Susan K. DeClercq – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan

Ford Motor Executive Susan DeClercq has spent the last eighteen years in a civil role at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Detroit. If confirmed, she would be the first judge of East Asian origin to join the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Background

Susan K. DeClercq received a B.A. from the University of Michigan in 1995 and her J.D. magna cum laude from the Wayne State University School of Law in 1998.

After graduation, DeClercq clerked for Judge Avern Cohn on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and then joined the D.C. office of Skadden Arps SLate Meagher & Flom as an associate. In 2004, DeClercq returned to Michigan to be a federal prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan. In 2022, she left that position to go in-house with Ford Motor Company in Dearborn.

History of the Seat

DeClercq has been nominated for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. This seat opened on June 14, 2022, when Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis was elevated to the Sixth Circuit.

Legal Career

While DeClercq started her career at Skadden Arps in D.C., she has spent the vast majority of her career as an Assistant U.S. Attorney with the Eastern District of Michigan. During her time with the office, DeClercq rose to the Chief of the Civil Division and Chief of the Civil Rights Unit. In this role, DeClercq worked on civil cases, defending decisions made regarding social security benefits. See, e.g., Hyde v. Barnhart, 375 F. Supp. 2d 568 (E.D. Mich. 2005). See also Walters v. Leavitt, 376 F. Supp. 2d 746 (E.D. Mich. 2005) (challenging Medicaire benefits decisions by the Secretary of Health and Human Services). DeClercq also participated in affirmative civil cases, including suing the State of Michigan regarding alleged employment discrimination in the Department of Corrections. See United States v. Michigan, Civil Action No. 16-cv-12146 (E.D. Mich. July 12, 2018). Additionally, DeClercq also worked on immigration cases. See, e.g., Issa v. Mueller, 486 F. Supp. 2d 668 (E.D. Mich. 2007). Lucaj v. Dedvukaj, 749 F. Supp. 2d 601 (E.D. Mich. 2010) (seeking declaratory award of naturalization).

Notably, DeClercq led a suit against the City of Troy, challenging their zoning ordinance for discriminating against places of worship under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”). See United States v. City of Troy, 592 F. Supp. 3d 591 (E.D. Mich. 2022).

Over the last year, DeClercq has worked in-house with the Ford Motor Company, where she works as Director and Counsel for Special Investigations.

Political Activity

In 2022, DeClercq made a single donation to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, her only partisan donation of record.

Overall Assessment

There is little in DeClercq’s career that is likely to attract controversy in the confirmation process. Barring a poor performance at her confirmation hearing, she should be confirmed in due course.

175 Comments

    • On another note, senator Tim Scott is set to announce he’s running for president today. I think he would be a smart pick for VP is Trump wins as I expect.

      One good thing about senator Scott running while Biden doesn’t have any credible challenger is missed votes. Scott is likely to miss many senate votes so that should help offset if Manchin & any other red state Democrat needs to vote no in a nominee or of course whenever Feinstein goes back out again.

      Like

  2. Looks like a strong nominee to me. Hopefully she is confirmed swiftly.

    On a related note, we have 5 nominees who haven’t had hearing dates yet. I expect 3 of them to go the week on May 31. We have already missed a potential date the week of June 14, but if we get some nominations this week we can still make that up the next week on June 21. Without any additional nominees we’d miss the entire slot and wouldn’t be able to host another hearing until July 12.

    Like

    • @Joe

      You’re exactly right. A new batch this week & we wouldn’t miss a third SJC hearing slot this year. It would be nice to get double digit nominees so we can breathe a little & not have to sweat every two weeks but it seems like that’s too much to ask from this new WH Counsel’s office. I think 4 nominees is their max unfortunately.

      Like

  3. I would be satisfied with 4 at least. I would love to get a 7th or 10th Circuit nominee. The latter would probably mean Wamble finally gets his day too. But I realize that’s asking a lot.

    Like

    • I legit get angry when I see Wamble’s name now… Lol

      I can’t believe they downgraded him without an agreement the senators would return their blue slips. It may be the worst judicial related decision I’ve seen from this administration to date. It’s unconscionable anybody with a law degree could be involved with such a dumb decision. Even if I bought it was Wamble’s decision to downgrade (Which I don’t), you don’t make it official until you have an agreement from the senators. Or else you talk Wamble into staying a circuit court judge which lets be honest, shouldn’t take much arm twisting.

      Like

      • @Dequan

        I just checked the ABA’s judicial nominee ratings. They still haven’t rated Jabari Wamble and he was nominated on February 27. It makes no sense to me. His nomination is on hold until the ABA issues a rating. Does anybody know what’s going on?

        Like

      • I think an ex con would have had his ABA rating by now. This is insane. I don’t understand at all what’s going on. Does the ABA have a history of waiting until senators turn in their blue slips to release their ratings? That’s the only reason I can think of but I don’t know the answer to that.

        Like

  5. Instates with two Democratic Senators, The White House has had to choose between progressive nominees and establishment nominees. Susan DeClerq seems to be acceptable to both factions. If she’s able to get through her confirmation hearing without incident, it’s only a matter of time before she’s confirmed.

    Like

  6. Very pleased to see Delaware senator Tom Carper is retiring. Nothing against him personally, but the more of his generation leaving government, the better.

    The Dem bench in Delaware is deep. From Kerri Evelyn Harris to congresswoman Lisa Blunt Rochester to Gov. John Carney.

    If I had my way, I’d like to see Harris winning the nomination. I’m not a progressive myself, but I do think that the Dems need to make room for progressives, the section that often drives turnout in elections. She’s also decades younger than Carper.

    I wouldn’t be too upset about Rochester winning the primary/election. But my god, she’s already in her 60s and is only about a decade and a half younger than Carper. She’d be the oldest incoming Delaware senator in about a hundred years or so.

    Carney is even older.
    (Needless to say, as I am not a racist, I don’t care about the potential candidates’ skin color.)

    Biden will have a lot to say about this vacancy. Of course, as an 80-year-old establishment moderate, he’ll never endorse someone like Harris in a primary.

    This seat is a good one to break up the gerontocracy in the senate a little. I hope Delawareans seize the chance. While we’re at it, I hope it’ll be someone who’s exceptional at recommending judicial nominees.

    Liked by 1 person

    • @Gavi

      I too definitely hope we get a new batch this week. I know your keeping count of missed SJC hearing slots so without a new batch this week, you can add another one to the list.

      I am pleased Carper decided to retire so he can pass the baton to the next generation. I’m not as well versed in the possible replacements yet, but I do know he endorsed Rochester. I looked her up. While I see she is 60, age isn’t as important to the senate as it is to being a federal judge. I can’t go as far as others in saying who I would support yet, but I will say (This is where you & I differ) having a Black woman back in the senate would be a great benefit so her race is something I would take into account. But if one of the other possibilities is more progressive, I would definitely be happy to see them in the seat as well.

      Either way thank you senator Carper for your service. I am happy he will enjoy the rest of his life in a well-deserved retirement.

      Like

      • Someone mentioned three missed slots. I think the number is actually four.
        Every week in here I see “this will be the week for a new batch” only for the week to end without any announcements. The WHCO doesn’t know what it’s being and no amount of hopium or wishcasting will change that.

        I’m not surprised that Carper is already endorsing Rochester, who turns 62 next February. There’s always a circling of the wagon with these establishment types.
        For me, it’s not just on the courts. In general, I don’t like this perpetual gerontocracy. These old lawgivers make policy without regard for the longterm consequences, because they know they won’t be around.

        If you want a black woman so much, perhaps Candace Owens can move there, or any other state with an open senate race.

        Like

      • Haaaaaaa… I think I would take a White man from the planet Neptune over Candace Owens. While I don’t know much about Rochester, I’m gonna assume (I know I shouldn’t do that but allow me for a moment) her background & lifestyle is much different from Carper’s. So even though she’s close in age, I still will say she should be an improvement if my assumptions are correct.

        As for the missed SJC slots, I think the number is 3 because we are counting ANY hearing. For instance last week there was a hearing. Even though there were only 2 nominees, we are still counting it. But if there is no new batch this week then it will be 4 for sure.

        Like

    • Oh really? His “generation” leaving would be better? How do you feel about the people in your family who are from that “generation”?

      I don’t care how old Senators are as long as they can win. We had a younger guy in Wisconsin Mandela Barnes in 2022 and he choked big time.

      What did older people do to you that made you so mean?

      Like

    • I’m still mad Tom Cotton defeated an incumbent Democrat senator & then 6 years later ran unopposed. I don’t care how red the state is, the Democrats should be able to field somebody to run for every major statewide office except a Utah type situation like in last years election where you had a strong, reasonable Independent running like Evan McMullin. I don’t believe any Democrat senator has run unopposed in recent memory.

      Like

  9. Since we are on a recess week, I thought I would change it up a little for a minute. Since last week 2 or my 10 A+ circuit court nominees were confirmed, I thought I would give my list of who I would consider an A+ for the current vacancies without a nominee. Who would be all of your A+’s?

    1st – Gilles Bissonnette. If Samantha Elliott was the nominee, I would give her an A taking off a little because we would have to backfill her district court seat.

    3rd – Rachel Wainer Apter, Jeremy Feigenbaum, Alexis Karterton, Farrin Anello or Ryan Haygood.

    4th – Ajmel Queresh or Brendan Hurson (Just appointed to the district court). @Ethan speaks very highly of Tejinder Singh so possibly him as well. Washington DC is right across the river so if they pulled a non-sitting judge from there, I would add Deepak Gupta & Elizabeth Prelogar.

    7th – Jessica Eaglin. I would give an A to Mario Garcia or Zachary Myers.

    10th – Lauren Bonds or Tricia Rojo Bushnell. I would give an A to Daniel Hansmeier, Jacy Hurst or Carl Folsom.

    Like

    • Pocket veto is a thing of the past, but it’s one of the unofficial reasons for pro forma sessions.

      The senate does pro forma sessions for three reasons, official and unofficial:

      1: The most important reason, neither House of Congress and go on recess without the other’s approval. This hasn’t been done since 2016, I think. It’s just a joint resolution establishing the recess.
      2: Preventing recess appointments by the president.
      3: Preventing pocket vetoes by the president. If memory serves, I think Clinton was the last president to pocket a veto.

      Liked by 1 person

      • And how could I forget, another reason for pro forma sessions is to prevent the return to the president of all nominees.
        Yes, folks, sine die adjournment isn’t only at the end of the year. It’s also if the senate is out for more than 30 days. Can you imagine how annoying that would be?

        Like

      • WTF… Sine die adjournment could occur if the senate is out for more than 30 days? Every day I think I know all the ins & ours about the senate, I learn something new… Lol

        I always wondered why when the Democrats are in control, why do they care of the Democrat president makes any recess appointment. To me, I would think the Democrats wouldn’t want a pro forma session… Lol

        Like

      • Sine die just mean an adjournment that doesn’t have a fixed return date. I would argue that year-end sine die adjournments are the fake one, since everyone knows that the senate will be back in session on January 3rd, no matter what haha.

        Pro forma sessions:
        Because no matter your party, it’s good to jealously guard your institutional prerogatives. You should not want the executive, even one of your own party, running roughshod over what is clearly reserved to you by the Constitution.
        Though I must admit, recess appointment of judges is very enticing. Never forget that GWB’s only 11th circuit appointee, the awful Bill Pryor, was originally a recess appointment.

        Like

  13. Terrible trend of old Dems retiring only to be replaced by another old Dem, so they’ll either stay for 20 years into their 80s or their seats become open races sooner which are easier for republicans to win.

    Last year Peter Welch (76) replacing 83 year old Patrick Leahy. Now Tom Carper (76) being replaced by a Rochester who’s 61 and will be eligible for social security when sworn in.

    Meanwhile look at the new senators from the GOP side: VD Jance (38), Katie Britt (41), Markwayne Mullin (45), Eric Schmitt (47) Ted Budd (51), Pete Ricketts (58).

    Republicans always plan for long term success.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I tend to agree with you @Mike although I don’t think age is as important for new senators as do new federal judges. I think if any Democrat regardless of age is in trouble in Vermont or Delaware then there’s probably more to worry about nationally for the party in all likelihood.

      In the cases of Vance & Budd, at least both of those states are winnable. With the right Democrat candidate put forward, there’s an outside chance to flip those seats in the future.

      Like

    • If that’s true why did they lose the Whitehouse and the Senate when they have an advantage?

      You don’t see too many younger Democrats in the Senate is because they don’t know how to run a campaign.

      I brought up Mandela Barnes the other day. The Governor Tony Evers a nice guy with no charisma was re-elected so the votes were there. But, what happened with Barnes? He ran as weak on crime candidate and got beat by Ron Johnson.That race was winnable.

      It’s clear that many of the younger Democrat’s are weak on crime and don’t want a border. People know this and even Democrats don’t like this.

      That’s where where we are. So, what difference does it make how old the candidates are if we are winning. I don’t understand why people are so entrenched in ageists.Shake it off!

      Like

      • Couldn’t agree more with this post. The average voter wants to feel safe and weak prosecution and crime policy is a losing strategy, whether you think being tough on crime is actually an effective policy or not. Older Democrats understand this better than much of the naive younger wing of the party, which ageists such as Gavi fail to understand. Even younger Democratic senators that won their election like Jon Ossoff ran pretty weak campaigns relatively speaking.

        Like

      • Yeah, pointing out that Barnes lost by 1% in Wisconsin as an indictment of young democratic candidates is not the winning argument you think it is Shawn.

        As I can simply point to 66 year old Val Demings in Florida (a literal police chief) losing by 15%, 49 year old Tim Ryan (10 term congressmen) running as a populist and moderate losing by 6% and 57 year old Cheri Beasley in North Carolina (a state supreme court judge) losing by 3%.

        Huh, what happened to your theory there?

        Like

      • Your response to my argument isn’t winning argument that you think it is too. It doesn’t matter losing by 1% is still losing. The Democratic Governor in the same election cycle and party was able to win. The question to ask is why Ever’s voters didn’t vote for Mandela.

        Are you really comparing a red state like Florida with Wisconsin? Those states are not same c’mon who are you trying to kid? Also, no one really expected Tim Ryan to win in a red state like Ohio.

        Lastly, North Carolina is still a relatively conservative state. In an off year election cycle the Democrat’s don’t have the turnout to be competitive. Does that answer your condescending questions?

        Like

    • @Mike
      You could have joined in this discussion yesterday. I made this exact point, specifically respecting the Carper vacancy.
      You can’t complain about prolonged medical absences and pretend as age isn’t a usual (but obviously not always) a factor.

      Don’t even get me started on the possibility of Barbara Lee (77 in July) replacing Diane Feinstein (89). Lee will be only one year younger than Feinstein when Feinstein ran for a fourth full term in 2012. Who really thinks that Lee will freely walk away from power when she finally gets to the pinnacle at 80? If not, how long because we have another Feinstein on our hands?
      Noteworthy: Two other senators sitting in Feinstein’s Class 1 senate seat were practically living corpses that also had to be wheeled into the senate.

      Like

      • The nominees that you wanted confirmed like Abudu and Garcia were done over the past two weeks.

        No one said anything about Fetterman being in Washington D.C and not voting he is 53.

        We now know why Feinstein was out as long as she was and on the west coast. Who cares if she had to be “wheeled” out if the nominees got confirmed?

        There have been several Senators out with illnesses. There’s plenty of times to get work done.

        Like

      • @Gavi

        Un ho, the “We have plenty of time” crowd is back even while the senate is on a full week’s recess. Please don’t ask me what holiday it is that requires a full week off btw, I wouldn’t be able to answer you. Oh & this is in addition to them taking 8 of the next 10 Monday’s off & FIVE weeks off this Summer. But we have plenty of time… Lol

        But I am still on a high after a week of seeing 2 of my 10 A+ circuit court nominees confirmed so I’ll remain happy. As for other senators missing votes, again this is not a fair comparison. Now if Feinstein can continue voting between now & the end of the term, I don’t care if she is rolled on to the senate floor in a gurney wearing her pajamas. As long as she can say the word AYE or raise her arm, that’s good enough for me.

        Since people keep bringing up other senators when comparing them to Feinstein, I will remind you all there are differences in each case. Let’s go through each of the frequently mentioned other senators;

        Senator Thurmond – He was a Republican, so I was happy when he missed votes. I would not call for him to be replaced.

        Senator McCain – He was a Republican, so I was happy when he missed votes. I would not call for him to be replaced.

        Senator Byrd – While he had to be wheeled in, he actually didn’t miss months at a time to my memory. Even if he did, Democrats had a much larger majority then 50/50 & 51/49 respectively so his one vote wasn’t as crucial.

        Senator Kennedy – The governor of Massachusetts at the time was a Republican. Calling for Kennedy to step down would mean he could potentially be replaced by a Republican.

        Senator Fetterman – He had a mental health issue & has since returned to the senate FULL TIME. In addition, he missed weeks less then Feinstein did. Also Pennsylvania is a swing state so replacing him could result in a Republican win in the special election unlike Feinstein’s seat I California.

        Like

      • @Dequan
        We’ll always have plenty of time to do everything in the senate, even on December 31, 2024.

        Just a note of correction:
        Deval Patrick was the governor of Massachusetts during Kennedy’s illness and death. Patrick even appointed Paul Kirk, a Dem, to replace Kennedy until the special election.

        Like

    • Also, a 7-2 conservative court is a result of the state being a red state. So once again, why should Democrats continue to invest endless dollars there when they can’t win elections as things stand? FL is the new Ohio, and the sooner Democrats understand that the better off they’ll be.

      Like

      • DeSantis was talking about the US Supreme Court when discussing a 7-2 majority. All Florida SCOT-FL justices are Republican appointed already.

        And Frank, you still haven’t answered my question from last week. If Democrats have no chance in Florida, why did a Democrat mayoral candidate just win the largest city in the state against a DeSantis backed Republican in a county DeSantis won by about 12% just last November? The city has only had a Democrat mayor for one term in the past three decades.

        Are you saying the city of Jacksonville is the only part of Florida that has voters dissatisfied with Republican overreach? Do you have some data you can share that shows voters South of Duval County can’t be reached & have a change of heart? Traditionally, South Florida has been more Democratic than Jacksonville so I’m just trying to understand how that one county can be reached by Democrats but not the other 66 in the state in your world?

        Like

      • Apologies, my last reply didn’t appear to have posted correctly. Trying this one more time: The Democratic won that race you keep referencing in part because it was a special election (which have low turnout rates and thus are vulnerable to large fluctuations) and due to the fact that it is the only place of notoriety within the state where the electorate is becoming bluer. As for south Florida and most other parts of the state, conservative Hispanics (primarily Cubans and Venezuelans) along with conservative retirees are flocking to the state in much larger numbers than has been previously seen which has boosted the Republicans support massively. DeSantis just won Hispanic voters by 18(!)% in 2022 and won by 11% overall in Miami-Dade county, which is unprecedented. According to the most recent poll I could find, a April Mason-Dixon poll, 59% of Florida’s voters approve of the job DeSantis is doing, and that been pretty consistent (or gone slightly up) from the time he has been in office. I hate to say it, but Florida minus a select few metro areas is simply another Texas; red for at least a generation.

        Like

      • @Frank

        You’re contradicting yourself. You’re saying the Jacksonville area is the only part of Florida getting bluer but just last November they voted for DeSantis by 12%. So it got bluer since November? If that’s what your saying then why can’t South Florida do the same since DeSantis anti immigration policies are sure to turn off a larger percentage of the voters he got last November then the Jacksonville area that is more White compared to South Florida? Do you really think Hispanics love governor DeSantis so much that they don’t care if their friends & family that come to this country all of a something can’t work & have to fear being caught & arrested now compared to when they voted for him in November?

        As for the LGBT community wanting more Biden appointees, as I’ve said before that’s how it works. Despite what many on this blog thinks, if you want people to vote for you then you have to give them a reason. The judiciary is finally starting to be as important to progressives as conservatives (Thank God). So if Biden wants certain groups to vote for him, yes he needs to give them a reason. I am actually happy that Lambda included district court judges & not just circuit court judges like Sanez was asking for. There’s plenty of room on the district courts to throw them a bone so to speak. I don’t think Biden will have a problem doing it.

        Like

      • Don’t confuse what I am saying. Jacksonville is getting bluer, but that doesn’t mean that it will go blue in every election just yet. The 12% victory DeSantis had there in 2022 was a underperformance of his statewide 18% victory and barely better than his 11% victory in Miami-Dade. Again, it’s something that would’ve been shocking in 2012, when Miami-Dade gave Obama a landslide margin en route to him taking the state, but times change.
        I do agree with your point about needing to give voters a reason to vote, but I feel like it’s quite narrow minded to think that the only people that can defend your rights are those that homogeneously align with your racial, ethnic, sexual, or other identities.

        Like

      • Oh I too agree it’s not true only people that can defend your rights have to be from your race/sex/sexuality. Like I said last week while I’m a Black man that would have had no personal issue with 39 White male Dale Ho’s for all of Biden circuit court picks. My only problem would have been it losing Biden votes.

        I think two things can be true at once though. Biden can pick highly qualified attorneys who are progressive, while also some of them being LGBT. Particularly in states with multiple vacancies. I know the article mentioned picking more nominees that have HIV. That might be a tougher sell because health in general is something checked for potential nominees because of course president’s want to pick nominees that are healthy & likely to serve longer.

        But there is potential for for most of the other groups mentioned in the article. I know @Ethan had a transgender attorney on his list for Northern New York, which currently has a vacancy for instance. And no reason why you can’t kill two birds with one stone. There are attorneys that are both LGBT as well as Black, Hispanic, etc. I want qualified, I want diversity & most of all I want a Democrat president for the next term. All can be done

        Like

      • I have a question for you: Would you rather see a LGBT nominee that has served as a AUSA (like Walker) or a non-LGBT nominee that has a proven track record in defending their rights? Personally, I’d rather have the second one, but I understand what you are saying.

        Like

      • To answer your question, I would take the second choice. A straight White male Dale Ho over Jamar Walker would be my pick out of those choices

        But that isn’t the choice we have. We have that choice more then 200 times. So if you give me that choice 200 times over a 4 year span, eventually my answer would change to Jamar Walker. Because if President Biden picked 200 straight White Male Dale Ho’s, then the likelihood is on January 20, 2025 we would be swearing in a President Trump or DeSantis. And then Ron DeSantis dream of a 7-2 conservative SCOTUS is more likely.

        So in the short term I would rather some Jamar Walker’s (BTW he’s not that bad of a nominee) over even a straight White make Dale Ho because I’m looking at what is going to help keep the Democrats in charge of the presidency & senate overall.

        Like

      • Apologies, I thought you were counting the Crist nominees as Democrats for the Florida Supreme Court, which confused me as that court only has 7 total members and especially since last I checked SCOTUS is 6-3 in terms of the conservative-liberal balance.

        Like

      • @Frank

        In the article, it states DeSantis was saying the likely justices that would be relaxed in the next eight years were Thomas, Alito & Sotomayor. So a Republican president would replace the first two with conservatives keeping it 6-3. A Republican replacing Sotomayor would make it 7-2.

        Like

      • @Frank
        If you are going to yet again try to move the goalpost, at least be factual. The Jacksonville election was not a special election. It was a regular election. If you want to discount that, which you are inclined to do, then you’ll have to discount all the other states and municipalities that have non-November elections. I guess Chicago’s recent election must have also been a special election.

        Like

      • General election day is whenever a general election takes place, despite of our preferences.
        There’s nothing magical about the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November besides it being the best time for farmers to vote in early, agrarian-centric America.

        Like

      • @shawnee68

        So I don’t actually disagree with you here. I am sure Dale Ho will issue numerous decisions I don’t like over his career. But I would rather him be in the seat over some Trump hack or even Biden centrist because when it comes to many decisions, he will likely rule the way I want over a judge in the mold of Clarence Thomas.

        And remember the district courts are also a pipeline for elevation. That is one of the reasons we stress young progressives despite yourself calling it ageism, which it’s not when you’re talking about a lifetime position.

        Like

      • Shawnee, so you’d be okay with any old FedSoc hack for the district court seats? Of course any district judge will be sending people to prison, but that’s not their entire job and even if it was having a diverse set of experiences will help to give both sides a fair shake. In addition, I’m not at all a Dale Ho fan.

        Like

      • I hear people talking about “centrist” and more “liberal.”

        I don’t think that makes the big difference that people think it does. No one here can articulate what that difference would reflect. I think it’s more complicated than that.

        That would be like me asking who is more liberal amongst the 3 Democratic appointees on the Supreme Court. How would you define that and ultimately what difference would that make?

        Like

      • I generally think you are on to on to something and make some good points. When people on this site talk about nominees that way though, they are typically referencing it in terms of their career background or group affiliations. The theory here is that someone who has been a public defender will be more progressive as a judge than a prosecutor, but the data is not really clear cut. That being said, someone affiliated with the FedSoc is probably going to be more conservative than someone who is a part of the ACS, and someone with a long history of donating to Democrats will likely be more favorable to the ideological left than someone who has donated to Republicans their entire adult life.

        However, there are ratings, such as the Martin-Quinn scores, which do attempt to measure the judicial ideology for the SCOTUS judges. The consensus, at least before KBJ, is that Sotomayor is by quite a large margin the most liberal of the Democratic appointees. Not sure where Jackson stands on those ratings in comparison, and I’m not completely sold on the methodology, but it is intriguing nevertheless and does make an effort. https://mqscores.lsa.umich.edu/

        Like

      • @shawnee68

        When we talk about centrist or liberal, we are talking about their background prior to nomination. Of course, we don’t know how they will rule on the bench, but we would rather take our chances with somebody who has a progressive background then somebody who doesn’t.

        Think about it like the NFL draft. Tom Brady was drafted in the 6th round & became the greatest quarterback of all time. Meanwhile there have been numerous #1 picks that were bust. But you don’t realistically expect NFL executives to start drafting the players projected in the 6th round first do you? No because overall, if your projected to be #1 your more than likely going to be much better then somebody projected to be in the 6th round despite what Tom Brady did.

        Same thing for the judiciary. We would rather take our chances on a nominee that worked for the ACLU, SPLC or any number of progressive groups over those that did not. Will it always work out the way we want? No, of course not. But we are going with the average.

        J Childs could be the second coming of Thurgood Marshall & serve for 40 years on the DC circuit. But even if she did, I would still want a young progressive to replace her when she finally leaves the bench.

        Like

  16. Resolution would allow bulk Senate confirmation without unanimous consent.

    Klobuchar, D-Minn., introduced the resolution last week that would allow the majority leader to call up to 10 nominees advanced out of the same committee to be considered at the same time for a vote, excluding certain positions like circuit court judges, Supreme Court justices and Cabinet secretaries.

    https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2023/may/23/resolution-would-allow-bulk-senate-confirmation-wi/

    Like

    • I had said in the past the senate needs to just reduce the number of nominees that require confirmation, but this is a more likely solution. I’m not sure about the mechanics of it. Would this require a 50 (Plus 1) vote to pass or 60 votes? I like that it excludes circuit court judges, Supreme Court justices and Cabinet secretaries. I think that makes it more likely it would gain the necessary support needed.

      Like

      • The senate can’t just delegate it’s advise and consent responsibilities. They’ve tried before, and the courts strike it down, which was a correct reading of the Constitution.
        This proposal would be just a senate rule to speed up confirmation. It’s a debatable so can be filibustered. And, importantly, passed with only 51 votes, like all the recent one-party rule changes.

        Like

      • If this new rule can be passed with just 51 votes, I think it would be worth giving a little to get Manchin, Sinema & possibly some Republican support. I would offer not getting rid of blue slips through 2025 (It’s not like Durbin is going to anyway) in return for passing this bill.

        Like

    • Thank you for the article. It’s truly stunning to see there are no Latino justices in 40 states and no Asian American justices in 42 states. It would be hard to believe those numbers in 2013, let alone 2023.

      I do like some of the state justices that have been put on the bench over the past decade or so. I think Biden can look to the state courts for possible elevation like he did with justice Nelson from Oregon (Albeit that was for a district court seat). Some names to watch from the list would be Patricia Lee (9th), Kyra Harris Bolden (6th), ANY of the 3 Democrat appointments to the SCOT-NJ (3rd) & both of the Delaware recent appointments (3rd or Federal Circuit).

      I am eager to see the future appointments in Massachusetts & Maryland with the new Democrat governors. Hopefully governor Lamont will be embarrassed into, making a good pick to replace his failed nominee similar to Hochul in New York.

      Like

  19. There are still 11 vacancies that existed the before Biden took office. I hope Schumer priorities these vacancies after the senate returns next week & the debt ceiling is resolved. FOUR of the vacancies have no nominee.

    09 – CA-C – Vera, Hernan
    09 – CA-C – Kato, Kenly Kiya
    01 – MA – Joun, Myong
    CL – Silfen, Molly
    02 – NY-S – Ho, Dale
    IT – No nominee
    02 – NY-E – Choudhury, Nusrat
    07 – WI-E – No nominee
    09 – WA-W – Cartwright, Tiffany
    11 – AL-M – No nominee
    11 – FL-S – No nominee

    Like

    • Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo… I don’t understand why he would get a Not Qualfied. More importantly i don’t understand why it matters. This is heartbreaking. Trump gets to put hi unqualified hacks on the circuit courts yet Biden can’t put ONE that’s not qualified. He had a deep career so this just doesn’t make sense.

      Like

      • I’m just not understanding how Wamble was unqualified. He was an Assistant United States Attorney since 2011. That alone makes him more qualified than Irene’s that received at least a qualified or even well qualified. There has to be something specific to him & his background that isn’t publicly known. There’s just no way absent anything else he would be rated not qualified.

        Like

      • @dequan Thought of you the second I saw that article, that sucks.

        Here’s hoping Biden gets solid nominees for the circuit and district seats in a good deal but honestly as it looks like Cruz swindled Biden in Texas…I don’t want to insult you by even pretending I think that’ll happen.

        Like

      • @Mike

        Yup, I completely agree. At this point just get a nominee & get the seat filled before it’s left vacant until after the election. If we can get a B- nominee for the 10th at this point I’ll be content.

        Blue slips are back for circuit court seats unfortunately. We had a great first two year run. It was nice while it lasted. I never thought Democrats would increase the senate majority & get worse nominees but that’s the reality at this point. I don’t expect anymore A+ circuit court nominees on top of the 10 I already have graded that high the rest of this term.

        I never thought Democrats would increase their senate majority & we get worse circuit court nominees. Thank God Bernice Donald went senior when she did. Had she left the bench after the midterms, we would be going on 3,416 days & counting since the last Black man was confirmed to any circuit court. At least we got one in that time.

        Like

  21. Justice Thomas is certainly going to retire during the next GOP President’s term (Trump, Desantis, etc.) but is there any chance that a string of Democratic Presidents could block his planned retirement similar to the late great Justice Marshall?

    Remember, Justice Marshall planned to wait until Reagan served his two years (to avoid a conservative nominee undoing everything he fought for) before being blocked by Papi Bush winning in ’88. Thomas only got the chance to sit in that seat because Thurgood Marshall was in poor health and couldn’t wait for ’92. How ironic would it be to have Thomas waiting for a GOP president to replace him, and he has to retire prematurely due to a string of Dem presidents (hypothetically: Biden to Harris/Gov. Shapiro/Ossoff, etc.)?? Poetic justice indeed.

    And now that I think about it, Alito and Roberts are getting up there in age, who knows if poor health or an unexpected death could swing SCOTUS in a different direction.

    And (sorry for a million questions or hypotheticals), would CJ Roberts ever retire under a Dem president?? I don’t know if he would hand the reigns of Chief Justice to a left of center judge willingly. Maybe seeing how batsh*t crazy the new SCOTUS judges are, he would, but I doubt he would leave and have a new CJ and majority undo his crusade against voting rights and reversing SCOTUS’s indifference to the 5th circuit brazenly expanding their authority, etc.

    I’m proud of the work Biden and Senate Dems have done with the lower courts, and as a result, a lot of good decisions will continue to come out of the DC, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 9th, and 10th circuits stopping some of the nonsense from overly litigious groups. On the other hand, SCOTUS is going to be a problem for a while. *sigh*

    When the median ideology spectrum is Kavanaugh… there is a very large problem.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. I think Roberts is the only Justice who would remotely consider retiring under a Dem President/Senate. And I would put those odds very low, maybe 10% at best, and only if he’s quite up there in age. He will turn 69 next year so in the grand scheme of things he is fairly young and could conceivably serve another 15 years or more. He has had a few strokes so I guess it’s always possible that could become an issue again.

    If he did retire under Biden for some reason, I would love to see Kagan get that job and Biden backfill her spot.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Great idea! But I think Judge Sri Srinivasan would be a consensus CJ if Biden is looking to not cause an uproar over his nominee. I would love if he found a judge with good progressive opinions (overturning Heller, weakening “Qualified immunity”, etc.) But knowing Biden, he’ll look to nominate another historic judicial minority with a moderate jurisprudence.

      Would naming a current member of the Supreme Court require senate confirmation? Or would it only require confirming the newest member?

      Like

      • Absolutely naive to think that Roberts would retire during a Dem presidency. It’s amazing that people think Roberts was born the day he was nominated to SCOTUS. He’s a man that’s spent decades crafting the conservative legal blueprint to undermine voting rights laws, AA, etc. He’s one of the attorneys that crafted the Bush v Gore strategy. But yeah, let’s make our optimism get the better of us.
        As currently constituted, no one, absolutely NO ONE, on the court would voluntarily allow the other party to name their replacement. Take that to the bank or place a huge bet on this.

        Liked by 1 person

      • A sitting SCOTUS justice elevated to Chief Justice would still be required to get senate confirmation. Associate Justice Requist was the last that had to do so.

        I’m legit angry about Wamble. I’ve never been more confident than I am today that the 3rd vacancy will go to either Esther Salas or Justin Neals. That’s the best we can hope for at this point. There’s no more A+ circuit court nominees coming through 2025 unless we get another California 9th vacancy. Then there’s a possibility Padilla would take the lead & we get one. Other than that, it’s been a nice ride.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @dawsont825
        To answer your question, yes. No matter who sits where, if you want to occupy another seat that requires confirmation, you will need to go through the process again.
        I don’t understand why anyone would want Kagan as CJ. There’s a low-grade campaign to get her to resign right now.
        So many other better choices. Srinivasan wouldn’t work for me, either.

        Like

      • @Gavi

        It’s not so much we want Kagan as chief. It’s more so who we think Biden would pick. I absolutely think he would pick one oh the three liberal justices. I would hope he picked KBJ but Kagan wouldn’t surprise me if the vacancy occurred in the next few years somehow.

        Like

    • @shawnee68

      I was not trying to continue the practice of only selecting judges from the east coast and especially from the D.C circuit, I just know that the D.C circuit is held in such high regard, along with a clear majority of current justices coming from that same circuit that it would be foolish to not think the next nominee would come from there.

      I’m very much in favor of elevating a strong appeals court judge from the 9th circuit, or even elevating any of Biden’s strong appeals court judges so far (Jackson-Akiwumi, Thomas, Benjamin, Nathan, Desai, Sanchez, Perez, etc.)

      Anyone Biden nominates would immediately become a better justice than the justice they’re replacing (except if its Sotomayor or Kagan). I’m aware that it makes sense to not have the SCOTUS have only east coast and D.C. trained jurists on them, but I want the best and youngest judges possible.

      Like

      • I know that is the popular sentiment. The judges on the DC Circuit are no better than judges on any other court or non judge. Do you think Clarence Thomas is any better because he came from the DC Circuit? Of course not.

        The best liberal judge in my lifetime was William Brennan. He was a state Supreme Court Justice. People are too lazy to do country wide search.

        Like

      • I would argue that they are better since they exclusively hear high-stakes appeals from Congressional lawsuits, agency disputes, and arguments over the separation of powers.

        Not to say that other appeals court judges are unworthy of elevation, it just makes sense to have judges who are immersed in those kinds of legal affairs. I don’t doubt Holly Thomas would be amazing as an associate justice of SCOTUS, but I will maintain that Brad Garcia would be better suited for the severity of cases than she would.

        No need to ask a dumb rhetorical question to make a point. An extremely weak argument there. Do better

        Like

  23. Jabari Wamble

    I called the ABA NQ rating months ago.

    As I’ve said many times, the ABA only delays its ratings when it has to do a second one.

    I think (and I’m just speculating here) that Wamble has some professional issues that would cause the NQ rating, not a matter of experience and credentials.
    Very disappointing, but it’s entirely Biden’s fault.
    For those who think Biden is the best thing since slice bread, you deserve this.

    Every recent president nominated and appointed candidates deemed NQ. Only Biden will cower in the face of that rating. Do you think Trump or DeSantis would ever pull such a nominee?

    Now the KS senators should keep playing this WH for the fools they are. They don’t deserve to fill this seat. You get the president you deserve.

    Like

  24. @shawnee68 Seems you don’t follow politics much, I do, so let me educate you here as I can’t reply to your comment.

    > The Democratic Governor in the same election cycle and party was able to win. The question to ask is why Ever’s voters didn’t vote for Mandela.

    The Tony Evers is a old white incumbent who’s opponent who said “Republicans will never lose another election in Wisconsin after I’m elected governor” and was hammered for it during an election season focused on abortion rights and election integrity.

    Barnes is a young black man who challenged the sitting two term senator who won Wisconsin in 2016 by 3x Trumps margin. If Barnes was a white guy in his 50s maybe he would’ve won, or maybe he would’ve lost like Steve Bullock in Montana, Sam Gideon in Maine and Cal Cunningham North Carolina.

    > Are you really comparing a red state like Florida with Wisconsin? Those states are not same c’mon who are you trying to kid?

    Rick Scott, the sitting two term governor of Florida won the 2018 senate election by only 10k votes out of 8.2m.
    Enjoy having your eat and eating it too.

    > Also, no one really expected Tim Ryan to win in a red state like Ohio.

    That must be why Mitch McConnell’s SLF super pac spent $31 million boosting JD Vance in the general election, more than they spent trying to flip Nevada, because Ohio was a sure thing.

    > Lastly, North Carolina is still a relatively conservative state. In an off year election cycle the Democrat’s don’t have the turnout to be competitive.

    North Carolina with it’s twice elected democratic governor? Yeah I guess it’s pretty conservative as opposed to liberal Wisconsin, a state that elected Scott Walker 3 times including a recall, Trump won by 20k in 2016 and lost by 20k in 2020, 6/8 of its house seats are Republican and both legislatures are under GOP control. It’s basically Massachusetts.

    Does that answer your condescending questions?

    Yup, thanks for confirming your political insights are basic as hell. I’ll remember that when I see your future comments.

    Like

    • @Mike
      “Yup, thanks for confirming your political insights are basic as hell. I’ll remember that when I see your future comments.”

      I learned this months ago and basically leave those comments in the trash.

      Back to Wamble.
      The one upside of this, if you can call it that, is he’s free to share his insights of this whole embarrassing saga. I just hope he didn’t throw a stapler at a junior staffer.
      Otherwise, this whole thing is so disheartening.

      Like

  25. https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article275716501.html
    This article dives deep into his nomination and the likely issue that came up with him eventually having to withdraw.
    The U.S. Attorney’s office in KS was held in contempt for refusing to cooperate with how many times people from their office listened in on phone calls at one private prison between attorneys and their clients in what should have been private conversations under the 6th Amendment.
    In one instance, it appears Wamble gave conflicting statements on how much he did or didn’t listen to one such conversation and even though the lawyer at the center of that case vouched for him, how many other calls did he listen in on in?
    I know some folks are upset about this and I was as well but this honestly is a valid reason as to why his nomination was stalled and eventually quashed.
    There are already enough right wing judges who think the 6th amendment among others are pesky things to be ignored.
    Not worth risking adding another.

    Like

    • The article is paywalled. @Ethan was nice enough to send me a copy/paste so I will share below.

      “Jabari Wamble, President Joe Biden’s nominee for a federal judgeship in Kansas, withdrew his nomination Tuesday evening. MH WASHINGTON President Joe Biden’s nominee to serve as a judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas withdrew his name from consideration late Tuesday, marking the second time in two years that his nomination to the federal bench failed to get through the Senate. Jabari Wamble, who has served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the District of Kansas since 2011, was first nominated to serve as a judge on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in August of last year. His nomination never made it through the Senate Judiciary Committee and he was instead nominated for the district court, a step down, in February. “My path to this nomination began more than 18 months ago and after careful thought and consideration, I feel that it is best for me to continue my work at the United States Attorney’s Office in the District of Kansas,” Wamble wrote in a withdrawal letter obtained by the Star. “I have been humbled and honored by the faith you placed in me with this nomination.” Wamble is the son-in-law of Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, a Kansas City Democrat who was an early supporter of Biden in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary. “President Biden is proud to have nominated Jabari Wamble, a deeply qualified attorney who has served with distinction as a prosecutor at the state and federal level in Kansas, who received his undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Kansas, and who has dedicated his life to serving the people of Kansas,” said Andrew Bates, the deputy White House press secretary. Sen. Jerry Moran, a Kansas Republican, congratulated Wamble on his circuit nomination last year, but was silent on his nomination to the lower court this year. Moran and Sen. Roger Marshall, a Republican from Kansas, wanted an independent group — the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary — to determine whether Wamble was qualified before they supported his nomination. It never weighed in. The group, which conducts independent peer evaluations of judges, never issued a rating on Wamble’s circuit court nomination. As of Tuesday, it was still reviewing Wamble for the district court position, even though it had already rated several nominees after him. The Alliance for Justice, a progressive judicial advocacy group, said Wamble was qualified and highlighted cases he prosecuted related to health care fraud, tax fraud and corporate fraud. But Wamble was also involved in a case where the U.S. Attorney’s office was held in contempt of court for failing to cooperate with an investigation into the extent in which prosecutors accessed confidential phone calls between attorneys and clients at Leavenworth Detention Center, a federal prison which was managed by private contractor CoreCivic. Over the course of the case, Wamble offered conflicting statements regarding how he handled a recording where he recognized the voice of Christian Cox, an attorney who at the time was representing Brenda Wood, a client charged with 26 counts related to fraud. The case largely focused on other attorneys in the office, but Judge Julie Robinson criticized Wamble in the scathing 188-page ruling in 2019 for failing to tell Cox that he possessed his calls with Wood. Wamble said he stopped listening to the tape when he recognized the voice and requested new recordings from the prison without the Cox’s calls in them. He also said he told Cox that he had possibly obtained his calls with Wood and suggested Cox have his number “privatized.” Cox testified that Wamble did not tell him that he had obtained or possessed his calls with Wood. Wamble later said he did not actually tell Cox he possessed the calls, according to Robinson. Cox, who characterized the situation as a miscommunication, said he didn’t think Wamble’s role in the case should disqualify him from becoming a judge. “No, I don’t,” Cox said. “I think he is a smart, good lawyer. Nobody does this perfectly all the time. I would not want to hinder his movement in life. He’s a good guy, I wish him all the best.” Charles Geyh, a law professor at Indiana University who focuses on judicial ethics, said if he were a senator he would want to know more about the circumstances and whether it was an isolated event because there is a high standard of integrity for judges. “’Integrity’ is one of the ‘three I’s’ of judicial ethics (the other two being independence and impartiality) — the core values that codes of conduct require of an ethical judge,” Geyh wrote in an email. “Lawyers who are dishonest in their dealings with others call their integrity into question, which is a red flag for a judicial candidate, whose integrity should be above reproach.”

      Like

      • “Jabari Wamble, President Joe Biden’s nominee for a federal judgeship in Kansas, withdrew his nomination Tuesday evening. MH WASHINGTON President Joe Biden’s nominee to serve as a judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas withdrew his name from consideration late Tuesday, marking the second time in two years that his nomination to the federal bench failed to get through the Senate. Jabari Wamble, who has served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the District of Kansas since 2011, was first nominated to serve as a judge on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in August of last year. His nomination never made it through the Senate Judiciary Committee and he was instead nominated for the district court, a step down, in February. “My path to this nomination began more than 18 months ago and after careful thought and consideration, I feel that it is best for me to continue my work at the United States Attorney’s Office in the District of Kansas,” Wamble wrote in a withdrawal letter obtained by the Star. “I have been humbled and honored by the faith you placed in me with this nomination.” Wamble is the son-in-law of Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, a Kansas City Democrat who was an early supporter of Biden in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary. “President Biden is proud to have nominated Jabari Wamble, a deeply qualified attorney who has served with distinction as a prosecutor at the state and federal level in Kansas, who received his undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Kansas, and who has dedicated his life to serving the people of Kansas,” said Andrew Bates, the deputy White House press secretary. Sen. Jerry Moran, a Kansas Republican, congratulated Wamble on his circuit nomination last year, but was silent on his nomination to the lower court this year. Moran and Sen. Roger Marshall, a Republican from Kansas, wanted an independent group — the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary — to determine whether Wamble was qualified before they supported his nomination. It never weighed in. The group, which conducts independent peer evaluations of judges, never issued a rating on Wamble’s circuit court nomination. As of Tuesday, it was still reviewing Wamble for the district court position, even though it had already rated several nominees after him. The Alliance for Justice, a progressive judicial advocacy group, said Wamble was qualified and highlighted cases he prosecuted related to health care fraud, tax fraud and corporate fraud. But Wamble was also involved in a case where the U.S. Attorney’s office was held in contempt of court for failing to cooperate with an investigation into the extent in which prosecutors accessed confidential phone calls between attorneys and clients at Leavenworth Detention Center, a federal prison which was managed by private contractor CoreCivic. Over the course of the case, Wamble offered conflicting statements regarding how he handled a recording where he recognized the voice of Christian Cox, an attorney who at the time was representing Brenda Wood, a client charged with 26 counts related to fraud. The case largely focused on other attorneys in the office, but Judge Julie Robinson criticized Wamble in the scathing 188-page ruling in 2019 for failing to tell Cox that he possessed his calls with Wood. Wamble said he stopped listening to the tape when he recognized the voice and requested new recordings from the prison without the Cox’s calls in them. He also said he told Cox that he had possibly obtained his calls with Wood and suggested Cox have his number “privatized.” Cox testified that Wamble did not tell him that he had obtained or possessed his calls with Wood. Wamble later said he did not actually tell Cox he possessed the calls, according to Robinson. Cox, who characterized the situation as a miscommunication, said he didn’t think Wamble’s role in the case should disqualify him from becoming a judge. “No, I don’t,” Cox said. “I think he is a smart, good lawyer. Nobody does this perfectly all the time. I would not want to hinder his movement in life. He’s a good guy, I wish him all the best.” Charles Geyh, a law professor at Indiana University who focuses on judicial ethics, said if he were a senator he would want to know more about the circumstances and whether it was an isolated event because there is a high standard of integrity for judges. “’Integrity’ is one of the ‘three I’s’ of judicial ethics (the other two being independence and impartiality) — the core values that codes of conduct require of an ethical judge,” Geyh wrote in an email. “Lawyers who are dishonest in their dealings with others call their integrity into question, which is a red flag for a judicial candidate, whose integrity should be above reproach.”

        Like

    • I know in this blog many people are upset due to that, but eventually more, because they would like to have another Black male circuit appointee, what I would support, but not really considering, that Jabari Wamble might have simply been the wrong candidate. Here some people are also not that critical as usual, that he’s a prosecutor and has no obvious progressive background.

      Final conclusion, there was something foul for a long time, and preparation that this nomination could like it did now, should be made.

      Beside the article above, we know very few and have hence speculated very much, but the development was no positive one. I also believe, that it was not just the ABA rating, like at the Delaney nomination, there must be something more, like in the article above, as we have no hearing, we also don’t know, who approached him or if he applied for himself. If the Democratic Party in Kansas had failed as they have obviously done in South Dakota, that would also be a reason to try it with Moran and Marshall, but that is also speculation.

      If everything would have gone smoothly, he would have been confirmed as circuit judge.
      But it wasn’t. In the retroperspective it was wrong to re-nominted him to the district court position in Kansas. Instead of that, a new candidate should have been looked for earlier.

      @Dequan: I don’t think that Blue Slips are back for circuit court nominees, but the situation has changed, because there are open district court seats now, the WH wants to fill and hence trying to deal with the Republican senators. Mathis was before that. And circuit court judges might be part of the deal.
      I also don’t trust Ted Cruz for one minute, but the senate has no need to confirm Ramirez before district courts nominations in Texas are made, and the Blue Slips have be returned. I don’t think Schumer, Durbin and Biden are that stupid or naive some others do.

      Like

      • @Thomas

        I would love for you to be right as I think it’s unilateral disarmament to allow Trump to put 54 circuit court judges on the bench in 4 years because of no blue slips while Biden only gets 2 years. But even in your example, if Cruz came out tomorrow & said he will into return any blue slips until after the next president is sworn in, I don’t see them pulling Ramirez nomination.

        Do you really see THIS president & WH Counsel saying ok, no district court judges means we pull Ramirez & she not get confirmed for the second time & we are now nominating Rochelle Garza? I don’t see that at all. Do you really see them not nominating whoever the Indiana senators agree to & instead we get Jessica Eglin or somebody that good?

        I don’t think they publicly are saying blue slips are back. I’m just saying I don’t see getting another circuit court judge the rest of the term that doesn’t have blue slips returned. I’ll call it a de facto blue slip.

        @Mitch

        Yes they already said they are going to post Tiffany Cartwright’s page once she is confirmed. My issue is what’s the problem with any magistrate judge having a page. And US Attorney’s certainly should be notable. We’ve had several become federal judges over the past few administrations including one under Biden. It’s just another example of a user who has nothing better to do but get pages pulled down using Wikipedia lingo for nothing.

        Like

  27. Wamble
    When his nomination got switched and everyone was offering their wild takes, including something to the effect that he reconsidered and decided that he’s no longer qualified for the circuit court, I, of course, called out this nonsense. More to my current point, I also said that if these takes were to be believed, it would mean that the WH seriously failed in its vetting of Wamble. Now, with these professional misconduct allegations (which I suggested was more likely the reason), it is even clearer just how big the WH messed up the vetting process.
    How in the world are these allegations flying out there and your response is to pull the nomination from a court you don’t need blue slips for to a court that you need blue slips for? Did the WH think that these allegations would be a problem for the COA but not for the district court? Mind-boggling. If this was a practice, someone would lose their job over this.

    Plan B
    A competent WH, knowing these allegations (I cannot wait to ignore the person with a possible ridiculous take that maybe the WH didn’t know and that somehow the ABA’s investigatory skills are better than those of the FBI’s), would have other possible candidates lined up or already vetted in case the nomination fails. You can trust this WH with your life if you want; I won’t trust them to have any plan B for any of the vacancies.

    COA Vacancy
    Naming a nominee for this semi-permanent vacancy seems to be in the WH’s court. I look at the KS senators’ statements carefully. They kept saying that they’ll wait to see who the WH nominates for CA10 before they decide on the Wamble blue slip. What does that mean? Well, waiting is passive, “negotiating” would be more active. I’m sure at one point they negotiated with the WH, but from the senators’ comments, it’s the WH that now has to make a move. How long will we have to wait? 2024? Will this go into aagren’s “no nominee” category?

    District Court vacancy
    I haven’t checked how many trial court vacancies are in Kansas. But for this specific vacancy, due to this massive blunder, how likely is it that the KS senators will return blue slips for any of the WH’s preference? I see them returning blue slips only for candidates they directly recommend, which might not be worth confirmation.

    Also, if you don’t think that there’s a de facto return to circuit court blue slips by the WH, good luck with that.

    Like

    • @Gavi

      Great points all around. You called a lot of what we are finally seeing come to light. I (sadly) completely agree with your last point. Look folks, we had a great two year run. We got Arianna Freeman, Andre Mathis & Anthony Johnstone over the objections of home state Republican senators who did not turn in blue slips. All three are great (I personally gave them A+, A & A respectively). Those 3 will be the only circuit court nominees we will get in that category for the rest of Biden’s term.

      Biden will not nominate another federal judge over the objections of a home state senator. De facto blue slips are back for circuit court vacancies. I take no joy in saying that. It hurts me to type it. But it’s important to be truthful like I tell my MAGA friends almost on a daily basis. We need to be truthful. The days of the 3 nominees I’m mentioned above are GONE. Maybe if Biden is re-elected & Democrats pull off a senate miracle those days will come back. But it will not happen again before Election Day.

      @Jill

      “The thought that Tim Scott would jump at the chance to be Trump’s VP is truly sad” isn’t what I said. I said Trump would be smart to pick Tim Scott as his VP. Trump isn’t that smart but if he was, that’s who I would advise he picked.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I remember a couple months ago, after yet another small and lackluster nomination batch dropped, I asked, half-jokingly, if the days of Holly A. Thomas and Dale Ho, and the bravery of the Freeman and Mathis nominations were behind us. Little did I know that they really were.

        Like

      • Sadly your intuition was correct. I just hope we can get these seats filled with at least B- nominees. And get them filled period. I mean the next batch (Hopefully this week) should have a NDIL nominee because we know they will pick Nicholas Gowen over Karen Shelley. And just go ahead & name Esther Salas or Julien Neals for the 3rd because it will be one of them or somebody in that mold.

        I’m not sure how bad Cardin’s recommendation was but hopefully not Stephanie Gallagher. I know @Ethan has been predicting David Hollar for the 7th. He would be a lackluster circuit court nominee but with blue slips basically back, he just might be the nominee now. At least we would get a second sitting law professor for a circuit court nominee. Samantha Elliott is likely the 1st nominee unless the senators have another close ally in mind.

        I’m afraid Stephen Six is back on the table for the 10th. He was Wamble’s boss so perhaps he was also involved in the controversy mentioned last night so maybe that would take him out of the running.

        Like

      • What makes me so mad about blue slips basically back in business for circuit court is if we get a chance to stick it to Republican senators that are bad actors, it won’t happen. There are two judges that can take senior status on the 5th from Mississippi right now. Yet Scott Colom wouldn’t be the nominee since we know a senator that said she would happily attend a lynching in the front row, won’t return her blue slip.

        Same for Tennessee. There are also two judges that are eligible for senior status. I would love to get a nominee in the mold of Andre Mathis or maybe a recommendation from one of the Tennessee Three. That of course won’t happen since Blackburn would use her fake outrage over the US Attorney that senator Hirono blocked to say she isn’t going return her blue slip for any nominee until aft er the election. It makes me sick to think any of those senators would be entertained.

        Like

      • I think we can’t see the full picture for now, just a glimpse, and may not do that until the end of Biden’s term, either the first or the second one.

        In the first phase, the year 2021 there were not much vacancies, and the WH had time to choose many of the best candidates, but that ended relatively sharp with the batch of 19 January 2022, afterwards came the SCOTUS vacancy and all the candidates, who came afterwards in smaller batches, were less spectacular and have all been confirmed so far up to the 13 July 2022. I assume that due to the high number of senior status announcements, the WH had to work faster and vetted more candidates from conventional background.
        In July and August the WH fired out everything they had fearing the loss of the senate majority at the end of the year.
        That has luckily not happened, but as there is no retirement wave in sight for 2023 and 2024, the number of actual and future vacancies is at least on a controllable level, while there are still lots of nominees waiting for a floor vote, there is fewer steam on the pipe.
        This phase can start concentrating more on district vacancies in Red States, as Biden inherited very few, that was out of the the focus, while simultaneously the remaining Blue district court states or those without senators can be filled, while on the circuit courts (likely) not much will happen until 2024.

        That the GOP will try to prevent the filling of as much vacancies as possible is clear, but I think they won’t do it in the Tuberville-Style, e. g. as Dequan suggested, Cruz would say after the Ramirez nomiation, he won’t return Blue Slips until a Republican President is in office.
        That would be the ultimate reason for the Democrats to ditch the Blue Slip for district court vacancies.
        They would instead try to keep it as long as possible and feed the Dems with small snacks from time to time.

        I would also point to the fact, that not all Republican Senators have the same weight, while Texas is big and has a double digit number of district court vacancies, Kansas has one and Indiana two – that they get a sixty years old moderate on the circuit in exchange for two BS at the district court is a bold assumption.

        Finally, for me it’s at least possible, that the Republican constituency in this states might not be that happy, when they can’t get a court trial because of staff shortage, and their senator tell them, that they have to wait until a President of the GOP will move in the WH again.

        Like

    • Wamble specifically cited that one of the reasons he was withdrawing was that it had been 18 months since his nomination was first announced. He didn’t feel like waiting around anymore.

      I am surprised that some of the district court nominees who were nominated in Sept 2021 and Jan 2022 haven’t done the same.

      I would hope Schumer forces a vote on Bloomekatz real soon before she has any doubts since as of tomorrow it will be a year since her nomination was announced. And yeah Shawn I know they are adults and have some jobs already. No need to respond making it obvious you’re missing the point.

      Like

      • @Delco

        I too sometimes get worried we will lose a nominee due to the long wait. I’m hoping not because all of the nominees that have waited over a year are ones I want to see confirmed. We are about to go into a 5 week stretch of the sense being in session starting next week. While I know they have the debt ceiling, Tubberville’s military holds & them only working 1 of those 5 weeks as a full week (I’m most angry about that one), I’m hopeful Feinstein will be at work so Schumer can finally get the longest waiting nominees confirmed.

        We lost Delaney so that’s 30 extra hours of senate floor time that can be dedicated to district court nominees. I don’t know how likely senator Klobachar’s bill is at passing but it needs to be a priority. Considering 10 nominees at a time for cloture would actually get me to change my opinion & say there is plenty of time if passed.

        Like

  29. I see. Yeah that would make sense. I would argue 9 months is too long anyway.

    On another note, very disappointing to see no new nominees today. I guess they could still announce, but in all likelihood this means another missed SJC hearing. Plain and simple, the WH needs to step it up with nominations. I know they’re looking for deals, but there needs to be some urgency.

    I do hope once the senate comes back that they keep up their momentum of confirmations. Bloomekatz should be first priority followed by Rikelman.

    Like

    • Theoretically we could still get a new batch tomorrow or Friday & not miss a SJC slot. de Alba & Ramirez were announced on a Friday & had their hearing on the Wednesday 4 weeks later. I just hope the next batch, whenever it is, has at least 8 nominees so we can stop sweating every 2 weeks.

      I expect the debt ceiling will take up most if not all of next week when the senate returns besides Papillon. Hopefully out of the remaining 4 weeks, we can get at least 2 weeks dedicated just on judges alone. I don’t know the VP’s schedule, but I assume Schumer will coordinate with her to get Rikelman & Ho confirmed. Everybody else should be ok without her tie breaking vote.

      Like

  30. Good point. I thought it had to be 28 days exactly. I will keep my fingers crossed then.

    Bloomekatz I think has a good chance of getting Manchins vote. Her background is less controversial and she also has the strong backing of Sen. Brown. I think I agree with you that Rikelman and Ho likely will need absences or the VPs help. Maybe Kato as well.

    Like

    • The Bloomekatz nomination will not be a cake walk. If that were the case than she would have been confirmed last. Since some of the left make a big deal out who you represent it, this nomination will come at a cost.

      The issue is Bloomekatz volunteers to represent a young man who raped his victim repeatedly. I don’t think it will be easy for Manchin to support her in an election year.

      Also, since this really Sherrod Brown’s sponsored nominee he is going to get some heat in his re-election bid. This is not a nominee you can brag about in a red state.

      Like

      • You can always pick one or two cases here or there where an attorney with a long career like Bloomekatz represented the scum of the Earth. The fact of the matter is in this country, not only should the worst of the worst have counsel that gives them a vigorous defense, our system of government insist on it.

        Biden has nominated over 150 people for federal judgeship & senator Manchin has only voted against one. If you look at why he votes against nominees for any position he’s been pretty consistent. I don’t think Bloomekatz falls in that category. Rikelman & Ho might however.

        Sherrod Brown is gonna have a tough re-election regardless. I don’t think the Bloomekatz vote will persuade any voter that wasn’t already decided.

        Liked by 2 people

      • No one afforded that courtesy to Michael Delaney. His career is far longer than hers. You can’t have it both ways.
        You don’t really believe everyone should have the lawyer they want if it’s an issue you don’t approve of.

        The issues presented by Bloomekatz is not a good look in an election year. We’ll see if chooses to articulate his reasoning for granting a lifetime appointment with someone with Bloomekatz’s resume. What will West Virginians make of that?

        Yes, I agree Sherrod Brown will have a tough election. But you can bet that Bloomekatz will not make it easier.

        Like

      • It’s an ad that can support a narrative “Democrat’s are weak on crime.” I don’t really care one way or the other if Bloomekatz is confirmed. I am just stating that it’s hypocritical for Democrat’s to attack Delaney for doing his job. Let’s see how they will feel when it’s directed to Bloomekatz.

        Like

      • The crime argument going to happen no matter if she is confirmed or not. The situations aren’t really that comparable even as you are trying to force a connection. To my knowledge, Bloomekatz hasn’t filed a motion to strip the rape victim you are talking about of anonymity the way Delaney did, which seems like a pretty big thing to leave out of the equation. There’s a reason Bloomekatz got the votes she needed to pass through the SJC and Delaney didn’t, and that’s because there’s more to the story than you are giving credit.

        Liked by 1 person

      • There’s nothing that Delaney did that could find it’s way into a campaign ad. The issues in Bloomekatz case has to be a reason why she hasn’t been voted on yet.

        It’s also true that Tester and Manchin are not on the SJC So, there has to be a reason why a vote hasn’t been scheduled.

        If I am missing something I am happy to hear what it is.

        Like

      • Of course the issues with Bloomekatz have led to a delay in her confirmation vote, otherwise she’d be confirmed by now. You aren’t breaking new ground with that observation. That doesn’t mean she won’t receive a vote in the future. You can have the opinion that her situation would have a campaign ad while Delaney would not, yet you haven’t explained why that would be the case when both candidates were defending accused rapists while Delaney did something much more morally objectionable in aiming to reveal the identity of the victim. I can’t see that playing well with rape victims.

        Manchin has voted for other nominees with similar types of controversies like Nina Morrison and has clear standards for what nominees he won’t support (most obvious being those who support abortion rights).

        Like

      • @shawnee68

        I think we are talking about two different things. Remember what I said last week. If you’re in my camp, you want young progressive attorneys for Biden’s circuit court picks. Diversity would be a plus.

        Nobody was criticizing Delaney for WHO he defended. He was criticized for how he handled himself WHILE he was defending them. In particular, his possible involvement in trying to expose an underage sexual assault victim. Now if you remember when he was nominated, I immediately said, “He didn’t blow my skirt up, but I would still be fine if he’s confirmed”. After the revelations I mentioned above, I still said even though he isn’t exactly what I am looking for, I’m willing to give him his day at his SJC hearing. He had his day & to be frank, he did a horrible job in his hearing. I would say he had the second worst hearing of any Biden nominee only after Christine O’Hearn.

        So in Delaney, we had a barely left of center 54-year-old nominee who had questionable tactics dealing with an underage sexual assault victim that did horrible in his SJC hearing. And as recently as last week we even found out he was on the board of directors of a group that opposes many of President Biden’s policies on top of it. In Bloomekatz, we have a proven progressive who hasn’t reached her 40th birthday yet, who sailed through her SJC hearing.

        The two are not the same. If you do not want the same things I & many of the users on this blog want in the judiciary, that’s fine. Just be open about it. @Frank is & I have the up most respect for him despite our differences. But if you want the same thing, I want in President Biden’s judicial nominees, you can’t seriously look at Delaney & Bloomekatz & say the two situations are the same.

        Like

  31. Someone else mentioned how Superior Court vacacines in DC should all be confirmed this year and I decided to look into that a little.

    There are TEN vacancies on that court, that’s more than Trump appointed (9) and I don’t think I’ve heard anything about those seats. The administration has only nominated 2 people this year, these are 15 year terms!

    Like

    • I don’t remember that, and it’s also very unlikely, because as you mentioned, there are just two nominees waiting for a hearing, what usually lasts longer at the Committee of Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and No. 3 is waiting for final confirmation since 30 September 2021.
      Two further vacancies are coming in June and July, while a third one when one sitting judge is elevated to the District Court of DC.
      Very shameful to let the people of D.C., who are deeply blue, waiting four to five years to fill the vacancies, at the Court of Appeals one vacancy is open since 1 November 2013, so I even doubt that both courts have a full roster at the end of 2024.

      Like

  32. A major difference between Delaney and Bloomekatz is RB should have unanimous and enthusiastic support from civil rights groups and other left leaning groups. I feel confident that she’ll get confirmed at some point this summer.

    Like

    • That means literally nothing. People on this site put way too much emphasis on interest group support, when typically that has little effect into determining whether the nominee will be confirmed or not. Shawnee is dead on when they say interest groups don’t have votes.

      Like

      • @Frank

        I don’t believe recent history agrees with you. Do you really think we would have the same 55 Trump judges without the Federalist Society. Do you not think Delaney wouldn’t have gotten confirmed had every interest group that spoke out remained silent?

        Like

      • I think the FedSoc is one of a small number of exceptions, and yes there are some other ones that have a non-zero role. I don’t think the interest groups had as big of a role as you are thinking but it’s really hard to say for certain. Mu previous statement was speaking more from a broad perspective.

        Like

      • I too don’t think interest groups have a case by case, nominee by nominee role. I think overall they have influence in the process. For instance they influence the types of judges a president looks For. But when a nominee is really good or really bad, I believe they then can have influence on that particular nominee like in the examples I gave.

        On another note, what a disaster of a presidential launch for my governor last night. DeSantis is starting to look like the second coming of Scott Walker more every week. I’m gonna enjoy watching Trump rip him to shreds. I’ve been saying for months I think the only Republican that can bring Trump down is Chris Christie. If he jumps in the race, look for Trump to skip the debates.

        Like

      • If you are speaking more to what interest group members of the presidents team worked for prior to working at the White House, I agree with you more. However, I don’t think there are any progressive groups that specifically tanked Delaneys nomination, just as an example.

        Like

  33. My point is that the main issue was that Delaney didn’t have the votes from the left. If he had, then they probably could have been confirmed.

    Bloomekatz won’t have that issue and she should be able to get at least Sinema and Tester on board and that will be enough for confirmation.

    Like

  34. New upcoming vacancy for Michigan Eastern. Paul Borman, Clinton appointee. Aug 1. So that’s two nominees Stabenow and Peters need to fill. Maybe having a second helps move the first along, as hopefully they’re betting more than one potential candidate.

    Like

    • Paul Borman was definitely on my list of judges I hope would retire this year. I thank him for his service & for being a snappy dresser with his bow ties… Lol

      I really hope with Stabenow not running for reelection & Peters not up for a number of years, we get some block buster nominees from a state prime with young progressives.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s