any reason & they are still good. Unfortunately one senator is taking up all of that cushion all by herself. It sucks she won’t put the country ahead of herself & resign but at this point who knows what’s going on in her head. We just have to hope she can at least show up to work for 2 weeks somehow.
LikeLike
I get that, but I don’t know how short of a new injury or emergency, Chuck can’t ensure 49 other senators are there for 4 days. Is it really that hard for him to say this is a no mess week, be here at all cost and if you can’t then notify us asap.
One full week would clear what, 6-10 district nominees?
LikeLike
Unfortunately one of those other 50 senators is senator Sinema. Since she’s now an Independent & the Democrats are running another candidate in her reelection race next year, I’m not sure how much leverage Schumer has over her. And when Freeman happened, all 50 were scheduled to be in town. Things happen. You can say this week is a no messing around but when you have no room for error, that’s usually when something goes wrong.
It really is a difficult situation. It really just comes down to dragging Feinstein in to do her job for two weeks. I know that’s a lot because at this point getting two days out of her is a stretch but hopefully they can make it happen.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t call the first confirmation vote for Freeman an “embarrassment.”She came up short one day. A week or two later she gets confirmed. No one cares about the first vote because it doesn’t matter.
LikeLike
When I say an embarrassment, I’m not talking about Freeman herself. She is not at fault for attendance issues no more then Martinez-Olguin or Guzman are even though both had to have VP Harris come in & break the tie.
It’s an embarrassment for Schumer & Whip Durbin. More importantly it’s a waste of floor time which we all know is precious with a 3 day work week.
Hopefully next week we get Johnston confirmed along with the 3 district court nominees, any nominees Schumer files cloture for today plus a possible voice vote for the Idaho nominee.
LikeLike
I wasn’t talking about Freeman either. It was just one vote that went wrong. Shame on Schumer and Durbin? Give me a break!
LikeLike
I didn’t say shame on Schumer or Durbin. I said it was embarrassing. And yes it matters because they could have confirmed another district court judge even with the 3 missing Democrats had they known they would be missing. Every judge counts. A judge confirms brings us closer to finally getting the heavy hitters confirmed.
LikeLike
Good to see Johnstown scheduled – looks like he’ll be confirmed next week. I doubt he’s going to get any GOP votes since he was nominated over Daines’ objection, so Schumer likely has some indication that all Dems will be present next week. Not sure why he didn’t schedule some of the more progressive nominees around the same time – at least one district judge could be confirmed the same day if they confirm Johnstone in the morning next Tuesday.
Hopefully this is the first of several appellate nominees to be confirmed – the last one (Kahn) was almost two months ago, and they didn’t (and aren’t likely to) confirm any judges at all in April.
LikeLike
I won’t bite, I’ve said all I need to say on the matter until something new happens, which seems unlikely for now.
—
In other news, DeSantis seems likely to lose now that the Disney case was assigned to Chief Judge Mark Walker, an Obama appointee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_E._Walker).
Imagine that, a purple state (at the time) nominee confirmed unanimously in the age of the Tea Party. He’s been serving for over a decade and he’s still younger than some of Biden’s recent nominees.
Anyway, Disney’s win would probably be fleeting since the 11th Circuit will likely overturn it.
Confirm Nancy Abudu, already!
LikeLike
The good ole days when my home state had Bill Nelson for a senator & Obama won the state twice… Those were the days… Sigh
LikeLike
If only you guys had learned how to vote properly after the 2000 election haha. Like, how difficult can it be? Nelson lost because of those undervotes.
LikeLike
Haaaaa… Well I will take some fault for 2000 because I was one of the pregnant Chad’s then. But that was my first time voting & that ballot was confusing as Hell. I still can’t believe anybody in their right mind approved that ballot.
I just hope DeSantis going too far to the right will help turn us back to purple next year. There’s no way this state should be this red.
LikeLike
Random question… do any of you on this blog have the Wikipedia handle Snickers2686? I looked back and realized that I got into significant edit wars with them (mostly over me trying to add things like “Judge Berzon is a liberal” or “Judge Gould is a moderate”). Despite having been in edit wars with them, I see how many Wiki pages for federal judges they’ve created and that is amazing. Anyway I’m mostly “retired” from editing Wikipedia because I’m too busy for it these days.
LikeLike
I use to get into edit wars with @Snickers2686 on Wikipedia too. But he is VERY good at creating & doesn’t much anymore. We each kind of stay in our lanes. He creates the pages once the nominees are announced & I do a lot of the updating & add their profile pictures once they have their SJC hearings. I have been creating numerous Wikipedia pages for people I think Biden might nominate over the past few months as well.
On another note, I like looking at the guest list for these state dinners. Tonight, Biden had guest ranging from two Republican governors (1 past & 1 present), a Republican senator & one of his own circuit court judges. Even the twin sister of an Obama circuit court chief judge was there.
(https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/04/26/white-house-releases-state-dinner-guest-list/)
LikeLike
It’s a nice range. This particular dinner has a lot of Asians or Asian Americans on it (presumably because he is meeting with officials from Korea). Though everything they (at least the Americans on the list) have in common is that they are Never Trumpers. Biden’s re-election campaign, like his original election campaign, is centered around him being a tidbit better than Donald Trump.
LikeLike
New future vacancy announced this morning. District judge Jon Levy in Maine, an Obama appointee, announcing his senior status for May 2024. Plenty of time for King and Collins to work on finding someone Biden can name, and hopefully the Senate confirm.
LikeLike
Very nice. I expect a condenses nominee by early next year. Sad but I can see Maine getting a nominee announced before Arkansas, Alabama or Missouri, all three which had vacancies since last year or longer.
LikeLike
I wonder if Collins would approve Julia Lipez (Kermit Lipez’s daughter), who is an Androscoggin County Superior Court judge, could get it. Or her husband Nolan Reichl, an AUSA. She might have too many conflicts between father (even though he has senior status) and husband.
LikeLike
Her father could always comity to out right retiring if she’s confirmed. There’s precedent for that. The most famous case is of course how LBJ got the vacancy that eventually led to the seat Thurgood Marshall on the SCOTUS. It’s amazing there once was a time a SCOTUS justice would give up their lifetime appointment to the bench so their son can become Attorney General.
LikeLike
If you have kids it will make more sense. At the end of the day it’s just a job.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kermit Lipez is 82 years old and so I could see him be willing to outright retire. I don’t think that would be the case if he were 15 years younger. If you really wanted to get a young judge this way you’d have to look for a grandchild.
LikeLike
Nice indeed.
Judge Levy is making sure he that qualifies under the rule of 80 and giving the principles enough time vet and nominate a successor. I just hope that won’t be a sitting justice of Maine’s high court because they are all too old. Much like the California senators, Collins and King seem to like recommending state justices/judges.
LikeLike
Todays executive meeting in the SJC was uneventful. Durbin spoke about Democrats turning in 110 blue slips for Trump while Republicans so far has turned in 17 for Biden (I thought the number was a little higher than that). The Graham spoke about the Biden administration ending an immigration practice in 10 days that will increase migration into the country. There was only one voice vote which was the Idaho nominee. I expect her to be confirmed next week via voice vote as well. I’m not sure why the Court of Federal Claims nominee wasn’t voted on. She has the strong support of senator Tillis.
LikeLike
Does anyone have a Bloomberg subscription and can share what’s in this story about Wamble behind the paywall?
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/tenth-circuit-vacancy-holds-up-kansas-district-court-nomination
LikeLike
I don’t know the rhythm or reason for Bloomberg. Sometimes you can read the entire article completely. Sometimes they have a paywall. I don’t have a subscription so if anybody does & would be so kind to copy/paste it here I would appreciate it because I really want to read up on anything Wamble related.
LikeLike
Yeah, that’s what I noticed to about Bloomberg, sometimes you can read the article, other times paywall.
LikeLike
Cloture invoked on Johnstone, but the interesting thing is that he got a yes from Collins (though no’s from Graham and Murkowski) despite Daines’ opposition: https://twitter.com/SenatePress/status/1651664847824646149?cxt=HHwWisCz6bOb8ustAAAA
I wonder if Collins will also be a yes on the actual confirmation (I’m not sure if she’s ever been a yes on cloture but no on confirmation, but I’m sure Graham has). May explain why Schumer scheduled him ahead of Bloomekatz, Rikelman, Abudu, etc.
LikeLike
It is interesting indeed. Looking back, I can’t find any examples of her voting for cloture on a Biden nominee but not on the confirmation vote, so I’d assume she’s going to affirm his confirmation on Monday (although I didn’t get to all of them). While I’m not her biggest fan, I appreciate that she is at least being consistent on viewing the merits of the nominees rather than deferring to Daines since she voted for multiple Trump nominees which did not have blue slips turned in.
LikeLike
Collins, Graham, & Murkowski all voted to invoke cloture for Lucy Koh but then voted against confiming her.
LikeLike
Johnstone passes cloture 50-45. Collins was an aye. Should be comfirmable on Monday.
LikeLike
Cloture invoked on Johnstone, but the interesting thing is that he got a yes from Collins (though no’s from Graham and Murkowski) despite Daines’ opposition:
I wonder if Collins will also be a yes on the actual confirmation (I’m not sure if she’s ever been a yes on cloture but no on confirmation, but I’m sure Graham has). May explain why Schumer scheduled him ahead of Bloomekatz, Rikelman, Abudu, etc.
LikeLike
I didn’t have time to watch the senate this afternoon. Did senator Tuberville finally drop his military promotions blockade? I see this on the website…
“Military Promotions Confirmed by Unanimous Consent: All nominations on the Secretary’s Desk in the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Space Force.”
LikeLike
I’m guessing that he simply wasn’t around to object and nobody else was willing to do it for him.
LikeLike
Tuberville was definitely there, he didn’t miss any votes. I thought he might’ve changed his mind because there was a Tuberville amendment they voted on last week but this Hill article from today he says he’s still a no.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3974030-gop-senators-grow-weary-of-tuberville-abortion-stalemate-on-defense-nominees/
Also, FINALLY a circuit judge confirmation on Monday, it’s a miracle!
LikeLike
Wow, so Tuberville was there today. Maybe they did do the unanimous consent while he was in the bathroom… Haaaa
Either way I’m happy the promotions finally occurred & without wasting any floor time. Also happy to see Johnstone set up for Monday. I was hoping Schumer sent some more cloture motions today but if he does Wednesday, we can still get more then the 4 confirmations next week. I fully expect the Idaho nominee to get a voice vote next week as well so should be at least 5.
LikeLike
There’s two different sets of military promotions. I think major promotions are still on the executive calendar. It’s the low level promotions that are only ever on the secretary’s desk that were allowed through today. Tuberville’s obstruction is still on.
Click to access xcalv.pdf
LikeLike
Glad to see progress on Johnstone. If I had to guess the three district nominees will take up Tuesday, and hopefully Schumer files for some more nominees on Monday afternoon. There should be room for 4 more district nominees (3 Wednesday plus 1 Thursday) plus cloture on an appellate nominee on Thursday afternoon.
I have to say I am kind of surprised there hasn’t been more of a push to get Garcia confirmed to the vacant DC Circuit seat. He got Grahams vote in committee and I would expect Collins/Murkowski to be open to him as well. Perhaps he’ll be up next after Johnstone.
LikeLike
From my count looking at the senate executive calendar below, I count 23 non judicial nominees that aren’t US attorneys or US marshals (Which traditionally get voice votes). If they can knock out a good chunk of those 23 & judicial nominees before the next recess in the next 3 weeks, that would be great. As we have discussed before the debt ceiling will probably take up weeks alone.
(https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/executive_calendar/xcalv.pdf)
LikeLike
I agree Dequan. I have a feeling after Memorial Day will mostly get eaten up by debt ceiling shenanigans. Hopefully they go go pedal to the medal in the meantime.
LikeLike
Hey folks,
There’s no progress on getting Tuberville to drop his objections. There’s a difference between the hundreds of lower officer promotions and the 184 promotions for generals and admirals and above, which is what Tuberville says he’s holding up. For example, he didn’t extend his hold to the other batches of promotion the last time the senate acted on them on March 30:
https://www.congress.gov/nomination/118th-congress/330/all-info?r=197
He can’t hold out forever. If Schumer doesn’t give him a vote on explicitly restricting federal funds used for military abortion travel, I think he’ll be forced by other Republicans to relent.
LikeLike
Ok thanks for the explanation @Gavi. I was under the impression he was holding ALL military promotions but it’s still shameful the 184 he is holding up. But hey, we have plenty of time so should be no sweat to confirm them even the hard way right? Haaaaa
As for the pace of confirmations, remember the senate basically took most of January off this year. They also are taking off many more Monday’s than they did the previous years of Biden’s term. I do think they may catch up slightly though as we get more red state nominees. Hopefully we will get more voice votes as a result.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Senate has taken 100 votes this year so far… at this rate they will take 300 votes in 2023. In comparison, they took 528 votes in 2021 and 449 in 2022. They gotta step things up.
LikeLike
421 in 2022, not 449
LikeLike
Warnock was out today but will be back next week so even if Collins votes no, there will still be the votes to confirm Johnstone next week.
Good thing for him he was voted on before Feinstein was out or he’d still be stuck in limbo.
LikeLike
The same thing can be said about all the other heavy hitters already reported to the floor.
LikeLike
Why do they keep skipping Brad Garcia?? He should be a relatively easy vote since Graham voted for her in committee.
LikeLike
*him
LikeLike
In relevant news, West Virginia Governor Jim Justice has filed to run for the U.S. Senate next year. I wouldn’t be surprised if Joe Manchin started voting against judicial nominees. He needs to show independence if he’s to have any shot at reelection.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t be surprised Manchin would no more running in 2024 to preserve the humiliation of defeat, his chances have not been very well so far, but now with Justice it has significantly worsen, he’s the most vulnerable senator and the Republicans know that, so unpleasant prospects, a hard campaign and he’s already 75 years old.
Many Democrats don’t like him understandably, but when he doesn’t run, the seat is gone for sure.
So what would be better? Manchin free of pressure going home in 2024 or running again, maybe failing, or maybe not?
LikeLike
I still think there are only a handful of nominees that Manchin would be a no on. Abudu, Rikelman, Kato, and especially Ho. Everyone else should be a yes.
Perhaps as we get closer to Nov 2024 it may change, but I’m not sure. But Manchin has long deferred to the administration, for both Republicans and Democrats.
LikeLike
@Mitch: I could see it cut either way. One one hand, you could easily write ads that say “Joe Manchin voted for all of Biden’s radical judges!” if he doesn’t cast a dissenting vote. On the other, very few people decide based on how their lawmaker voted on judges. I remember Slate Gorton getting beaten because he did a trade with the Reagan Administration in which he got William Dwyer nominated in exchange for Daniel Mannion for the 7th Circuit, but WA State is a different electorate and that was 1986.
Put another way, if the GOP does attack Manchin on this, it’s part of a larger campaign that “Manchin is more liberal than you think.”
LikeLike
Interesting… I was looking up Matthew J. Kacsmaryk & clicked on Trump’s Seventh Wave of Judicial Candidates when he was announced. I noticed FOUR nominees from that batch ended up not being confirmed. Imagine being so bad that you could be nominated the same day as Kacsmaryk & you don’t get confirmed. The courts could be even worse had all four of them been confirmed as well.
(https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/president-donald-j-trump-announces-seventh-wave-judicial-candidates/)
LikeLike
To be fair, that was a bigger batch than any one Biden has had thus far. Still an interesting observation though.
LikeLike
At this point you can fit Biden’s batches on a two-seat motorcycle… Lol
With no batch this week, in four weeks that will be the fourth SJC hearing slot missed this year due to a lack of nominees…smh
LikeLike
I don’t think a new slot has been missed yet. Ramirez/de Armas should go before the committee on May 16 or 17 and the next slot should be on the 30-31. As long as we get a batch next week we should be ok.
Really, since the June session is only four weeks, they could also stretch those hearing to June 7 and 21 and they still would not miss a date.
LikeLike
They could theoretically have a hearing with Ramirez & de Alba in panel 1 & Maddox in panel 2 but I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a hearing with just one district court nominee before. But to preserve face & not miss a 4th hearing slot they could do that.
Of course they could have a full hearing if Durbin ditched blue slips & include Jabari Wamble & Scott Colom as well but I guess continuing the notion Republicans will work in good faith is more important. I almost chocked from trying not to laugh so hard at the last hearing when senator Graham said he hope Durbin doesn’t now to the pressure & end blue slips like he didn’t or never would.
This is the same man that said he would never have a hearing, let alone vote to confirm a SCOTUS nominee during an election year then 4 years later proceeded to do just that after votes have already begun. The same guy that said he was done with Trump on January 6th but has now endorsed him for president. It’s also the same man that a few years ago said he doesn’t want any business with Saudi Arabia & now all of a something they want to buy Boeings that are built in South Carolina & he is acting like he’s bosom buddies with the regime. But I’m sure this time he’s telling the truth so he won’t ditch blue slips once back in power (Sarcastic voice).
LikeLike
I was wondering what they’d do with Maddox as well. I’m guessing he will also be on that same hearing date, but it will feel a bit strange. Maybe there are some other non judicial nominees that need to go before the committee as well.
LikeLike
Maybe Biden can nominate the Secretary of painting those yellow lines in the middle of roads so they can have a hearing since he ain’t nominating federal judges… Lol
Ok another note, watching Morning Joe on MSNBC. They are playing video from last night’s Trump rally in Manchester, NH. He was trashing Lindsay Graham as a progressive. It’s truly funny watching Graham pander to Trump yet he still trashed him.
LikeLike
@Dequan,
It amazes me that a lot of the so-called “experts” seem to have as much urgency as Biden and Schumer.
@Joe I don’t remember if you were the one to comment earlier that Schumer might be gun shy due to what happened to Freeman. Well, if only the Democratic caucus had a whipping team. A job that’s more extensive than some of us think. The whip doesn’t only set forth a party-wide position on an issue, encourage members on how to vote, and actually count the vote, they also keep track of attendance issues to ensure the vote comes out a certain way. If only that position was held by a Democrat who cared about judicial nominees.
LikeLike
Wasn’t me Gavi, but like others I am also curious about Schumer’s vote scheduling strategies. To me it seems that the vast majority of nominees should be able to be confirmed with just 50 D votes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ok, I wasn’t sure.
I also question Schumer’s scheduling abilities. I’d love to believe that he learned scheduling strategies at Robert Byrd’s and Harry Reid’s knee. I now doubt that and I am highly dubious about his scheduling competence.
Last year I used to call his offices once a week to complain about what I thought back then was a lack of movement on judicial nominations, especially Dale Ho’s.
After the midterm, I, like many others on here, thought that the outright majority would mean more confirmations. Little did I know that it would be the reverse. I guess it’s my own fault for being optimistic about anything. I promise to never be so naive again.
LikeLike
@Gavi
Your optimism is understandable. 51 is greater than 50 & losing the House reduces the number of Bills that will get to the presidents desk. So you, like I thought the confirmations would speed up. I was even factoring in Feinstein’s attendance (You know I was critical of her pre-Shingles) & still thought the same thing.
Unfortunately Fetterman’s absence combined with the near Obama- like (First two years) pace of nominations was something I didn’t foresee. The increase of Monday’s off, a fifth week for the Summer recess & taking literal weeks for Bills to get voted on further blows my mind as to how anybody can say there’s plenty of time with a straight face.
Great point about the Whip & their job. The Freeman debacle shouldn’t have happened & should never be repeated. Schumer really needs to set aside at least two of the remaining three weeks before the one week recess just for judges. As I’ve said before whenever Feinstein returns, he needs to tee up the heavy hitters ASAP. I fully expect her shelf life at work to be about 3 weeks before she’s out again for another reason.
LikeLike
It’s still relatively early in the year, considering January was basically a month off. But it is strange.
What gets me the most is the lack of movement on Circuit judges. I said it last night but there is a vacant DC Circuit judgeship just sitting there. The nominee has some bipartisan support and has already cleared committee. To me this would’ve been the first priority and yet it’ll be May at earliest before it’s filled.
If I was Schumer I’d find a week where all 50 Dems would be in town and schedule for Abudu, Bloomekatz, Rikelman, and Garcia as soon as possible. If they pick one of the short weeks there’s a decent chance 1-2 Rs would be out as well and it would likely make things easier
LikeLike
Yesterday, Amanda Brailsford was voted out of the Judiciary Committee on a voice vote. No surprise there, she’s the very definition of a consensus nominee. If I’m not mistaken, she’s a registered Independent. No other nominees were voted out.
I wonder why Molly Silfen wasn’t voted out of committee as well? I haven’t read about anyone having a problem with her. The rest still bottled up in committee don’t surprise me.
LikeLike
Hey @Mitch, you do know that we all follow all these developments closely, right? This was all discussed yesterday after the vote.
LikeLike
In non judicial news, Kevin McCarthy may have made negotiations with the White House more difficult. In an interview, McCarthy joked that he tried to win over Biden by saying “I told him I’d get soft food.” I don’t think that’ll go over well.
LikeLike
Another trump and federalist society hack judge mcglynn in illinois who dick durbin allowed to be on the district court in illinois just struck down another gun control bill signed by pritzker. He was confirmed few months before the election 2020 in September. Which itself alone shows how unserious dick durbin is, when mcconell who rational for blocking garland was that it was too close to an election so let the American people decide. Dick durbin couldn’t even do the bare minimum and hold that line.
This encapsulates exactly how both sides are treating this process. Republicans won’t return blue slips on even the most moderate and mainstream nominees like scott colom, because they don’t want their district bench in their home state filled with democratic nominees who would rule against their conservative policies. Yet dick durbin turned in blue slips for so many trump hacks who are now using it it strike down popular policies illinois voters support but goes against the right wing and the NRA agenda.
Same for NY so many right wing distrit judges that should never have been allowed to be confirmed to life time appointments.
We literally have federalist society members and former members as judges who schumer allowed to be on the bench.. I can bet my top dollar no ACLU or immigrants right lawyer would ever have blue slip returned by a john cornyn or Ted cruz, or even a rick scott or rubio in this Congress. Its just an example on how both sides playing the game so differently. One side is ruthless and using every lever of power to fight for their agenda the other being the Democrats fight with hands tied at their backs.
What I don’t get is why was a judge who got 9 votes against him in the senate judiciary committee and 42 votes against him on the senate floor ever confirmed to a blue state district court bench? Why should someone who even has that opposition still be allowed to be a life Time judge by durbin in a blue state? It’s a dereliction of duty . We are dealing with the consequences of this trump judges In blue states on district benches who are striking down progressive laws as soon as they can or trying to allow Jim Jordan interfere in a state investigation like that trump district judge in the southern district of NY
This is all the more reason I say abolish blue slips for district court nominees right now.
We can’t have this two tier system where right wing and Conservative judges are on blue states district courts striking down any progressive law the voters of that state want , while even the most milqueotoast of candidates like Mark Pocan and Scott colom aren’t allowed to be judges on the bench and now apparently from reports even blocking the the 10t circuit vacancy because of ksnstate senators opposition. Why biden and his administration care one bit what a charlatan like senator Roger Marshall who voted to throw out votes of states he legitimately won behooves me. Same man always whining about woke and questioning biden faculties. I guess after the total backing down and subservience to Ted cruz and john cornyn by picking a nearly 60 year old right of center centrist nominee for an appellate judgeship on the 5th nothing should surprise me at all.. this is the Whitehouse we get.
I am sick and tired of trump district judges in blue states blocking the vast majority of voters will. While biden allows goons like Roger Marshall and Ted cruz dictate to him who to pick for appellate judges.
LikeLike
Durbin is clearly on the less careful side when it comes to Trump judges. For reference, Durbin was one of only 3 Democrats who voted to confirm McGlynn (Manchin & Murphy were the 2 others). Even moderates like Jones, Sinema, & Tester voted against confirming him.
At least the senators in states such as California, Oregon, Hawaii, & Connecticut forced Trump to pick judges that weren’t partisan hacks.
LikeLike
Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Washington also say hi (in the ladder two cases not turning in any blue slips whatsoever).
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would add Maryland who got an Obama nominee confirmed under Trump. And a HUGE shout out to New Mexico who initially turned agreed to two Trump nominees but then withdrew after they were nominated. Those two vacancies were then filled by two solid Biden appointees.
But even still with all of those examples I would get rid of blue slips. One, because I think Republicans will simply ditch them once back into complete power. Two, because with Democrats winning the popular vote for the presidency in 7 out of the last 8 elections, I think there is a good chance we will have a Democrat president for at least the next 5 & a half years. And finally, the senate map looks favorable for Democrats in 2026. With enthusiasm on the Democrats side over a variety of issues, one being the courts, I don’t think another Senate miracle is out of the realm of possibility next year.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wait, WHAT… Why would it take 60 votes for a discharge vote? I’m not understanding this.
(https://twitter.com/prof_jpc/status/1650511717799976972?cxt=HHwWmICz0bPq5ectAAAA)
LikeLike
Gavi can explain this better, but it’s due to the Democrats nominally having a majority on the committee. If the committee had the same number of Democrats and Republicans like during the last Congress, only a majority would be needed.
LikeLike
So if Feinstein resigned & Republicans blocked her replacement, would it go back to the 4 hour discharge debate with 51 votes rules? The committee would be back to a tie if that happened.
LikeLike
No, it would not. The Democrats would still hold a majority in the Senate.
LikeLike
@Frank @Dequan
We touched on this a couple weeks ago when we went over the proxy vote rules. I’ll give some broad points here and point you to the source.
1. A standing (aka permanent) rule of the senate is to treat discharge motions as debatable, that is, something that can be debated, sought a UC for, or voted on.
A motion or measure might be:
#1: held up in committee because of a tie vote
#2: held up in committee due to no or negative recommendation (AKA Clarence Thomas)
#3: because the chair doesn’t want to have his committee vote on it in an effort to kill it.
# others?
(Side note: we often think that discharge motions are only applicable in scenarios #1 or #2. But the senate may also vote on a discharge motion in #3. Let me highlight this point by half-making up this example: let’s say that Joe Manchin is the chair of the committee that’s processing the Gigi Sohn nomination. If Manchin is against the nomination but doesn’t want his committee to hold a vote, a neat way to kill it is to not calling it up for a committee vote. However, a senator on the floor may file a motion for discharge of this nomination and with 60 votes, put the nomination on the executive calendar.)
Now that there’s a motion to discharge at the clerk’s desk, there usually is a UC to discharge the motion/measure from committee. If that UC is denied, which is almost a certainty, the senator may ask for a roll call. This is a debate, so the motion to discharge is considered debatable, which means that it can be filibustered. And how many votes do you need to overcome a filibuster? 60.
This is found in Senate Rule XVII, 4 (a):
All reports of committees and motions to discharge a committee from the consideration of a subject, and all subjects from which a committee shall be discharged, shall lie over one day for consideration, unless by unanimous consent the Senate shall otherwise direct.
Now, giddy with success after the 2021 Georgia runoffs and the prospects of Dems controlling the senate after VP Harris is sworn in, most of us don’t know or remember this rule. All we know is that during those two 50/50 years, a discharge vote required only a simple majority.
This is understandable, but the truth is the lowering of the vote for a discharge motion is a creature of the power-sharing agreement. And it expired at the end of the 117th congress.
So, to reiterate, the lowering of the vote requirement for a successful discharge motion is *not* automatic when the parties split 50/50. This has to be negotiated and voted on as an organizing resolution of the senate in order for it to *temporarily* override the standing senate rule XVII.
Put another way, if for some reason the senate today goes back to being a 50/50 split, the discharge motion would still require 60 votes to clear. But it’s expected that when the two leaders negotiate a power-sharing deal, that threshold will be once again temporarily lowered to 50 *until the expiration of the power-sharing agreement when an outright majority is established.*
Here’s that
LikeLike
Sorry, I didn’t finish with this comment before accidentally hitting post.
Here’s the language from that power-sharing agreement, as outlined in S. RES. 27, Section 3, (1) (B):
After such notice of a tie vote has been transmitted, the Majority Leader or the Minority Leader may, only after consultation with the Chairman and Ranking Member of the committee, make a motion to discharge such measure or matter, and time for debate on such motion shall be limited to 4 hours, to be equally divided between the two Leaders or their designees, with no other motions, points of order, or amendments in order: Provided, That following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote on the motion to discharge, without any intervening action, motion, or debate, and if agreed to, the measure or matter be placed immediately on the appropriate Calendar.
LikeLike
Uuuggghhh… I remember us discussing the power-sharing agreement but I didn’t realize that reverting back to a tie SJC would not revert back to the last Congress rule of 4 hour debate & 51 votes. I was under the impression that was the permanent rule.
What a horrible predicament to be in. Democrats are in a worst position now with 51 senators then they were with 50. It’s insane
LikeLike
Every time you think of how crazy the senate is, with it’s Byzantine rules and procedures, it helps to think of the institution thusly:
“The Senate is the South’s unending revenge upon the North for Gettysburg.” — William S. White, New York Times congressional correspondent, 1957.
LikeLike
Very appropriate saying. Just hurts even more Obama didn’t push for DC to become a state as hard as he did for Obamacare the 17 months the Democrats had the House & 60 senators. I might have even pushed that before Obamacare because with 62 senators & another few members of the House, perhaps they would have gotten a public option included.
LikeLike
Dems didn’t have 60 senators for 17 months under Obama. Al Franken was only seated in July 2009 and Teddy Kennedy was too sick to come to the senate for most of the time before his death. And he was eventually replaced with Scott Brown in February 2010. But I take your point.
There’s nothing to do about the senate, it’s the only part of the Constitution that cannot be changed. The only thing Dems can do is win as many races in as many states as possible. This means going to states that aren’t traditionally gettable for Dems. It’s wild to think about now, but less than 1 decade ago, Dems controlled both senate seats for Montana and for all but one of the Dakotas.
LikeLike
And 15 years ago both senate seats in Louisiana & Arkansas too. I do like the enthusiasm & strategy Democrats are showing now. It absolutely kills me that ANY senator could run unopposed like Tom Cotton did in his last election. That should never happen. I hope Democrats can field strong candidates in some of these red states that within the past decade & a half had a Democrat senator.
I don’t believe all of these states are lost. Particularly when they’re Republican politicians in the state beer even further to the right. If Democrats can pick off just one of those seats next year, 2026 looks really bright.
LikeLike
Have folks seen this?
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/tenth-circuit-vacancy-holds-up-kansas-district-court-nomination
The nominations team at the WH is worse than even I thought.
This is why the Biden sycophants here (sorry Dequan) are laughable when they come to his defense by using the few exceptions as the rule. Your guy sucks.
This is no way to negotiate. You negotiate something for something. Not something for NOTHING. Now we know that the pulling of Wamble’s CA10 nomination is a *unilateral* move, even while some on here thought it was a part of a deal to get someone else to replace him. There is no reason to think this strategy isn’t exactly the same for the Texas vacancies. People here also assumed that nominating an elderly centrist (at best) is part of some unannounced package deal that would also get those senators to return blue slips for district court nominees. This development suggests otherwise.
As I have said repeatedly before, I think that Wamble’s CA10 nomination may have run into ABA rating trouble, which the WH may have found out about due to a second panel leak. Even so, the WH should be using the CA10 vacancies as leverage to get the district court filled, not the other way around where the senators use the district court blue slip to get a bad CA10 nominee. Why would you pull the nomination for a position that cannot be blocked and replace it with a nomination that can be blocked, and *is* being blocked? I’d really love to hear the Biden apologists explain this logic to me. Please.
This vacancy is 2 years old! I’m actually surprised that we haven’t heard the ridiculous take that the WH can’t find anyone from Kansas to sit on this court. This argument would be more plausible (but still nonsense) for Kansas than Texas, as Kansas is smaller and redder.
Anyway, this is why I can so understand the fire and brimstone frustrations of aagren.
LikeLike
It’s a short article, but it might be behind a paywall for some, so here’s the text:
A dispute between the White House and Senate Republicans over the fate of a powerful appellate court
post has stalled a judicial nominee related to a senior House Democrat.
GOP Sens. Jerry Moran and Roger Marshall of Kansas are withholding their support for President Joe Biden’s nominee for a district court in their home state of Kansas—Jabari Wamble—as they negotiate with the White House over a nominee for the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
“I’m open to his nomination, and we’re having conversations with the White House about trying also to fill the Tenth Circuit vacancy at the same time,” Moran said in a hallway interview on Wednesday.
The White House didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
Biden nominated Wamble, a federal prosecutor and son-in-law of Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), to a trial court judgeship in Kansas in February, his second time attempting to install the attorney on the federal bench.
Wamble was initially nominated to the Tenth Circuit last summer but never advanced out of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
He didn’t receive a hearing or a rating from the American Bar Association, which is customary for federal judicial nominees.
Biden announced Wamble’s selection for the district court after his circuit nomination lapsed at the end of the Congress.
A White House official at the time said that decision was made “after further consideration and conversation with Mr. Wamble regarding his own interests and experience.”
Yet Wamble’s district nomination has similarly stalled. He remains one of a few judicial nominees yet to receive a hearing.
Moran and Marshall have not signed off on Wamble’s district-court nomination, effectively preventing the Judiciary Committee from holding a hearing on his nomination.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) is observing the practice of requiring support from both home-state senators for a district nominee to advance. Senators signify that support through a document known as a “blue slip.”
Republicans did away with the “blue slip” practice for circuit nominees during the Trump administration, and Democrats have followed suit.
Before working as an assistant US attorney, Wamble was an assistant attorney general in the Office of the Kansas Attorney General.
LikeLike
The American Bar Association hasn’t rated Wamble yet. He was nominated for the 10th Circuit in August and District Court in February, but still no rating. What’s causing the delay? Everyone (including both of Kansas’s U.S. Senators, seems at a loss on this.
LikeLike
There’s a difference between not rating and not publishing a rating. There’s been no ABA published rating for him. Usually, this means that the nominee got a poor rating (less than Q) so the ABA’s practice is to re-rate the nominee. This is when leaks can occur. But that still doesn’t explain why even a second rating isn’t published by now.
LikeLike
@Gavi
Yea we were talking about this article the other day. None of us could get past the paywall so thanks for copy/pasting it.
I have fiercely defended Biden on judges for the most part (Save Childs & Pan to the DC circuit & many of the New Jersey nominees) in his first two years. But post midterms, it’s nearing disastrous territory. First, we have the slow pace of nominations. Second, when we get nominees, they are lackluster. Third, & most importantly, it seems as though this new White House Counsel has not been informed you don’t need blue slips for circuit court vacancies.
To get a 59-year-old centrist for the 5th circuit was bad enough. But now to see Wamble get downgraded yet no deal for his replacement nor even the most basic backdoor handshake to return blue slips for Wamble. This is inexcusable. It would be even if the 10th circuit seat had been vacant for 2 months, let alone 2 years.
@aagren said late last year the 7th seat won’t get filled this year because the Indiana senators will stall & Biden will think they are working in good faith. I called him crazy. Tomorrow is May & still not a whiff of a nominee. This new counsel’s office is off to a terrible start.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So you think Dale Ho could change the 5th Circuit by himself if he was the nominee?
LikeLike
Nope I sure don’t. I think two Dale Ho’s, Biden getting re-elected, Democrats holding the senate, getting some more vacancies & a few more Dale Ho’s could though. Unfortunately since the 5th circuit will be more conservative on the last day of Biden’s first term then it was on the first day, we will never know.
LikeLike
@Gavi
Oh really, who is your “guy” ? I don’t think I have heard you mention who this mystery person is
LikeLike
To shift gears a bit – so all the nominations that are ready for floor votes have until 12/31/23 to be acted upon or they’d have to be re-nominated (AGAIN0, and the SJC would have to vote on them (AGAIN) , I think is how it would go?
LikeLike
Yes. And at this rate, I wouldn’t be surprised if some or most of last year’s holdovers are held over yet another year. It’s been a bad year for judicial confirmations.
LikeLike
We aren’t even halfway through the year! Let’s see how things play out over the next few months before we jump to such a swift conclusion.
LikeLike
@Rick
Yes.
And at this rate, I wouldn’t be surprised if some or most of last year’s holdovers are held over yet another year. It’s been a bad year for judicial confirmations.
LikeLike
@Rick
Yes.
And at this rate, I wouldn’t be surprised if some or most of last year’s holdovers are held over yet another year. It’s been a bad year for judicial confirmations.
LikeLike
@Gavi
Wait: WHAT. I thought you & I have constantly been told there’s plenty of time. I was reassured just last week by numerous users on this very blog I’m overreacting because there’s all this time I apparently couldn’t see. Did something change? Haaaaa
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, there’s plenty of time. John Collins said Republicans in Trump’s 3rd year only confirmed 12 judges by by 5/1.
The Democrats have confirmed 22 this year. I am waiting @GAVI to man up and answer my question. That is ,if he is a man.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Did John Collins asp mention Democrats turned in around 120 blue slips under Trump while Republicans are still under 30 so far under Biden? Are we expecting Republicans to work more in good faith as the presidential election grows closer?
LikeLike
So what if they don’t? They could confirm all of these judges tomorrow and you wouldn’t know the difference.
LikeLike
@shawnee68
Let’s look at the numbers to answer your question. Trump got 230 judges (234 – 4 he confirmed to two different positions) confirmed in 4 years. So far Biden has gotten 115 (118 – 3 he confirmed to two different positions) confirmed. There are 105 current announced vacancies left. Even if Biden got all of those vacancies filled (Which we know he won’t), Trump would still have 230 judges confirmed in 4 years compared to Biden’s 220.
Now here comes the meat of the answer to your question. Out of those 105 currents announced vacancies, only 39 have nominees. The remaining 66 are crucial to have any chance to come close to catching Trump’s 230 judges. Democrats have already missed FOUR SJC slots this year that they could have had hearings.
The idea that next year will be easier in terms of confirmations is not realistic. It will be an election year. Senators will miss days in session no to mention them likely taking both month of August & October off. That’s on top of the 3-day work week, Feinstein’s attendance issue alone, let alone the other 50 Democrats that can miss for any number of reasons, the slow pace of getting nominees in the first place & other non-judicial nominees that will take up senate time.
LikeLike
Even if Biden gets all of his nominees most of them are district judges. Trump had far more appellate nominees.
It’s not possible for Biden to surpass Trump’s nominees because there aren’t as many vacancies.
It will take longer than one term to accomplish what Trump has a done, but, he was a one term President.
LikeLike
Correct, which baffles me even more how somebody can understand that but think there is enough time. If Biden fills all of the current circuit court vacancy, that will get him to 39 compared to Trump’s 54. So if your goal is the same as mine which is for Biden to balance & surpass Trump on the courts, I’m not seeing how there’s so much time.
We don’t know what will happen in the election next year. Let’s say best case scenario Biden wins & Dems keep the senate majority. Assuming Biden fills every current vacancy (Which we all know he won’t), that would put him at 39 circuit court & 220 judges overall. Wouldn’t the best case scenario still having Biden coming up short mean there isn’t plenty of time? Wouldn’t it mean Biden needs to get as many vacancies filled as possible this term so if somehow the best case scenario happens next year, he will be that much closer to surpassing Trump?
LikeLike
My point is they will not win that battle. Biden will have to get another term.
The Supreme Court is still 6-3.
LikeLike
We should get four more confirmed tomorrow/Tuesday at least! Lol
But yeah, as I said last week the pace has been extremely frustrating. Hopefully that changes
LikeLike
After tomorrow Biden will have 32 appellate judges confirmed. Currently there are pending nominees for another 7 and then 4 more additional vacancies without nominees. If Biden fills all of those that’s 43. I’m hoping for at least a handful more over the next 18 months
For comparisons sake, Trump had 54 and at May 1 of his third year he had 37.
LikeLike
43 would be admirable alone given Biden only inherited 2 circuit court vacancies. Trump had 2 circuit court vacancies just from the state of Texas alone when he because president. To be 11 away from tying Trump would be very respectable. It sure would be nice if some of these Clinton appointees decided this year to step aside & maybe get lucky with a couple Republican appointees.
LikeLike
After Johnstone replaces Sidney Thomas there will be 10 Clinton appointees remaining in active service. Also 5 HW and 5 Reagan appointees as well. Most of those are probably “lifers” but there may be a handful.
LikeLike
I’m still amazed there are still 5 Reagan appointees still on the bench. He completely understood why it was important to put young judges on the bench.
An equal number of GHW Bush & Reagan appointees as Clinton’s. Between outright senior status & by other means, I could see at least 3 of those 15 judges leaving the bench before Biden’s first term ends. Timing will determine if Biden gets to replace them in his first term or & when that happens.
LikeLike
Yeah, we would have trouble in River City (movie reference there) if on 12/31/23 Abudu, Bloomekatz, Ho, and Rikelman are still collecting dust in the SJC….And if all this foolishness with the very stubborn absent senator from CA continues, and the 4 aforementioned nominees have to go thru a 10-10 SJC on 1/3/24, well, they’d just keep collecting more dust..
We took a step forward on election night Dec 2022 with Warnock’s win assuring a 51-49 senate.. But it’s been 2 steps back since mid Feb of 2023
LikeLike
I’m hard, very hard on Feinstein. And I was hard on her before it was mainstream, pre-shingles. But for God’s sakes, seriously when is she coming back? This week will be her 10th week out. Some woman give birth & return to work quicker.
I don’t think even I, somebody who thinks very low of Feinstein since she hugged Graham at the end of the ACB hearings, would be out 10 straight weeks. This is utterly ridiculous. She seriously needs to make a decision, it’s not even funny anymore.
LikeLike
@Dequan
“She seriously needs to make a decision, it’s not even funny anymore.”
She’s said time and time again that she’ll finish her term. I think she’s made a decision, you just don’t like it.
And what if she leaves and the GOP still refuses to allow Dems to add a new member of SJC?
Anyway, my point is nothing, decision-wise, is still up in the air. Feinstein has told us of her plans. She plans to recover and return to the senate and complete her term. Whether or not that’s acceptable to us is a different matter.
LikeLike
Feinstein intended on being the SJC chairman until she was pressured not to. She intended on being the next senate pro temp until she was pressured not to. She intended on coming back to the senate Earl it this month until she didn’t. Her track record over the last year of saying one thing & doing the opposite isn’t the best.
I honestly just want a truthful timeline. “Soon” ain’t cutting it. We are talking 10 straight weeks by the end of this week. Like really, this is beyond ridiculous even for her.
LikeLike
On another note, does anybody have an update on the open New Jersey SCOTUS (Yes that’s my acronym for a state Supreme Court…Lo) vacancy? It’s been open for close to a year & I believe Governor Murphy could appoint a Democrat to that seat. He’s been rock solid on his Democrat appointees so curious if anybody knows what the holdup is.
LikeLike