The daughter of former federal judge James Munley, Julia K. Munley is poised to fill her father’s old seat on the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
Background
The 57 year old Munley was born into a storied Pennsylvania family, with her great-grandfather, grandfather, and grandmother having served in the Pennsylvania General Assembly as Democrats. Munley attended Marywood University in Scranton, receiving a B.A. degree in 1987, and subsequently getting a law degree from Penn State Dickinson Law in 1992.
After graduating, Munley clerked for Judge Stephen McEwen with the Pennsylvania Superior Court and then joined Masterson, Braunfield, Maguire & Brown as an Associate. In 1995, Munley switched to Mazzoni & Karam, and in 2001, became a partner at Munley Law.
In 2016, Governor Tom Wolf appointed Munley to the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County, where she currently serves.
History of the Seat
The seat Munley has been nominated for opened on September 30, 2022, with the move to senior status of Judge Robert Mariani. Mariani, in turn, replaced Munley’s father, Judge James Munley, in 2011.
Legal Experience
While she has shifted firms on occasion, Munley spent the first twenty five years of her career in private practice, practicing in state and federal court. Notably, Munley argued before the Third Circuit (with a panel including then-Judge Samuel Alito) on behalf of Wayne Stevens, who was accused of sexual harassment and won a four-day jury trial. See Johnson v. Elk Lake Sch. Dist., 283 F.3d 138 (3d Cir. 2002). The Third Circuit unanimously upheld the district court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. See id. Munley also represented numerous Allstate agents in a suit against the insurance company alleging improper termination. See Romero v. Allstate Ins. Co., (E.D. Pa. July 6, 2016).
On the state court side, Munley has handled civil claims, including insurance litigation. See, e.g., Md. Casualty Co. v. McGrath, No. 355 MDA 2015 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015).
Judicial Experience
From 2016, Munley has served as a Judge on the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, which are the primary trial courts in Pennsylvania. As a judge, Munley presided over cases in civil and criminal matters, as well as domestic relations, juvenile, and family law matters. A number of Munley’s rulings in family law matters have been appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, which has affirmed. See, e.g., In the Interest of MM-A, No. 928 MDA 2017 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017); Jablonowski v. Jablonowski, No. 1481 MDA 2018 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019); B.V. v. J.W., No. 746 MDA 2020 (Pa. Super. 2020); Jones v. Jones, No. 1647 MDA 2021 (Pa. Super. 2022).
In a notable opinion, Munley held that a plaintiff corporation could sue in Pennsylvania state court without registering with the state as it had sufficient activity within the state. See SMS Financial Ch., LLC v. Bolus Truck Parts & Towing, Inc., No. 542 MDA 2022 (Pa. Super. 2022). The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed Munley’s ruling, finding it to be “detailed and well-reasoned” and that it “accurately and thoroughly disposes of the standing issue.” See id.
Political Activity
Munley has donated extensively throughout her political career until her ascension to the bench. Her donations are exclusively to Democrats, including Wolf, President Biden, and former Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
Overall Assessment
Munley is the first Pennsylvania nominee, since Senator Eastland made the blue slip a home-state veto, who would not need a blue slip from a Republican senator to reach the bench. That being said, her extensive home state contacts and legal experience, alongside her relative lack of controversy makes her a consensus nominee.
The Vetting Room 
New vacancy at the Western District of North Carolina, Judge Robert J. Conrad went senior at 17 May 2023 according to US Courts website, and is listed as senior judge on the website of the district.
https://www.ncwd.uscourts.gov/content/article-iii-judges-0
LikeLike
Very nice. Robert J. Conrad is a GW Bush appointee so good to have him go senior even if we get a bland replacement.
LikeLike
You haven’t yet met the Bible-beating Budd. This seat is unfillable.
LikeLike
Yeah it would’ve been much easier to fill had Burr still had his Senate seat. Tillis seems to be pretty reasonable
LikeLike
Should be noted that Robert Conrad was George W’s last attempt to fill one of the vacant NC seats on the 4th Circuit in 2007 after Terrence Boyle’s nomination fell through but as with Boyle, civil rights groups strongly opposed his nomination and he was never given a hearing given that, which is how we ended up with Judge James Wynn on the court.
Wish that happened with other W nominees as well but it what it is.
LikeLike
The Western District of North Carolina has five judges & has never had a female judge in its history. I expect if Biden works out a deal, at least one will be a woman.
LikeLike
In other North Carolina news, Justice Michael Morgan of the North Carolina Supreme Court announced that he will not seek reelection.
LikeLike
I never realized until just now but unlike most other district court nominees under Biden, The White House reached out to Dale Ho first before his home state senators. At the end of his SJC questionnaire, it says Rob Klain reached out to Ho on n January 25, 2021. Ho didn’t interview with Senator Schumer’s judicial screening committee until March 18, 2021.
Look at the difference when The White House reached out directly to potential nominees first. I wish they would do that more often. I can’t remember seeing that for any other district court nominee to date, only for circuit court nominees. Boy do I miss Ron Klain.
(https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Ho%20SJQ%20Public%20Final.pdf)
LikeLike
Like with Holly Thomas, someone influential in the White House and Justice Department had Ho in mind already.
LikeLike
That’s what a competent White House would do. This WHC office would probably reach out to the Federalist Society for recommendations…smh
LikeLike
That is really interesting. I wonder if Klain and Ho had any type of history prior to Biden becoming president.
LikeLike
I can see Ho crossing paths with Klain previously. Remember he was featured on HBO years back. While he doesn’t have any administration work during the Obama years, it’s very possible he had access to some administration officials. Can anybody think of any inter district court nominee under Biden or Trump where their SJCQ showed The White House reached out to them first? This is the first I’m seeing but I haven’t read them all.
LikeLike
Ho was such a no brainer. My only complaint is that he wasn’t tapped for a seat on the 2nd Circuit or even Florence Pans seat on the DCC.
LikeLike
You hit the nail dead on the head @Joe. Dale Ho is one of those nominees that should have been tapped straight for the circuit courts. I know for NY Schumer wanted a Black woman (I would have preferred Melissa Murray & put Enuice Lee on the district court), a Latina (Myrna Perez is outstanding herself) & Alison Nathan (My pick for the next non Sotomayor SCOTUS vacancy) so the 2nd probably wasn’t going to happen.
I would have pushed for the DC circuit over Florence Pan. Then Ho should have been confirmed at all cost. I would have cut any deal needed to secure Manchin’s vote. Then maybe we could have had a real shot at a circuit court judge with the last name Ho to be on the SCOTUS that I actually like. Dale Ho is the second coming of Goodwin Lui albeit both should be sitting in circuit courts today (Or at least Lui should have been tapped for SCOT-CA). You just don’t pass up on generational talents like those two.
But at this point just get Ho confirmed. Wednesday will be International Dale Ho Day in my book… Lol
LikeLike
While the SDNY is easily among the most high profile district courts in the land, it’s still not a circuit court seat which as with others here, is where Dale Ho truly belongs.
If only Gerald Lynch had bothered to wait a couple more years before taking senior status, Ho would have been nominated IMO.
But he didn’t so this is the next best thing.
LikeLike
Perhaps so Zack. But who know? Perhaps another vacancy will arise in a hypothetical second Biden term.
LikeLike
@Joe: Although anything can happen, there is only one likely vacancy in the 2nd, even in a 2nd Biden term: Livingston. Sure, Ho could be picked to replace her, but it would be great if we had more than one vacancy to fill, especially since the margin among actives is only 7D-6R.
@Dequan: “(Or at least Lui should have been tapped for SCOT-CA).” You’re kidding, right? Jerry Brown appointed Lui to the CA Supreme Court in 2011 after he couldn’t get the 9th Circuit seat. He’s the second most senior Associate Justice.
LikeLike
No not kidding at all. Last year when Newsome appointed Guerra who is left of center & only about 5 years younger, I would have much rather Lui had been tapped as chief. But I understand the need to appoint the first Hispanic chief, I just would have went with either a more progressive one or Lui.
LikeLike
Goodwin Liu was a Brown appointee there was no way Newsom would choose him.
LikeLike
A Trump judge
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-nominated-judge-strikes-down-tennessee-anti-drag-law-as-unconstitutional?ref=home
LikeLike
Good decision by judge Parker. It’s true not all of Trump’s 230 judges were horrible. Biden just needs to counter as many of the bad ones as he can.
LikeLike
While Dale Ho finally getting confirmed Wednesday in itself is spectacular, there’s one other element that hasn’t been mentioned that makes it that much greater. Last month senator Blackburn said she was putting a “hold” on all New York judicial nominees.
After I finished laughing hysterically, I suggested Schumer should immediately file cloture for all 4 New York judicial nominees & confirm them that week even if it meant working Friday. He should send a CLEAR message nonsense lie that will not only not be tolerated but it will be met with an immediate response. Dale Ho is the first of the 4 New York nominees that will be confirmed since Blackburn’s hold.
LikeLike
One Senator putting a hold on all nominees from another state. Has that ever been done before?
LikeLike
Holds use to be rare so I could see it being done & even adhered to until the senators concerns were alleviated. But this is just purely a bs hold, almost as bad as Tubberville’s military hold. I really wish Schumer had kept the senate in session that Friday & confirmed all 4 New York nominees. A message should have been sent but I’m happy we’re at least getting Dale Ho for now.
LikeLike
Why would they be working on Friday when they were in session Thursday at 11pm?
I think the purpose of not voting on Friday is to allow Senator’s time to travel home to their families.
LikeLike
You are on point here. It’s also the same reason why there are only 0-1 votes on Monday, as the senators are often spending that day traveling back to Washington.
LikeLike
Dale Ho!
Catching up again and saw that Dequan caught something. Great catch! Maybe this partly explains why Schumer was so lackadaisical about moving the nominee. “Technically” Dale Ho still falls under the Schumer column in the deal he has with Gillibrand.
It is no surprise that people like Ron Klain and Dale Ho go around in the same circle. This is not unusual. Nominees get to the bench in many ways. Judicial commissions are relatively a new thing, to democratize the process.
Jimmy Carter had judicial commissions for circuit court vacancies, with home state senators having some part, but not a lot, like for Biden.
Do you want to depress yourself by considering one more aspect in which we know the Ron Klain days are truly over? Klain politically came up in a judiciary-centric world and would have a personal and professional (and definitely political) vested interest in making as many judicial nominees as possible. (Need I remind us who Mitch McConnell went to for the Chad Meredich nomination? Not Dana Remus. Not Merrick Garland. Ron Klain.)
Jeff Zients, on the other hand, won’t be naming many, if any, potential nominees. His expertise is elsewhere. This is not a knock against him, of course. It’s just me grappling the reality of no more Dale Hos.
— —
Holds
As I pointed out last month when Blackburn made that ridiculous announcement. It’s the very definition of a pointless action. This is NOT like Tuberville’s hold. His is actual real and potentially painful.
What is a hold? It is essentially an indication that a senator has serious objections about something and so ties that something with a nomination on the calendar.
What does this mean? It means that the held up nominations cannot move forward with any sort of UC agreement, because that holding senator will object to it, as his their right.
However, it does NOT mean that those nominations cannot be confirmed. The nominations may proceed using “regular order.” So, instead of UCs, those held up nominations required roll call votes. Now, imagine doing a roll call vote for 200 nominees. That’s about 600 separate votes. Would probably take years to hold all those vote. So this is a true blockage, hence the reason everyone is angry about Tuberville.
What NO one is talking about is Blackburn’s holds. Think about all the times a judicial nominee from NY was confirmed with UC. Maybe before the Civil Rights era; doesn’t happen anymore, so no one was expecting Dale Ho to be confirmed with a UC.
Instead, what will happen now, is what would have happened before Blackburn’s hold: roll call votes on NY nominees. Those 4 nominees can be confirmed with 12 or so separate votes.
TL;DR
The threat of a hold only works if the held up nomination is the type that don’t usually take up floor time.
LikeLike
@Gavi
Exactly. Blackburn changed nothing with her hold.
@Shawnee68
My reasoning is because I want to immediately smack Blackburn’s hold back in her face the day she uttered that ridiculous hold out of her mouth, Schumer could have immediately responded by calling up all 4 NY nominees for cloture motions, votes & confirmation votes. It would send a message to any other senator that wanted to make a similar stupid statement.
LikeLike
The Dems don’t need to “get back” at GOP Senators who are having temper tantrums. The Dems have the Senate that’s the appropriate pay back.
LikeLike
Oh ok. So in your world the Democrats play nice while the Republicans only get back. No wonder we got a 6-3 Republican SCOTUS… Lol
LikeLike
I agree with you Dequan. That type of pettiness from Blackburn deserves a response in kind. I would love to see Chuck line up Merle, Choudhury, and Reyes as well.
LikeLike
Yea because right now there’s no consequences for being an idiot senator. Imagine Blackburn giving her 15 minute speech filled with fake outrage. Schumer could have sat quietly, listened to her bs & let her finish. Then he could have stood up & sent all 4 cloture motions for each NY nominee.
Screw them, I’m tired of playing nice. Even the most consensus nominees aren’t getting 60 yay votes anymore. Who cares if they get pissed off. I care how Collins, Murkowski, Graham & maybe a couple others feel but that’s about it. If they want to obstruct then they should be treated like obstructionists.
LikeLike
It’s the Senate not the House. I am pleased that Democrat’s are not having unrestrained fits of rage over GOP tactics. Little kids don’t do and think they are grown up.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Earlier, there were some posts on a vacancy in Oregon. I am predicting that Mustafa Kasubhai is the nominee. The Biden Administration has consistently favored Magistrate Judges. Kashbhai would be history-making. He’s also completely acceptable to progressives, but I don’t see much in his record that’s inflammatory.
I would not be surprised if another vacancy happens in the next year.
LikeLike
@Mitch
Your last sentence is what I hope most for out of Oregon. To be honest, 5 of the 6 recommended would be fine in my book. While I think 2 of those 5 are the ones I would like to see most get nominated, the other 3 are still A’s in my book.
The key is hopefully one of the other 2 judges that can retire before the election next year does so. This is a phenomenal list of recommendations so I would love to see Biden get to name a couple of judges.
LikeLike
Judge Newman’s full-court press:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/06/05/newman-federal-circuit-oldest-judge-retirement-fight/
Nice to see that she still has a sense of humor.
LikeLike
Judge Newman has lived a remarkable life. I’m sure that a lot of people would benefit from her wisdom and experience.
LikeLike
I agree. I am more sympathetic to her.
I agree with Joe that she has the stronger of the cases.
I think she should lose on seeking to invalidate the law on constitutional grounds, but win on its application to her. Actually, this would be an easy (but messy) case for me to dispose of.
LikeLike
Thanks for sharing Gavi. An interesting read. I think one commenter quoted in that article sums up my thoughts best:
“There’s this idea that I think permeates the judiciary, that ‘only I can do the job.’ It’s this hubris that is really pernicious,” he said. “It’s anti-democratic and monarchical in a way that is not helpful for the ongoing trust of our fleeting democracy.”
I think Newman will probably win this case on the merits because it’s really hard to prove incompetancy without any sort of hard medical diagnoses. But the entire episode should be embarassing to Newman and she should have taken the hint long ago.
LikeLike
She has no reason to be ashamed. It’s ageism and ableism on the part of her colleagues. They are no better than she is. See how mean people are when it comes to age?
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Shawnee68
I believe the complaint is she is not coherent & not completing her work in an acceptable manner. Her being 95 may be the train for what the complaint is but not the reason for the complaint itself. Now the complaint may or may not be true, but her age is not the complaint.
LikeLike
Of course her age is the issue. No one wants to admit it but that’s the case. Being a slow worker in and of itself isn’y grounds to silence a judge with a lifetime appointment.
LikeLike
@Shawnee68
Can you show me in the complaint where it says they want her off because she’s 95? I missed that part. I did see complaints about her work which even if she was 45, the complaint would be just as valid.
LikeLike
They are stupid her “slow” work is pretext for discrimination. I don’t feel comfortable with peers having a say over who stay and who cannot. They have no authority to do that.
LikeLike
Slow as in not completing her opinions in time. And they say this has happened repeatedly. If this was a 30 year old Biden appointee you would be screaming see, I told you young judges shouldn’t be appointed. But since she’s 95 it’s agism. You too funny… Lol
LikeLike
That’s not true. The judge belongs in a “protected class.” Someone as young as 30 is not.
LikeLike
I have never met Newman and never will. There is no personal animus at play here from me or from her colleagues in my opinion. As the article points out the Chief Justice and Newman are very closely aligned on most cases.
In fact I suspect that this has likely been going on for years and the reality is probably a lot worse than the allegations that have been made public out of professional respect for her. That is usually the case. When your colleagues are begging you to take a step back and you double down though it usually does not end well for anyone.
As I said, it sounds to me like Newman will likely prevail in the case and get to stay on for another 5 years or however much time she has left. But I don’t think it will be a good outcome for anyone.
LikeLike
@Dequan
“If this was a 30 year old Biden appointee you would be screaming see, I told you young judges shouldn’t be appointed.”
1: You are 100% right. Frank would, too.
2: How are you so patient? Haha. We might not be able to hide comments but we sure and ignore them, which I do with abandon.
3: For people who think judges can’t be rushed have obviously never heard of the “Biden Reports” or 28 U.S.C. §476. A law passed in the 1990s whose namesake wanted to name and shame district court judges who are slow in the disposition of certain cases.
LikeLike
Haaaaaaa
@Gavi
Patience is easy when I’m busy laughing at people being inconsistent. It’s laughable to me to think if the same charges had been levied against a 30 something year old Biden appointee that @Shawnee68 would be saying the exact same thing she’s saying now for Newman. Now that I think of it, maybe it’s @Shawnee68 that is reverse ageist… Lol
LikeLike
The age discrimination laws apply to persons 40 years or older. There aren’t any laws protecting 30 year olds because it not true and doesn’t make sense.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But even if the age discrimination laws did apply to 30 year olds, it would not be discrimination to say somebody isn’t performing their job duties correctly & needs to be removed. That’s what you’re missing. Newman being 95 is irrelevant if she was doing her job duties well. Apparently she’s not. She will have the opportunity to defend herself against the charges but the charges aren’t she’s 95… Lol
LikeLike
My point is the judge doesn’t have the authority to kick a peer off the court. You have a problem take it up with the Congress. They have the authority remove judges but not poor performance even it was true.
LikeLike
Maybe you missed it but I actually just wrote that about 25 minutes ago. Newman can’t be removed however the process can result in Biden being able to name another judge & when Neeleman finally leaves the bench, she would not be replaced.
LikeLike
I thought that was only for disability? She doesn’t provide medical information to stay on the bench.
LikeLike
@Shawnee68
No I’m saying if she’s found to be guilty of the charges the judges are saying about her then Biden gets to nominate another judge. I’m not saying that’s what is going to happen. As others have said it probably won’t. I was just answering the other user’s question because he said he didn’t understand the statue so I was explaining.
LikeLike
Couldn’t agree more. Also, Newman isn’t on trial for anything, if anything it is Moore who is on trial since she is the one making sure that Newman doesn’t get any new cases.
LikeLike
I just want to notice the fact, that there are two other judges, who not that much younger than Newman at this court, that’s Alan Lourie with 88 years of age, and Timothy Dyk with 86 years of age, so I would doubt that ageism is the cause here. The three by far eldest federal circuit judges are all sitting at this Federal Circuit.
Surely this case will leave nobody looking good at the end, Newman as stubborn old lady, who thinks he’s irreplaceable and hence won’t leave, and the others, who try to push away the old lady, because she is often in dissent and nerving the rest of the court.
The sad truth might also be, that she also has no life outside the court, so what should she do alone at home?
Rehnquist and Ginsburg are similar cases to me.
LikeLike
There’s nothing wrong with someone wanting to stay in their lifetime positions for as long as they want. There are people who say that she is ok.
LikeLike
Of course there’s nothing wrong with somebody wanting to stay in a job that has lifetime tenure. Unless you can’t discharge the duties of the job. That is what is up for debate now. We shall see how it turns out.
LikeLike
Yes, but only Congress can remove judges from their position. They want her on Senior status where she won’t have any cases assigned.
LikeLike
Yes, like I said this process can’t remove her from her seat. But if Biden got to appoint another judge because of the process I’m good. Plus that would make sure that if Newman left the bench under a Republican president, that POTUS wouldn’t backfill her seat.
LikeLike
Hey Dequan,
Any chance Senate Democrats will listen to Russ Feingold? . We can dream can’t we.
There is a better chance Taylor Swift will cancel her remaining tour dates than the US senate cancelling its August recess..
LikeLike
Haaaaaaaa… There’s a better chance of Taylor Swift becoming a senator than the current senators taking away their own vacation. I do hope they cancel one of the weeks though. I give that a 15% chance but even that is probably too high.
LikeLike
No chance. If anything, they’ll add additional days to their recess, even as there are things to be done.
LikeLike
I Think with even just 3 (and certainly 4) dedicated weeks of confirming judges Schumer should be able to get most of the current nominees confirmed. The key issue isn’t time, it’s focus. But we will have to wait and see how it unfolds over the next three weeks
LikeLike
The SJC has a hearing on June 7. No one named, but I’m guessing that the five most recent nominees will appear.
LikeLike
I would normally agree with Feingold on this, but if the White House is not going to put up nominees, there’s no point in cancelling the recess.
Also, while I’m glad Ho will be confirmed this week, there should be no more weeks where we only get one confirmation. Ho is likely one of the closest confirmation votes we’ll get, and there are several other nominees who could and should be scheduled, even if there’s a D absence. Perhaps Feingold should sit down with Schumer and explain that 50 is more than 49, always.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly. What are they going to do in those weeks of uncanceled summer recess? Biden is taking his time with new nominees. It’s been over a month since the last batch. Will it be one meager batch a month now?
And I’ve also been singing that 50>49 song for a while now.
LikeLike
Concerning the sad case of Judge Newman, I think it’s time for her to go senior or retire. The problem of life time tenure for federal judges is akin to “how do get grandpa or grandma off the road”? Of course, that was that not an issue in the late 1700s when the Framers drafted the Constitution and lifespan was significantly shorter. Much like Feinstein, I hope she considers her legacy and calls it quits soon.
In any event, can anyone shed some more light on the below paragraph from the article:
“Under a 1980 law, the active judges of a circuit court can agree to punish a judge after a formal investigation, but that punishment cannot be removal from office or indefinite suspension. If the judges deem their colleague disabled, another judge can be appointed by the president, but the disabled judge still cannot be forced to retire.”
If Newman is deemed disabled, is the seat then considered vacant and Biden gets to appoint another judge? I am thinking it essentially freezes her out, and when she retires or dies the seat was already considered filled.
LikeLike
@Mike S.
I’m sure @Gavi can give a more eloquent answer than me but I’ll give you the basic version. If it’s found that Newmone can’t discharge her duties but she still refuses to retire then she will remain an active judge. However the president can nominate another active judge & once Newmone eventually leaves the bench for whatever reason, she will not have her position backfilled.
LikeLike
This is precisely the meaning of the statute. the whole “punishment” bit is just sensationalism. At the moment, Newman has received the most severe form of “punishment” allowed.
LikeLike
We can just leave Feinstein alone. If she leaves the Senate the GOP will not let be replaced on SJC.
I think people who are afflicted with ageism just want them out sight out of mind.
A judge can retire or serve as long as they want. How long that is resides with judge him/herself otherwise it’s no one’s business.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly on your first two points. It is laughable to claim that reverse agism exists, especially when there is no proof to point to showing that to be the case. The only times the decision to leave office should be taken out of the hands of any judge for their senior status/retirement date is when the judge in question has been diagnosed as being mentally incompetent to fulfill his or her duties or when the Senate votes to remove said judge due to a crime, neither of which is the case here. Newman is an adult, hasn’t committed any crimes, and appears to have the ability to make competent decisions, which is all that matters here. Term limits or any other types of removal of judges would lead to an even larger politicization of the courts than already exists, which needless to say should be avoided at all costs.
LikeLike
@Frank
Your “Newman appears to have the ability to make competent decisions“ is exactly what is up for debate. You say she has the ability but many of her colleagues disagree with you. There is a procedure for such an accusation. Judge Newman has the right to defend herself but to say it isn’t an issue when her fellow colleagues say there is, even Republican appointees, is just not accurate.
LikeLike
I realize that. My point was that Moore needs to have more concrete evidence than what has been presented thus far.
LikeLike
@Frank
I think we are talking about two different things. You’re talking about if the accusations against Newman are true. I have not given an opinion about that. My response was a reply to @Shawnee68 accusation about this is only agism because Newman is 95. I replied her age is not mentioned as one of the complaints & you could have the same complaint about a judge in their 30’s.
You responded that you can’t have these same accusations against a judge that young. That’s the point I’m disagreeing with you on. You very much so can have the same accusations against a judge in their 30’s. Now if the accusations against Newman are shown to be true or not is something we shall see but that wasn’t the premise of my argument. Her being 95 may be the reason the accusations are true if they are found to be such but her age is not the accusation itself & somebody in their 30’s doing the things she has been accused of could hypothetically be in the same position.
LikeLike
My point was more or less that there seems to be a lot of coded language in the accusations themselves, which leads me to lack belief in its credibility.
LikeLike
Oh ok. Well I can’t speak on the accusations themselves because I’m not well versed in the decisions of the Federal Circuit or specifically Newman. I guess my response is more directed more towards @Shawnee68 then. My guess is Newman will get to stay on the court without Biden getting to make a replacement even though some of what the other judges are accusing probably has some truth to it. She will likely now dig in even deeper & remain on the bench until her death.
LikeLike
I agree with Newman on this one. Even though this removal attempt isn’t for ideological reasons, there could be future removal attempts for ideological reasons. James L. Dennis was a liberal on the 5th circuit who stayed in active status until age 86. The 5th circuit being super conservative may have tried to get rid of him if they thought they might succeed.
I feel like they’ve got something against Newman and don’t want to deal with her dissenting all the time. I think the real reason they want to get rid of her is that they don’t see her as a “team player”.
LikeLike
I never actually watched the Bill Clinton “I did not have sex with that woman” entire speech before. I didn’t know it was a speech about education. Look at the difference between then & now. He said he wants the country to follow Chicago’s model. He said he wants to use money from the national surplus. He even gave a shout out to senator Feinstein. What a time to be alive, the good ole days.
(https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gV6yhEbEw9c)
LikeLike
The ageism charge is so hilariously bad. It shows that you really don’t have an argument. We can go down the line of age-conscious practice, policies, and laws but still wouldn’t be able to convince certain folks to face these facts.
1. Every president has appointed very young judges to various courts. It’s a no-brainer that every president knows that their judicial appointments will be a major part of their legacy that will outlast them. Appointing younger people means those appointees are more likely to serve for much longer.
2. A majority of states have mandatory retirement age for judges. Zero has legal minimum age. Strange, isn’t it? Why would we have mandatory retirement age? What are these ageist laws trying to prevent? Experience? Shame on them!
3. The ABA itself has a policy disfavoring old judicial nominees. I guess Frank missed that day when they agreed to this.
4. On the non-judicial side of things, having an aging population or population decline (where there aren’t enough new births to offset the senior population and the dead) is considered a demographic catastrophe. This doesn’t mean that you hate the old people or want to discriminate against them.
We can go on and on but I think you get the point, whether or not you want to accept it.
—
One of my many flaws is to remember and keep track of who says what. That way I can throw their hypocrisy back in their face. I think it was after news broke that Paul Watford was resigning, Shawnee, in a different matter, tried to argue that no one wants to hold a job for 10 years. She asked: “Would you want to have the same job for 10 years? Would you drive a car for 10 years?” Of course, the thinking person knows that those questions are irrelevant nonsense. Now, without skipping a beat, she’s saying that it’s perfectly normal for someone to want to hold a job for as long as Newman does/will.
(Watch out for the “Frank Exceptions.”)
LikeLike
Haaaaaaa… @Gavi shots, he scores… SWISH. Game winning shot… Lol
LikeLike
No, it’s true. I really don’t what you are trying to convey. I think the majority of Biden’s nominees have been in their fifties. They can serve for awhile but they are qualified.
You have been complaining about the age of nominees so that is inconsistent with your claim that younger nominees are part of a legacy. I don’t think that’s the case with this president.
Yes, some states have mandatory retirement ages . So, what ? The constitution has minimum age limits for House 25 and 30 for the Senate and 35 for President. There aren’t any age requirements for the judiciary.
I don’t know what the ABA’s position is with respect to age of nominees. I remember that Carlos Bea 9th Circuit was 70 when he was nominated. I believe that he was rated “qualified.”
I think what I said is would you work in the same job or drive the same car for 30 years..I was just kidding but there is an element of truth to what I said.
If Newman wants to hold her job and states that she can do it that’s her right. I think Ryan had valid point that peers can have you removed for ideological reasons. They can just say that you aren’t doing your job. To allow this unconstitutional.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We may all have people in our lives who ask us why we care so much about judges, or why do judges matter?
We all know why, but in case anyone needs a rejoinder, this is why:
Click to access gov.uscourts.flnd.460963.90.0_1.pdf
LikeLike
LOL.’The ABA (which I’ve noted numerous times has some major flaws and am personally not a fan) might not be happy with some “elders” but also requires a certain amount of experience in order for a candidate to get anything beyond a unqualified rating. In fact, one thing I dislike about the ABA is I think that the minimum time spent practicing law should be extended to at least 10 years. Nobody wants ancient nominees, but wanting candidates who are quite experienced shouldn’t be a controversial issue.
LikeLike
Apologies, I meant 15 years (but could be talked into 20)
LikeLike
Not sure if this was noted here yet, but according to John Kennedy the White House reneged on a deal for the three remaining LA vacancies. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/esg/court-picks-face-trickier-path-as-senate-eyes-red-state-judges
LikeLike
@Frank
No we have not seen this article on the blog yet. Thanks for sharing
As for the article itself, I’m not too upset with the WH backing out of a deal for the remaining 3 Louisiana seats. I’m actually happy about that. It means they are fighting for better deals instead of just exception any recommendations. That’s fine this year, there will be more urgency next year when we know it’s an election year.
I am way way WAY more upset about senator Cornyn’s comments in the article. They are now ready to make recommendations for “a couple of the vacancies? WHAT…
We got the crappiest circuit court nominee to date by Biden in a state with EIGHT vacancies & they are only ready to make recommendations for a COUPLE of them? That is ridiculous & absolutely unacceptable. It makes the Ramirez nomination even worse than it already was. I’m truly pissed
LikeLike
@Frank
Just seeing this. Thanks for sharing.
Wow.
The optimists, who assumed that Ramirez was part of some sort of a deal, lost again.
I almost fell out of my chair with laughter when I read Cruz said “we CONTINUE to have positive conversations.” HAHAHA. So sad. If this is what you Biden sycos reflectively defend, then you have to own this shame.
As I have said, a deal takes two. Two sides must be able to show something for it. You cannot have one side showing something and the other side left with “positive conversations.”
This alone should make Republicans want to fast track the Ramirez nomination as quickly as possible before Dems realized that they were duped. But again, I am not hopeful.
LikeLike
@Gavi
I don’t know what pisses me off more… Ramirez nomination, Cornyn & Cruz just NOW recommending district court nominees or that they are only recommending “a couple” out of the 8 vacancies they have.
This officially moves Ramirez to the worst Biden circuit court nomination. I was going back & fourth between her & Childs but no more debate. She may be the worst Democrat circuit court nominee in two decades now. I’m still debating if Obama’s Julie Carnes was worst but at least Georgia had two Republican senators, two circuit court vacancies, 4 district court vacancies, blue slips were still in play for all & we got nominees for all vacancies at the same time. This nomination is just ridiculous. Only leaving the seat vacant would have been worse but not by much.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Julie Carnes is absolutely worse by virtue of her taking senior status under Trump.
LikeLike
Thanks for sharing.
I really hope a deal can be worked out with the LA senators. They’re one of the more reasonable GOP duos in the senate so hopefully we get a few more Papillion types nominated.
Interesting comments from the TX senators. I will save any judgment on them until a deal is announced.
We should have the FL package plus a nominee for SC at some point in the near future as well.
LikeLike
I’m now thinking there is incompetence in the White House Counsel’s office. It’s gotten several recommendations and sat on them for months without communicating with the Senators one way or another.
If the White House doesn’t like the recommendations, it can simply say “This isn’t going to work, try again,” or something like that.
LikeLike
There is a working group in the White House the processes nominations. It takes time so you’ll have to be patient. If not, being impatient won’t change anything.
LikeLike
That’s a major concern of mine as well. Wish some more people with Klains vision had stayed.
LikeLike
I’m starting to get worried about Matthew Maddox. This is now two SJC hearing slots he will miss.
(https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/05/31/2023/nominations)
LikeLike
I’m happy Schumer sent a cloture motion for another judge but couldn’t we get one of the heavy hitters instead. Perhaps Biden told him she will be considered for Newman’s seat if she comes off the Federal Circuit so they want to get her confirmed as quickly as possible.
(https://twitter.com/SenatePress/status/1666191087210311680?cxt=HHwWgMC9ken9v58uAAAA)
LikeLike
@Dequan
I’m wondering about Matthew Maddox as well. Did they find something in his background or did he interview badly?
LikeLike
@Mike
That is a good point on most of Ron Klain’s fantastic nominations being for circuit court or blue state district court vacancies. But I still am going to give low grades to this WHC because when you look at exact situations, Klain did eminently better.
Case in point, red state circuit court, we got Andre Mathis & Jabari Wamble (Later withdrew) vs. Irma Ramierz. There is no comparasion as to who was better even in exact same situations & that’s not even taking into acount the 50 versus 51 Democrat majority.
@Mitch
I completely agree with your above comment from a couple hours ago about the incompetence of this WHC office. If the deal is not good, tell the senators no. Don’t drag it out for 10 months. I just read Julia K. Munley SJC questionnaire for tomorrow’s hearing. Add her to the list of nominees that started the process over a year & a half before being nominated. I get it, Pennsylvania was a purple state before January, but she is older & more moderate than a couple other Pennsylvania nominees we got with Toomey. It’s simply taking way too long to get nominees.
As for the Federal
LikeLike
That cloture nominee got me thinking about the United States Court of Federal Claims and I looked at their current judigical list and Holy Hell batman, the entire court is basically Trump judges. Biden needs to confirm a judge for both those vacancies.
That Texas news is pretty bad, I do not understand how you give away a circuit seat to a 59 year old for nothing, was it an heir apparent continuation from her Obama nomination?
I think I’m ready to agree that this WH Counsel isn’t suited for the job but I will give them the fair defense that Rons nominees were almost all for wide open blue states so that may be blurring how good he was.
LikeLike
The Court of Federal Claims has a lot of Trump appointees, but it’s also a very specialized court which has very limited jurisdiction. The big issues which divide conservatives from progressives don’t get decided there.
LikeLike
IMO, Julie Carnes under Obama will be worse then Ramirez because she was a conservative jurist that could and should have been rejected if Leahy hadn’t been clinging to the stupid blue slip rule and the fact she made sure to take senior status under Trump so a younger right wing hack could take her place.
That cost us a chance to get a liberal/moderate majority on the 11th Circuit.
As for Klain, I do miss him and I think things would be running more smoothly if he was still here but no one is perfect and that is shown with the Wamble nomination.
I find it hard to believe they didn’t know about the issue that ultimately sunk him (rightfully so IMO) yet they went ahead with him anyway and it has thus ensured a seat that opened up over two years ago is still vacant.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yea I guess Julie Carnes is still worse but when you factor in blue slips, not by too much.
LikeLiked by 1 person
When you all go to sleep tonight & wake up tomorrow, it will officially be International Dale Ho Day. Can you tell I’m excited? Lol
LikeLiked by 1 person
Better hope that none of the Democratic Senators catches a cold tomorrow.
LikeLike
Haaaaa… And VP Harris should be available from noon to 4pm tomorrow at a moments notice.
LikeLike
Definitely excited for Ho. Crane and Syed as well honestly. Those two have been languishing for a while.
LikeLike
I know the other positions are important too but I’m just laser focused on the judiciary. But without a new batch this week or next it really won’t matter because the senate will run out of nominees by September at this rate. We really need a double digit batch in the next 8 days.
LikeLike
Click to access vacancyJudicialAsst-USCA-23-09b.pdf
Lots of talk about the judiciary. If you need a job this judge is hiring.
LikeLike
There was talk of a batch of three nominees for the District of Southern Florida. That district has three vacancies and one impending vacancy.
I think the three nominees rumored are in the late stages of vetting. It’s up to the White House to make the announcement.
LikeLike
New batch alert. Fairly small. Two for Louisiana and one for federal claims. Plus DC courts.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/06/07/president-biden-names-thirty-fourth-round-of-judicial-nominees-and-one-new-nominee-to-serve-as-u-s-attorney/
LikeLike
I don’t know much about the Louisiana nominees, but both appear to be Democrats. They have pretty conventional backgrounds. The Senators are expected to support them.
Brandon Long seems to be close to FBI Director Chris Wray. They worked at the same law firm in private practice. That could be a problem, but if both Senators sign off on him, it won’t be fatal.
Jerry Edwards’ nomination surprised me. I had expected Stephanie Finley to be the nominee.
LikeLike
Good good good morning. First of all, happy International Dale Ho day all. And what a holiday it is shaping up to be. We have the cloture & hopefully confirmation of my favorite Biden nominee to date. In about a hour & a half we will have another SJC hearing. I also am hoping Schumer sends some more cloture motions to the desk later today.
Now I wake up on this beautiful holiday & we get the 34th batch of nominees. Obviously the number of nominees is disappointing but we will remain positive on a holiday like today… Lol
On to the batch itself. It’s very concerning we only got one nominee for the Superior Court if DC. They have 10 vacancies & no blue slip issues. DC is loaded with possibilities so if it’s taking this long to fill those seats, no wonder we’re only getting two nominees for the district courts.
It’s VERY disappointing we still are not getting new appeals court nominees. I didn’t expect the 1st or 10th, but surley the 4th & 7th should have nominees vetted & ready by now. The 3rd would have been a nice surprise but maybe they are having a hard time deciding between Salas & Neals.
As for Louisiana, I too was expecting Stephanie Finley or another Black man, the US attorney. I’m happy we still got a Black Person for the seat & Edwards is younger so that’s also good. He was on @Ethan’s list so I’m decently familiar with him. Long is not somebody I’m familiar with. If he’s a Democrat that would be good. But being so close to Christopher Wray might actually could ease his path with some Republicans.
I’m hoping the third person in the deal was a Republican & that’s who they scrapped per the article @Frank sent yesterday. My concern is Kennedy doesn’t turn in his blue slip until we get a nominee to replace whoever the third person is but hopefully him & Cassidy remain reasonable. I am thankful Kennedy has worked well to fill Louisiana’s judicial & US Attorney seats with Black men. Kennedy also was the only Republican to vote for Andre Mathis. Per his SJC questionnaire, Kennedy recommended David Pappillion for the 5th before Dana Douglas was ultimately selected.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Dequan
With Edwards and Long, four black people have been nominated for the Federal Courts by the Biden Administration. And there’s no doubt that the state’s Republican Senators have worked in good faith with the White House and Senate Democrats.
If both get confirmed, that leaves one Federal vacancy in Louisiana.
LikeLike
In Louisiana we got Dana Douglas, David Pappillion & now Edwards. Who’s the fourth person? Both the WH announcement & the Politico article below specifically state Edwards is Black without mentioning it for Long so I assume he’s White.
But yes I agree Kennedy & Cassidy have worked in good faith. Much more than Cornyn & Cruz who straight up rolled Biden for the 5th pick. And it’s complete bs that they are now just getting around to recommending nominees for the 8 district court vacancies, let alone only for a couple of the seats.
(https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/07/biden-judicial-picks-edwards-scott-long-00100661)
LikeLike
Besides the dearth of AIII nominees, I am pleasantly surprised to see an US attorney nominee for Ohio. I won’t fall into the trap of reading too much into Republican cooperation here or there, but it’s our first glance of Vance ostensibly working with the WH to get a nominee.
Of course, negotiation is easier when it isn’t for a lifetime position. I’d be OK with Vance being exactly like Portman, even if that means no returned blue slips for COA nominees.
Kennedy sounded like he was blowing off some steam in yesterday’s article, but my ultimately agree to the nominee. Someone above (I hate not being able to give credit to the commenter, but I can’t see who it was now) mentioned that Kennedy may hold off on returning his blue slips until he and the WH can agree on the final nominee. I think this is a great guess and is entirely possibly, especially given Kennedy’s comment. He wouldn’t want to be reneged upon again.
New nominees.
New hearing.
New Judge Ho!
The only way this day could get better is if Canada stopped hotboxing us.
LikeLike
@Gavi
That was me concerned about Kennedy not turning in blue slips until the third nominee is announced. But today is International Dale Ho day so we are going to remain positive… Lol
Also even though I didn’t write it, I too was happy to see Vance working with the WH to get a US attorney. I’m hopeful that if a district court vacancy opened up this year, perhaps he would work in good faith.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Per this Politico article, both of the nominees are expected to have their blue slips turned in: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/07/biden-judicial-picks-edwards-scott-long-00100661
LikeLike
I read that as well. I don’t know if they got that information before or after Kennedy’s remarks. Hopefully they are correct
LikeLike
Here’s hoping this batch of nominees will soon be followed up with a few more, especially for the Circuit Courts.
LikeLike
Here is my recap of todays SJC hearing;
It started off relatively non controversial. But then things picked up about 1/3 of the way through.
Kennedy asked DeClercq if she believes in precedent. She pledged to do so. He then asked if she would have followed Plessy v Ferguson. He then asked if she would have followed Dread Scott. She struggled but finally got to answering yes. He then pressed Alikhan about her thoughts on if minorities need special help.
Blackburn questioned Alikhan about a speech she gave to the American Constitution Society. I’ve heard the senators site Demand Justice frequently but I believe this is the first time they have cited the ASC.
Hawley questioned Alikhan about numerous religious liberties cases she litigated. He specifically hammered her on arguing against churches that tried to gather during Covid while not arguing against Black Lives Matter protesting at the same time.
Tillis questioned Alikhan about sanctuary cities briefs she filed. Then he did something I never think I’ve seen before. Senator Tillis said he’s not a lawyer & he would like to give the remainder of his time to senator Kennedy. Kennedy then used the time to proceed to question Vernon Oliver about the SCOTUS precedent regarding religious accommodations for an employee. Oliver was not familiar with it & couldn’t answer. He then asked him about Political questioned doctrine which he was able to explain. Kennedy then asked to give an example but he couldn’t do so. Kennedy then asked if the WHC office prepared him with questions for this hearing & Oliver answered yes. Kennedy then asked how many questions did they give him & Oliver said about a dozen. Kennedy then asked where did they get the questions from & Oliver said prior SJC hearings. Kennedy then gleefully asked who were the senators asking those questions & Oliver answered many were his questions.
Senator Lee then questioned Alikhan about her ACS speech. He then asked Munley & Oliver other statutory questions & both were able to answer fully.
The end of the hearing also ended in a way I’ve never seen before. Chairman Durbin started talking about nominees not needing to share their personal beliefs. Senator Kennedy then politely disagreed with him. He then gave a speech a few minutes long about wanting nominees to be open & honest about their personal beliefs. He brought up the countries history from slavery & other dark periods of the country & he wants nominees that are critical thinkers. Durbin then replied back.
Kennedy then responded by saying he would love to have more than 5 minutes to engage with the nominees for lifetime texture positions. Him & Durbin then had more back & fourth. Then senator Lee interjected to respond to senator Durbin’s using of the Dobbs decision is evidence that nominees can say whatever they want but then get on the bench & vote opposite. Durbin then ended the hearing by talking about the Federalist Society hand picking Trump judges & past nominees intentionally mislead this committee.
Then the hearing ended UGLY. Durbin said he knows Lee & Kennedy may disagree but he is the chairman & he gets the last word. Senator Kennedy quickly interjected & said after a. Old statement like that he should allow a response. Senator Durbin then said, he’s the chairman & gets the last words. Senator Lee started getting loud & saying Durbin is defaming sitting justices. Senator Durbin then adjourned the hearing.
WOW, for a hearing that started slow, it surely ended with a BANG.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reading the questionnaires.
Munley
It took 1 year and 9 months from the date she was first interviewed for us to get this lackluster candidate. This nomination could have been made in the summer of 2022, after she interviewed with OLP. But they sat on it. Then Fetterman interviewed her in April 2023.
What inference can we draw from this? Do you think Toomey was refusing to support her, thus pre-blocking her? I think this is unlikely, since her candidacy was later continued by the DOJ. And she’s the AUNT of Don McGahn, of course he’s more likely to support her. (Yes yes, I know having a relative belonging to a party doesn’t automatically mean you’re of the same party.)
This is a crazy long time to select and vet such a mundane and conventional nominee.
Even DeClercq nomination took 11 months between application submission to nomination. If a blue state nomination takes almost a year, what hope is there to confirm circuit court nominees announced after September 2023?
Contrast that with AliKhan’s and Oliver’s nominations. From first interview to nomination, both took less than 5 months. (I am loving Loren AliKhan more and more! There’s nothing I love more than Republicans attacking nominees.)
—
Frank might find it convenient to underhandedly dismiss ACS, but Blackburn and Lee obviously disagree with him that it “doesn’t count.” I love that they are trying to attack a nominee by using ACS’s mission statement. Just goes to show the disingenuity of these Frank Exceptions.
LikeLike
I’ve asked this question numerous times to you and you’ve ducked it every time, but I’ll ask you again. How many ACS members have been nominated to federal judgeships by the Biden Administration compared to FedSoc members during the Trump administration? I’m only aware of 2 ACS members nominated by Biden thus far ( that being Johnstone and Davis, and in addition Johnstone is also a FedSoc member), while the FedSoc saw over 100+ of their members nominated and confirmed during the Trump administration. If I’m missing any other ACS members nominated by Biden, by all means let me know who they are, but I don’t think there are any others. Saying that the ACS and FedSoc are in any way comparable is ludicrous.
LikeLike
Frank you are a charlatan please leave this forum for serious people whose rights are in the balance and depend on strong judges. You are an absolute charlatan.All this bastard does everytime is defend the right wing and conservative position, remember this is the imbecile that wants to bring back blue slips for CIRCUIT COURT NOMINEES so gop senators can use a total block on biden appellate nominees.
LikeLike
Schumer just withdrew the cloture vote for Ho..
I’m assuming this is due to attendance issues, or is it something else ?.
LikeLike
Unbelievable. I read last night one Democrat senator was going to be out today but they didn’t say which one. If Manchin is voting no, I assume the VP is not available. This is why Schumer should be sending more than a few cloture motions at a time. Now with this withdrawal, this week is a total waste. A 2 day work week & not one judge confirmed… Unfreakin real
LikeLike
I assume you mean the something else is that he doesn’t have the votes needed to be confirmed?
LikeLike
Ugh bad news. Cloture vote pulled for Ho. There must be someone absent today. Murray missed last nights vote and I saw some speculation she may be under the weather. They’re moving to Syed cloture after Crane’s confirmation.
LikeLike
Boooo on Dale Ho’s vote being delayed but I guess it makes clear Manchin is a no vote on him.
LikeLike
Absolutely ridiculous.
Who’s advising Schumer?! He should have proceeded with the vote and let it fail, then change his vote to allow for reconsideration later AT ANY TIME! Meaning, the senate could then take this up whenever Schumer thought a Republican would be out.
Now, the process has to start all over again because cloture was not invoked.
How do these people not know senate rules? It reminds me of the Civil Right era when the experts of senate rules were the Southern segregationists, and the liberals were always caught off guard because they never took the time to learn the rules.
Upsetting.
LikeLike
@Gavi
Absolutely. Letting the vote happen & fail like Freeman would have better them pulling the cloture motion like Natasha Merle. Freeman is a sitting judge & Merle is just sitting.
A two day work week down the drain. Two freakin days & 50 senators couldn’t drag their lifeless bodies on the senate floor for 2 minutes, lift their arm up & say aye twice. How does Tim Scott have better attendance then the Democrats & he’s running for president…
Only one if he cloture motion sent to the desk yesterday so this week is a complete waste. This should be counted as a recess week if not for the SJC hearing today. This is absolutely inexcusable
LikeLike
Shush! You are meant to toe the line and paint a rosy picture gavi dont you dare call out the democratic senators sheer incompetence or that of president biden or the whitehouse counsel else you bear the wrath of trolls frank and shawn and every other biden and democratic boot licker
LikeLike
I think Biden is a fantastic president. I hear that Cornel West is running in 2024. What kind of judges will he choose?
LikeLike
This clowns are just too unserious,why even file cloture motion if you know you don’t have the votes and there wont be all democratic senators present? Anyone have any idea how many times mitch mcconnell senate revoked cloture on a judicial nominee? or when it failed to get the votes like arianna freeman?
Just sheer rank incompetence. Legit ruined my day i have been looking forward to this since last night, absolute clowns.
Also there should be no surprise to anyone that there wasn’t any grand bargain or deal with texas senators where biden nominates a right of center nearly 60 year old ramirez to the fifth circuit , and gets several district court seats. It was never happening and i said it from the get go ted cruz and coryn are both bad faith charlatans who will not work in good faith, biden the coward he is simply didnt have the courage to reject their obstruction and objection and nominate a strong liberal to that court just like trump did with kenneth lee when he disregarded the objections of the two california senators and shoved a federalist society hack down their throats. The only difference here is biden is a cowardly president more worried about the republican senators views and objections than any republican president ever will be if they were in the exact same scenario. If this was trump in the exact same scenario he would have told cruz and coryn to shove it an nominated a young conservative to the court, in biden case he acquiesce to the demands of charlatans like ted cruz and gets absolutely nothing in return.
Yet you have charlatans and imbeciles like frank and shawn on here still defending biden and his pathetic record and cowardice, enough is enough i wont hold back on anyone here still defending this man and his cowardliness.
Shawn and frank are both imbeciles and bad faith trolls here , they have been proven wrong time and time again by bidens actions yet still defend along with many others on here biden and his incompetence.
Oh and just a reminder there still no nominee for the 7th circuit kanne seat one year in, and i can bet you this will be the same story again and again , the gop senators will buy time in the hopes of leaving this seat vacant. Their goal is to obstruct and run out the clock and in the case they cant, get biden to nominate another 60 year old right of center nominee , just as ted cruz and coryn did with the 5th circuit seat and biden the incompetent fool will go along gladly.
There is no excuse for no nominee 1 year in, but yet you have imbeciles like frank still defending it, shameless man
LikeLike
The Republicans don’t always forecast their votes on nominees. It usually is unknown until the time of the vote. Since the more moderate Republicans are not on the SJC it’s hard to know.
I think you should let the first Arianna Freeman vote go. If she can do it so can you. Let it go it’s the past.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The senator is indeed Murray and it’s been an issue that has been known for a couple of days which makes me wonder why they didn’t hold off on the cloture vote for Ho until another time.
LikeLike
Also a reason for why he filed cloture on Silfen. She should be easy to do. Other CFC judges were voice votes. But I’m wondering about the half dozen or so district judge nominees still that had Graham’s support out of committee. Shouldn’t they be easy to prioritize votes for?
LikeLike
If Minchin is a no vote then they’d need the VP, would she have even been available to break the tie? It’s pretty hilarious voters in Maine think Collins is a moderate until it actually counts then she’s as good a foot soldier as any republican.
LikeLiked by 1 person
While today is turning out to be a bad day for the judiciary with Dale Ho withdrawn & only 2 new nominees in the 34th batch, there is a little bright spot. If we can get another batch next week, those nominees could still join todays two. Nominees in the same SJC hearing. 4 weeks from now the senate will be on recess which means the earliest these nominees could get a hearing will be in 5 weeks, not 4. So hopefully moe nominees to come by the end of next week.
@anngren
What can I say. One of my One of my biggest mistakes on this blog was calling you crazy when you said there won’t be a nominee for the 7th or 10th by the end of this year or if there is, they will be right of center. No deal for Texas in exchange for Ramirez, Wamble withdrawn, Delaney withdrawn, still no nominee for even the 4th & now Dale Ho’s cloture vote withdrawn… Sad sad day for the judiciary
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s been 2 years for Ho so another week won’t hurt the judiciary.Not at all.
LikeLike
Everyone needs to take a deep breath and relax. The 7th was an unexpected opening that has only been open for a bit more than a year, so it isn’t one bit surprising that the Biden administration and the IN senators haven’t found a candidate and have them go through the vetting process, which usually takes about a year even in a blue state. We’ve seen the 4th and 1st seats go longer unfilled, and those are in blue states. I’d expect a middle of the road nominee for the 7th by late fall, which will be a massive improvement over the quite conservative Kanne for the Democrats. Not as sure about if the 10th will be filled, especially with this WHC, but I’d give a ~40%ish chance that we will see a nominee announced by the end of the year.
LikeLike
I think that Ho was withdrawn today is massively disappointing, but not the end of the world, and in the end, the circumstances are like they are, now there is an unexpected illness of a Senator, and here some people blaming Biden, Schumer and Durbin, that they are fault at Murray’s illness. That’s really insane.
That there were setbacks in the past, are in distant memory (Freeman), but at here, the cloture votes has been already done, and a few weeks later, she was finally confirmed, why should it be otherwise at Ho?
Texas is not great, but both senators, I’m far away of liking them have at least filled all four attorney positions. These are just for four years, right, but I also don’t believe that they will block all open district vacancies, because that would be a really good argument to kill the Blue Slip.
As all of them are judicial emergencies, that’s pretty likely, and on the other hand, having no judge in El Paso might not make the constituency happy.
The same thing might be in Tulsa, where two out of four judges are already gone, one is eligibly for senior status, and one serving on two other district courts.
These are points, who are here never seriously considered.
On the other subjects I won’t say anything, the Kansas vacancy at the Tenth Circuit is extremely strange, and meanwhile I won’t rule out anything, with Rep. Davies and Gov. Kelly there are two elected Democrats, who should be able to find somebody for the job. But obviously not.
The Seventh Circuit vacancy is open less long than the New Hampshire one, and Young and Braun has already approved a circuit and a district court nominee, as well as both attorney posts, so I don’t really know why these two senators are called obstructionists, while we have much less in several other states, just to name not always the same ones, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Nebraska etc.
LikeLike
I’ve made some of the same points you have regarding judicial emergencies and duty stations here as well. It’s definitely a concern in some of these red states, so hopefully cooler heads prevail and the seats will be filled swiftly. I do think when all is said and done, people here are sometimes quick to overreact over situations which aren’t as serious as it seems. There is still plenty of time in this Congress to get stuff done, even with the schedule set in stone as it is.
LikeLike
There have been worse days for the judicial branch then today and Dale Ho IS going to be confirmed, it’s just going to take another week or so.
LikeLike
The COA seats should be used as leverage to get better District Court judges. The threat of putting a young ACLU lawyer in Texas should scare the living sh*t out of Cruz and Cornyn, in order to get them to return blue slips for liberal-leaning district court nominees in Texas (hopefully after they eliminate that garbage Texas judicial system where you can file in a division, like Amarillo/Fort Worth, and be certain you draw a FedSoc hack). The same goes for Indiana and their 7th COA seat and district vacancies, along with Kansas. The fact that Biden nominated Ramirez and we still might get off brand FedSoc nominees for Texas district court seats is beyond frustrating. Trump can tell Dem senators to take long walks off a short pier when it comes to nominating far right circuit judges in their states, but the most Biden and Durbin could muster is… Andre Mathis?
I’m happy with 90% of the blue state district and circuit court judges confirmed so far (Maryland and New Jersey senators…. do better) but the real impact is putting young liberal judges in red states to counteract some of the absolute f*ckery going on there. There is still time left and I am trying to be patient, but allowing partisan senators to dictate negotiations and having vacancies in numerous states just sitting there nominee-less (4th((inexcusable))/7th/10th circuits, and district court seats in Alabama, Oklahoma, Alaska, Missouri, etc.,) There are still a handful of judges serving on active status whom were nominated by freaking Reagan!!! Judicial nominations are the best way to leave a mark on the country LONG after Biden and Durbin are gone, and now we just have to rely on the kindness and compassion of hack senators to ALLOW a judge to sit in their state. I’m generally optimistic, but I’m quickly getting frustrated as time moves on and the confirmations and nominations slow down. What good is having a majority if you’re just going to take it for granted and not use it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t like playing games with the judiciary. I want serious people who are mature and will impartially rule on cases. It doesn’t make any sense to think that one ACLU lawyer will make a difference on a heavily conservative court like the 5th Circuit.
The best way to leave a mark on the country is to win elections for Presidency and the Congress. The judiciary isn’t a legislature. They are not equipped to address the needs of a nation. People are too lazy to put in the work and vote.
At this point , it’s clear that Biden isn’t making his nominations based on age. It’s not gonna happen. The commissions that most Dem Senator’s have are mostly lawyers in their late forties and older. They are not going to entertain 30 somethings who don’t have a resume.
Who want’s to take their marching orders from someone twenty years younger. Why don’t you have someone much younger than you ordering you around.
Lastly, what is wrong with Andre Mathis? He is the only black male who has been confirmed to an appeals court under Biden and you are attacking him? Give me a break!
LikeLike
If you had a shred of reading comprehension skill, you could see that the context in which I referenced him was in relation to Trump and McConnell jamming right-wing circuit judges in Dem senator’s states without their approval (Lee, Miller, Bumatay, Forrest, Bress, etc,.). In response to said “jamming”, the best that Biden and co. could do is Andre Mathis in Tennessee? Not saying that he is unspectacular, but the response (in Mathis by himself) paled in comparison to the initial breach of norms. Mathis is a standard moderate judge; it would’ve been better to nominate an ACLU or SLPC judge to that Tennessee-based seat to match what Trump did. Biden could have picked a mid-30’s judge to sit in Tennessee and deliver strong dissents or opinions contrary to the standard conservative orthodoxy, but he chose to play it safe and push Mathis. He’s a good judge, but he could’ve done better to match the disrespect.
And in regard to your point of “you not liking playing games with the judiciary” let me let you in on a secret; The right has been openly declaring war on the judiciary ever since Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade. The judiciary is not apolitical as others might have you believe. Everything they do is political. Let me say that again. EVERYTHING. THEY. DO. IS. POLITICAL. I absolutely refuse to play by a different set of rules as the other side who will use their power to put hack judges on district and circuit courts across the country. Do you think the judge that delivered the ruling banning mifepristone was doing so based on “sound legal justification and considering precedent”?? Of course not! He delivered that ruling because he is doing the bidding of the various groups who helped shepherd his nomination through the various channels up to an official nomination and confirmation process. One side openly refuses to abide by the constitution (banning protests without official state-issued licenses, using taxpayer funds to build and maintain religious private schools, etc.)
If you want to bury your head in the sand and pretend there is not a class war, or a war on the judiciary, then by all means go ahead. When you’re ready to acknowledge reality, you can join us here in keeping the judiciary writ large from further becoming a tool of right-wing interests.
LikeLike
I understood the context of what you were saying. You don’t see the value of having a black man from the south on a appeals court. People like you are worse than someone like Senator Blackburn. Who cares how liberal you are if you can’t understand how an appointment like Mathis means to people in his community.
It’s obvious that you never been near or really know any from a black community in the south or elsewhere. It’s rare to find people who are lawyers, doctors or other professionals . What incentive do young black children have to study hard in school if there’s no connection to what opportunities it can create for them. Judge Mathis before he was that spent time mentoring people in his community. That’s worth more than some anonymous lawyer from the ACLU or whatever. That’s my opinion.
It’s really insulting to hear people label black judicial nominees from the south as ” moderate” or “conservative.” It’s a rather peculiar form of racism.
Lastly, you don’t know what you are talking about. If you walk into any district court (which clearly haven’t) you will rarely see politics of the sort you are talking about. Yes, there are handful of cases that involve political issues but those are rare. You only look at the cases that the media presents. A docket is more complex than that.
What would you know about class war? You live in bubble not knowing how black people live and insulting people who had to overcome generations of racism. We don’t need to lectured by leftwing yuppies living in gated communities.
LikeLike
Lmaoooo there you go running your mouth not knowing sh*t, I’ve seen your comments, and this is par for the course. First off, your points lack any merit and fall on deaf ears because I am a black young man from the south. I’m currently enrolled in a University and am living the struggle every goddamn day. Who the hell are you to lecture me on my views of fellow blacks from the south when I’m walking in the shoes of those who have come before me. Do yourself a favor and hush up sometimes.
I am living in the one of the most hostile states in the south with regards to LGBTQIA+ rights and civil rights and continue to strive for greatness for myself. I also am planning on doing what I can to uplift fellow melanated individuals one day when I have the means and the power to do so in my own small way.
The fact that you made the argument that ideology doesn’t matter just shows me you are unqualified to be having this discussion. Ideology and judicial philosophy go hand in hand and are exactly what is needed from Dem appointees to counteract the partisan bullsh*t coming from FedSoc hacks all over this country. An expansive view of the constitution is what gave us Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, and other critical rulings before the conservatives and their “textualist bullsh*t” took over the majority of SCOTUS. How can you sit there with a straight face and declare any black person regardless of ideology a good candidate for a judicial seat. The whole f*cking point of a vetting and nominating process is to find the person who will interpret the laws in a way which aligns with the President and affiliated group’s ideology. Is his nomination and place on the court a monumental thing? Abso-fucking-lutely. A black person sitting on federal appellate court in the state where numerous lynchings and other crimes against humanity happened? Amazing, but his skin color alone should not be enough.
What good is a black man on a federal appellate court if he’s just going to rule in a standard way? What are his views on qualified immunity? Would he be inclined to rule in favor of police and other law enforcement agencies when lawsuits are filed against them? How are his views on other key factors? Is he just going to join the bench and sign on to moderate positions as to not rock the boat?
Trying to explain a docket to me, lmao just shut up bruh. I know how cases are randomly assigned to judges on appellate courts like him and the varying levels of cases which are adjudicated by District Court judges.
“Leftwing yuppies” just tells me your ideology and the kind of Dem ball-coddling you perform on a daily basis. I bet you think the Congressional Black Caucus is still independent with the same level of sway they used to have. 98% of the black caucus members are bought and paid for by corporations/billionaire/foreign money (AIPAC)/defense contractor money/etc. The same black faces you see running their mouths on T.V. are the same ones going along to get along and toeing the line in order to keep their seats and have clout for clout’s sake. What do I know about a class war? I’m living it and I see it all around where I was born and where I used to live. “They got us fighting a social issues war, so you’re too distracted to fight a class war” Yeah, that’s my worldview. Happy to see black faces in high places, but what good is that black person if his/her ideology is the same old same old?
Your entire argument falls on its face since you accused me of racism and ignorance of how black americans from the south think and/or live. If this were a district court, your case would be LAUGHED out of the room and dismissed with prejudice. I would tell you to do better, but I doubt you have that ability.
LikeLike
How could any self respecting black person favor an ACLU “liberal” over their own people? They don’t have any black people working over there.
You are black person who thinks little of black people. I was living in south when you were a gleam daddy’s eye.
You need learn more about your history.
LikeLike
Also, I know this isn’t the forum to discuss senate elections/composition, but it’s relevant to the judiciary (duh). What are the long-term prospects for a Dem senate majority with the ability to confirm judges, and hopefully justices? I don’t think Susan Collins will be in the senate after her current term is up. Although she could surprise everyone and stay on like Grassley/Leahy/Feinstein. But the likely choice is that she retires, and a Sen. King-like replacement is elected. +1
On the flip side, Dem senators in red states like Brown, Manchin, and Tester are on borrowed time. Hopefully they all win reelection this upcoming cycle, but it’s a safe bet to count on them retiring after a hypothetical next term and enjoying family time. All 3 are in republican-leaning states, so AT WORST, you’re having to makeup 3 lost senate seats.
In Wisconsin, will Ron Johnson retire? Or will it be Deja vu on election day in 2028 when a strong dem challenges and loses by 1%? If his seat flips, that makes it easier to have a path to the majority for a future Dem president (Ossoff, Warnock, Gov. Moore, Gov. Shapiro, Gov. Walz, etc.)
Another huge potential issue with the elected Dem senators is… a LOT of them are old. Pushing 70 or are close to it. Not even saying that their age is a problem with them doing basic job responsibilities like voting (but that is a legitimate concern) but just in terms of keeping their seats long-term and having the ability to keep liberal and progressive judges in their states (while also waiting for Clarence Thomas, Alito, and Roberts to be done wreaking havoc on the legal system). Having young senators like the republicans do makes it easier to have senators serving for 3-4 terms even if they don’t become president/VP or a member of a president’s cabinet). Rubio, Cotton, Vance, Hawley, Britt, Mullin, etc., are all LOCKS to keep their senate seats for at least two decades. There needs to be a concerted effort to recruit and elect young senators if not to keep the majority, then to keep majority in striking distance for a bad senate map for the GOP. It also helps to not have to hold your breath every cycle praying that senators in swing states don’t retire or run for Governor in their states. We need more Ossoff’s and less Welch’s.
I’m committed to seeing a liberal majority on SCOTUS before I die, and I’ll be damned if bad recruitment for senate ruins that lol.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If the Democrats had nominated someone more than the too liberal for the state Barnes, I think the Democrats would’ve won in WI last year.
LikeLike
*more moderate
LikeLike
Really wish Barnes could’ve pulled it out in Wisconsin. Having a 52-48 majority would be so much better than what we have now and also provide some much needed insurance for 2024. But alas.
Regarding the nominations we got today, I like both LA nominees. This is what I meant when I referred to Kennedy/Cassidy being the more reasonable R duos. Hope to see both get hearing dates in July and get confirmed swiftly. Needless to say, I’d like to see more nominees, particularly the FL and TX packages as well as whatever we get in Indiana.
With regards to Ho, of course today we have the bad luck of perfect R attendance. Hopefully we can find the time to get him over the line before the July recess. Next week is a full week, so perhaps then.
LikeLike
With Tim Scott campaigning for president, perfect attendance for the Republicans will become rarer over the next several months.
LikeLike
I’m not a huge fan of turning this into a general political forum and certainly not a blog for electoral horseraces. This site is enjoyable precisely because it’s about the judiciary, specifically federal, and any bench in general. There’s a lot to discuss on topic.
Obviously, I cannot tell anyone what to talk about or moderate comments, but I’d hate for us to lose or miss out on judicial developments because we were too busy gaming out the 2030 elections.
—
Last week I pessimistically foresaw that Ho’s confirmation might be delayed by attendance issues. Now, I am worried that Schumer might not be in any rush to refile cloture on the nomination next week or whenever all Dems are back in town.
And very funny if you think we’ll see two rounds of nominees in two weeks? You are stuck in the ancient past, circa 2022.
We’ll be lucky if we got another batch before the one-month mark.
LikeLike
I agree with you on the electoral politics point, but did you see my reply to my post above?
LikeLike
I don’t expect this to have any effect, but interesting to see nevertheless. Top CBC House members call for todays nominees to be rescinded, over insufficient consultation with LA’s lone Dem rep.
https://www.politico.com/minutes/congress/06-7-2023/carter/
LikeLike
If Troy Carter wants to have a say in who the nominees are in LA, he should become a senator there. The idea that house members need to be properly consulted for district court nominees is not based in any norms, past or present.
LikeLike
WOW, there are some heavy hitters out of the 9 signatures on the letter. Biden may listen to their request after looking at those names. I will say this, if it leads to a change in the blue slip process I’m all for it. I honestly think a GREAT solution (Other then my solution is scrapping then all together) is to change it so that as long as you get at least one blue slip turned in from any delegation from the state, senate or House, that is sufficient enough. That way it guarantees a president consulted with an elected official from the state.
LikeLike
A bunch of house Democrats have been screaming for changes to the blue slip rule in this Congress, so I’d be surprised to see any changes. It is something to keep one eye on though.
LikeLike
Ha!
“Biden may listen to their request after looking at those names.”
Dequan, I would eat my head if Biden backtracks by withdrawing the nominations because of this letter. And I would eat it without ketchup, too.
It took Rand Paul for Biden to not go forward with the Chad Meredith nomination; it will take the LA senators’ non-return of blue slips for this to have a similar ending. And these nominees are light years away from being a Meredith-type.
@Frank
That is incorrect. While there’s a long tradition of home state senators playing a role in judicial nomination for their state, it is not unusual for others to have a role, especially when the senators are of a different party than the president.
CRS noted: “Although Members of the U.S. House of Representatives do not have a formal constitutional role in the confirmation of federal judges, the demographic characteristics of judicial nominees are also of interest to Members of the House.”
And:
“Rep. Charlie Gonzalez, “Nomination of Miguel Estrada,” Remarks in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition, February 13, 2003, p. H685 (stating that the Congressional Hispanic Caucus “will actively work to identify and recommend qualified Hispanic candidates to fill Federal court vacancies”). Additionally, in 2014, the Congressional Black Caucus released a letter to urge President Obama to appoint a greater number of African American judges, particularly to certain judicial districts (e.g., the three judicial districts located in Alabama).”
Starkly: Rep. John W. Flannagan, a New Deal Dem, recommended judicial nominees to FDR over the objections of Virginia’s two DEM senators.
Jimmy Carter’s judicial nomination commission had members selected by home state senators AND congressmen.
For my own state, during the Bush presidency, GWB got his recommendations from Republican Governor George Pataki.
And of course, Kentucky’s Dem gov. Beshear was very vocal in his opposition of Meredith last year.
Delegate Norton, a member of the House and decidedly not a senator, handles district court vacancy recommendations for DC.
Florida’s Dem House members had their own commission to recommend nominees for Obama.
Abdul Kallon was recommended by Alabama Dem Rep Artur Davis.
The Tennessean reported that during the 111th Congress, Democrats from the Tennessee House delegation provided recommendations to the Obama White House for filling a vacancy on the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. Even if he doesn’t always go with their recommendations.
Not to mention Clyburn for SC.
In ND, we see that the state’s Dem Party has taken the lead on filling vacancies in that state.
Just wanted to give a flavor of the various parties who get to “recommend” nominees, even if they don’t have a formal role in the confirmation precess.
I am sure you’ll have many exceptions to make. While you think of them, I suggest you buy this useful book, it’ll save us time:
Picking Federal Judges
by Sheldon Goldman
LikeLike