Philip Hadji – Nominee to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims

Navy attorney Philip Hadji is Biden’s fourth nominee to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and would fill the last pending vacancy on the court.

Background

Philip S. Hadji received a B.A. from Hamilton College in 2004, his J.D. from Case Western University School of Law in 2009 and his LLM from the George Washington University Law School in 2011. After graduation, Hadji joined the Office of the General Counsel with the Department of the Navy, serving as a civilian attorney. Hadji is still with the office.

History of the Seat

Hadji has been nominated for a seat on the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (CFC), an Article I court that hears monetary claims against the federal government. Judges to the CFC are appointed for 15-year terms, and can be reappointed. The seat Hadji was nominated for opened up on July 23, 2021, when Judge Lydia Griggsby was elevated to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

Legal Experience

While Hadji has served with the Office of the General Counsel with the Department of the Navy throughout his career, he has held a number of different roles in the Office. Between 2011 and 2016, Hadji worked for the Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command (NAVFAC), which works on facilities and expeditionary commands for the Navy and the U.S. Marine Corps, as assistant counsel. In 2016, Hadji became assistant counsel and division director at the Acquisition Integrity Office, which reviews fraud, waste, and improprieties related to contracting and acquisitions in the Navy. In 2020, Hadji became Deputy Counsel with the D.C. Office of the Naval Information Warfare Systems Command. Since 2022, Hadji has served with the Naval Litigation Office as senior trial attorney.

Writings

Throughout his legal career, Hadji has developed a particular expertise in international law, writing and commenting on the issue. Notably, at Case Western Reserve University Law School, Hadji served as the Editor-in-Chief of the Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, and authored a note urging the United States to support a separate state for Iraqi Kurds, arguing that they have earned the right to self-determination. See Philip S. Hadji, The Case for Kurdish Statehood in Iraq, 41 Case W. Res. J. Int’l L. 513 (2009).

Outside of the International Law context, Hadji won an American Bar Association prize in 2011 for a paper discussing life insurance contracts with the Department of Veterans Affairs. See Philip S. Hadji, Death Benefits for Servicemembers: A Case Study on the Department of Veterans Affairs and Its Life Insurance Contract, 41 Pub. Cont. L.J. 777 (2011-2012).

Overall Assessment

Biden’s nominees to the Court of Federal Claims have not attracted the degree of opprobrium that some of his lifetime appointments have. It is unlikely that Hadji would attract particular opposition through the process.

79 Comments

  1. Mitch's avatar

    Phillip Hadji fits all the right bills for a nominee. He’s well qualified and has good credentials. Progressives will like how he diversifies the bench while conservatives appreciate his military record. His legal writings are well regarded, but don’t touch on issues that generate ideological controversy. It helps that he’s nominated for a specialty court. The conservative/progressive divide doesn’t really apply there.

    There’s something for everyone with Hadji. He may be confirmed on a voice vote.

    Like

  2. Dequan's avatar

    I have seen an increase in nominees with a military background since the midterms. I know this nominee didn’t actually serve in the military but had a deep civilian background related to it. He should be confirmed with little fanfare.

    Like

    • Thomas's avatar

      @rayspace:
      The job of an Associate Judge at the Superior Court of D.C. is not a sought-after job. The caseload is very high, there are always lots of open vacancies and the payment is bad. Most of them don’t serve out their term of 15 years and leave much earlier, some after just five years .

      As the application process is very transpartent, you can see in the history, that the pool of applicants is almost always the same, with approximately 10 applicants per vacancy, from whom three are recommended by the Judicial Nomination Commission, and then almost none nominated by the WH. Many of them have been recommended multiple times, but were never nominated. I can only assume, that they are not deemed to be qualified, otherwise they are all well-known to the Commission and the WH as well, as they are mostly the same ones. To fill a vacancy there lasts five years on the average.

      And after a slight improvment, the situation is deteriorating again, there are two retirements at the end of June and July respectively, and Edelman will be elevated, while so far only Noti is eligible for confirmation. The three other ones have not even had a hearing before the HSGA Committee, so that will take time and confirmation by voice vote on short notice is highly unlikely.

      Unlike Dequan, I don’t see this court chiefly as springboard for a federal court, for me the priority is that the court in a city with a large proportion of Democratic simply works properly. Such understaffed as now, elevations just impair the situation, and eventually deter people from applying there.

      The COA of DC is not that understaffed, but the open vacancy at the moment, is already open for a decade in November.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        @Thomas

        I too have noticed ” after a slight improvement, the situation is deteriorating again”. I don’t expect all of the judges on the Superior Court to stay all 15 years, but I would think if you could get some younger progressives to build their professional profiles, there shouldn’t be so much of a shortage of applicants.

        I also notice it takes a long time for many of the nominees to get hearings. Any idea why? I look at the calendar of the committee sometiemes & often they go a full week without hearings so it can’t be because they are too busy.

        Like

      • Thomas's avatar

        Since Paul is RM of the HSGA Committee, I don’t follow the broadcast as he tried to escalate a walkout of the GOP members in the first business meeting of that year.

        Generally they have nomination hearings at more irregular intervals and business meetings just one time per month unlike the SJC.

        They try to put judicial nominees together for separate hearings, and put them not together with executive nominees, if possible.

        As they are now three nominees, I think they will schedule a hearing before the August recess.

        Approximately half of the pool are magistrate judges from the court, and on numerical base, the courd could be filled.

        Why is doesn’t happen? I don’t know. Out of the three recommendations, the WH mostly doesn’t nominate one. Sometimes they nominate two or three from previous recommendations to another vacancy.

        Last time was an exception, when Okocha was nominated to replace Nooter, but no nomination for Campbell vacancy.

        And for all the older vacancies, the recommendations have been made long time ago, but no nomination from the WH.

        Beside that, I heavily doubt, that a FedSoc hack will accidently find his way to the DC Superior Court, the candidate pool was already the same one under Trump, so this is not the playground for ideological matters.
        There are some good candidates for elevation for sure, but it’s more urgent to stabilize the court in the moment.

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        Ah ok, thanks for the added detail. And yea it beats me too why they don’t just elevate more magistrate judges. Perhaps they aren’t in a rush to fill those seats until next year since it’s a 15 year term versus others that are lifetime appointments.

        I do have a little more fear than you do about a future Republican president filling the seats with hacks. There’s nothing stopping them from simply ignoring the commission altogether & simply picking attorneys from the 5% pool of Republicans that live in DC. And we all know how I feel about trusting Republicans from following precedent so I don’t buy the “That’s never happened” argument.

        There are three GW Bush judges on the court whose term ends this year. I don’t know how the process works such as does Biden have to renominate them or can he say he wants them to step down. Perhaps 1, 2 or all 3 aren’t that bad anyway & he wouldn’t want 12 seats to fill since he can’t even fill 9.

        Like

  8. dawsont825's avatar

    Last week or so, the Congressional Black Caucus in the house requested that the white house rescind their judicial nominations in Louisiana due to Rep. Carter not being consulted. It has me wondering if the CBC would have an outsized role if Biden were to have another chance at nominating a judge to SCOTUS to replace Thomas.

    Clyburn was pushing hard for Judge Childs (still mad she didn’t end up on the 4th circuit instead of DC) and we ended up getting an outstanding nominee in KBJ. I think Biden would cave to pressure to keep that seat to a black man (Thurgood Marshall, Thomas, etc.) are there any notable young black male circuit judges, who immediately come to mind, to replace Justice Thomas? Andre Mathis? Paul Watford? (I wish he didn’t resign) Robert Wilkins?

    If Biden chooses to pick a black male judge, I’m curious who he would pick. I think he would take serious flak from AAPI groups for not considering an Asian federal judge like Judge Sung or Judge Chung. Would Dale Ho be under consideration?

    Would love to hear all of your thoughts.

    Like

    • Dequan's avatar

      We discussed that subject a while back last year in the blog. I don’t believe if Justice Thomas would be the next justice to leave the bench. Biden would replace him with a Black man. Biden has put the first Black woman on the SCOTUS, went from pre Biden 8 to adding 13 Black woman to the circuit courts with all but the 1st, 8th & 10th having an active Black woman in it & he has out scores of Black oriole on the district court.

      Think Biden would likely use the vacant for another first such as the first LGBT (Allison Nathan would be my guess) or first AAPI. There are a number of AAPI possibilities but I doubt he would nominate any district court judge, which is the only thing that angers me about Dale Ho’s nomination because he should have been nominated for the 2nd or DC circuit.

      But if it was going to be a Black man there currently are only two viable options I see. Robert Wilkins who would be solid with the exception that 4 of the current justices would be younger than him & Andre Mathis. That’s why it is imperative for at least one & hopefully two of the pending five circuit court vacancies goes to a Black man. The Jabari Wamble downgrade then withdrawal really hurt the future pool of options. I think s future 9th circuit vacancy would likely go to a Black man no matter if it was from California or Washington state.

      Like

    • livesofthelaw's avatar

      I would have assumed that Watford was a shoe-in for a hypothetical Thomas vacancy, but then of course he had to go and resign…

      If he does choose a black male judge, I’m guessing Andre Mathis will be the easy option.

      Or maybe Jabari Wamble will get picked so that he can complete the triple crown of judicial tier nominations?

      Like

  9. rayspace's avatar

    @dawsont825: I’ve think this will be a serious dilemma for Biden if Thomas leaves when Joe’s in office. On the one hand, I think there will be significant pressure from African-American politicians not to reduce the number of African-American Justices, especially given some softening of support for Democrats among African-American men.

    On the other hand, I’m sure Biden will want to make history again and appoint an AAPI Justice. I thought Obama might appoint Jacqueline Nguyen from the 9th Circuit, but I think Lucy Koh is a possible Biden choice.

    Of course, if someone other than Thomas causes the next vacancy, I think it’s pretty certain that Biden will go with an AAPI Justice.

    Like

  10. livesofthelaw's avatar

    Love to see an Article I judge being profiled. That said, I can’t see Hadji attracting any controversy. The only question is whether he’ll get voice-voted through or not.

    My fun Hadji-related fact is that whilst studying an IR module at college in the late 2000s, I actually read Hadji’s article on Kurdish self-determination.

    Like

  11. Joe's avatar

    I think if Thomas leaves there would also be some pressure to appoint someone from the South. Mathis would be a logical candidate in my opinion.

    I think Childs, Benjamin, or Douglas would be candidates as well. Abudu probably less likely given her opposition from Manchin.

    Like

    • dawsont825's avatar

      Manchin is the only Dem senator who voted against Abudu, so logically you have 50 yes votes from Dem senators and VP Harris there to break the tie. Collins would do her little “decorum and civility” schtick before announcing she’s voting “no, then Murkowski would give a 40-minute speech on different American institutions and other B.S before hiding behind Manchin and her fellow home-state senator Sullivan by voting “no”. Would love to listen to charlatans like Cruz, Hawley, and Cotton cry on the senate floor about Abudu being a partisan judge (when they rammed ACB and Kavanaugh down our throats). Would be nice to avenge RBG, especially after Trump openly said that he was saving ACB for Ginsburg’s seat.

      The only wild card would be red-state Dem senators running for re-election in ’24. Would Sinema/Tester/Brown buck the party to vote against Abudu? If Tester votes “yes” and loses, it’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make for a balanced SCOTUS again.

      Basically, Abudu didn’t come from an ivy league law school, and she doesn’t have elite credentials, plus she’s predominantly from the south so she would bring regional diversity to SCOTUS. I’m not even worried about filling her 11th circuit seat, Ossoff and Warnock probably have a long list of Atlanta lawyers from the SPLC and LDF ready to be vetted and recommended to POTUS.

      I doubt Biden would pick her due to her creating too much controversy (can’t upset the “normal” conservatives too much), but it would be great to have 5-4 sanity back to the court and a record 5 women on SCOTUS.

      Will this happen? No lol, but a guy can dream of a day when someone isn’t sitting in the seat of the late great Justice Thurgood Marshall who disrespects his legacy and legal wit every single day.

      Anyone he picks would be better than Thomas, but to have a young progressive minority in that seat again would be a dream come true. At least then we can stop getting so many damn concurring opinions with Thomas and Alito -_-

      Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        Thanks for the article. I just mentioned the Minnesota vacancy yesterday on the blog so happy a nomination is imminent. Judge Bryan is 45 & seems to be highly qualified. He doesn’t seem to have a particularly progressive background but he likely will be a reliably liberal vote. Interesting @Ethan had his wife Liz Kramer, not him in his list. I’m happy to see another qualified Hispanic judge likely to join the federal bench.

        Like

  14. Hank's avatar

    Not surprising that they will pick another former prosecutor for the Minnesota seat, but just another confirmation that Biden is taking two steps back despite having an increased Senate majority (though to be fair, a tenuous majority at best given that crone Feinstein). (Interesting that he’s the first Latino even though Menendez was confirmed – a quick search didn’t show that she’s ever said she’s Latina, so it might be her husband’s name or some other case where a person with a Spanish name isn’t Latino).

    Like

  15. Hank's avatar

    If Biden gets a second SCOTUS nominee, I’d bet good money on it being a woman so as to have the optics of female majority on SCOTUS – I personally think that’s not worth much if a 5-4 SCOTUS is still going to be stripping women of their rights, but I understand the politics of it.

    Nobody cares about regional balance anymore (if Dems ever did), and there’s certainly not going to be any pressure to nominate anyone because they’re from the South when most Democratic Party leaders (other than Clyburn) are not from the region. A quick look back confirms that Dem nominees have come from the East Coast (NY or DC) since Thornberry’s failed nomination back in the 60s under LBJ (who was from Texas).

    This WHC will likely see Abudu as too risky (SCOTUS nominations are higher profile, so I’m sure more centrists than Manchin would defect), and honestly (and unfortunately) Mathis does not have the traditional credentials (SCOTUS clerkship, high profile govt/law firm practice) that Dems still care about. Childs is more likely than either if Biden folds to Clyburn’s pressure (and because at least one Republican (Graham) is on record as endorsing her).

    Otherwise, I agree with previous comments that Alison Nathan is the likely frontrunner. She’d make history as the first LGBT nominee, and even if Thomas leaves SCOTUS, it’ll be harder for Black leaders to fight that historic nomination when Biden already nominated the first black woman on the court. If AAPI groups don’t even have enough sway with Biden to get an Asian cabinet nominee (Julie Su seems unlikely to be confirmed), they’re hardly going to be able to convince him to nominate an Asian to SCOTUS. That being said, I think Srinivasan and Pan on CADC would at least be considered, and maybe Lohier on CA2 if it’s a Thomas vacancy despite his age (he’d only be 3 years older than Sotomayor when she was confirmed).

    Liked by 1 person

    • Gavi's avatar

      @Hank
      With this, you remain one of my favorite commenters, never succumbing to sycophancy and always cutting through terrible takes.
      The idea that SCOTUS nominees must present a “regional balance” is as outdated as the court having mostly protestants and certainly not the Catholic-Jewish membership of pre-KBJ years (Gorsuch was baptized a Catholic). But even worse is the take that a Dem president will be under pressure to nominate someone from the south. What?
      The fact is, these water-etched traditions have been on their way out for a long time. “Regional balance” didn’t stop FDR from naming Felix Frankfurter from the already northeast-heavy court.
      The only reason some of these “traditions” are still remembered is due to the tiny political class, of which we are members. The average American can’t even name a single justice, let alone their demographic details.
      I do, however, firmly disagree that Alison Nathan is the frontrunner for the simple fact that there is not a shred of evidence to support that.
      If you care about firsts, there are many many that Biden can make if/when Thomas finally decides to die.
      One of the most Important firsts for a Dem president is to be the one to nominate and appoint the fifth female justice, creating a woman majority for the first time.
      Personally, I would love to see Lauren King or some other very young judge get the nomination. Her/their being only a district court judge is a barrier to the nomination only in your head, not in reality.

      Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        @Gavi

        While I disagree with you about the importance of identify politics, I do agree with you about regional politics isn’t important. I doubt what area of the country a nominee is from even comes up in discussions for SCOTUS vacancies anymore.

        I do completely disagree with you that Alison Nathan wouldn’t be highly considered for the next SCOTUS vacancy. Of course, there is not a shred of evidence to support that because we do not have a pending vacancy. It’s all speculation but I have personally guessed the correct SCOTUS nominee three straight times so my metric has worked as of late.

        As far as your first for having a majority woman on the court for the first time, Nathan solves that problem & still would be the first LGBT justice. And her being from the majority leader’s home state doesn’t hurt either. Plus she was a high-profile district court judge before ever ascending to the 2nd. And she worked in the Obama White House when Biden was VP. I’m actually surprised you don’t think she would be one of the front runners… Lol

        Like

      • Hank's avatar

        Yeah I agree with Dequan that matters of identity are always going to be important in politics as long as the Republicans are seeking scapegoats to blame for the world’s problems. @Gavi – if all the candidates for a judgeship are qualified/can do the job and Biden/the Dems are in a position to confirm judges because minority/women voted for them, why shouldn’t they value a judge who has had a different experience in our society (which treats people differently because of their race/gender/etc.) than the white men who have made up a majority of judges for the last 200 years?

        That being said, I do think sometimes there is sometimes an overemphasis on demographics (like the idea some on this blog have that a woman or minority judge must or should be replaced with someone of their same profile), and a minority or woman judge (think James Ho or Hector LaSalle) who actively makes life worse for other minorities should not be nominated. But I’m also certainly uncomfortable with a court of all rich, white, male judges deciding whether (for example) someone experienced racial discrimination or suffered “extreme cruelty,” among other issues.

        In just one recent example, white woman St. Eve (CA7 judge) claimed that no reasonable person could believe an HOA president president was racist or interfered with a Black family’s right to live in peace even though he (1) asked the first Black family to move into his neighborhood “Why did you people move here? You could have moved somewhere else,” and (2) his wife repeatedly called that family the N-word. And St. Eve is considered a “moderate” conservative. Luckily she was dissenting from a great opinion by Biden appointee (and Black woman) Judge Jackson-Akiwumi, but does anyone really think a white judge and a black judge are going to have the same view of whether the phrase “you people” is racist? And if not, why shouldn’t there be judges of all backgrounds on our courts and not just white ones?

        On Gavi’s other points:

        1. Of course there’s no evidence of Nathan being the preferred pick – there’s no hint of a vacancy (other than people on the left with no influence arguing that Sotomayor should retire, which I agree with). There also isn’t evidence of anyone else being a frontrunner either.

        2. “being only a district court judge is a barrier to the nomination only in your head, not in reality” – has a district court judge ever been directly nominated to SCOTUS? Certainly not by a Dem president in recent years, and the likelihood of Joe Biden breaking that barrier is even less likely Amy Coney Barrett finding that there’s a constitutional right to abortion.

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        And I think we have to remember we are talking about two different things. First, do we think the administration should prioritize diversity. My answer to that is yes. Second, should the administration sacrifice progressive lawyers if that means adding diversity. Now that is when I agree with @Gavi & say no, but to a certain extent.

        I go back to my example from a couple months ago. If I had to choose between the 38 circuit court nominees we have gotten from Biden or 38 straight White male Dale Ho’s, what would I choose. My answer without taking anything else into account would be 38 straight White male Dale Ho’s. However the judiciary is not seen in a vacuum like that. In all likelihood, nominating 38 straight White men for all circuit court vacancies, even if they were as good as Dale Ho, likely would lead to less minorities voting for Biden in the election next year. Joe Biden getting less minority votes next year will likely lead to more James Ho’s instead of Dale Ho’s in 2025 – 2029. So I would sacrifice some of those 38 straight White male Dale Ho’s for diversity, even worse nominees because I’m looking at the long game.

        But the good thing is we don’t have to worry about that. Some of my favorite Biden circuit court judges have been woman & minorities so we are not sacrificing progressive lawyers for diversity.

        Now if you’re talking about a specific nominee then we can have that discussion. If your saying Jeffrey Bryan isn’t as progressive of a nominee as we could get out of Minnesota, I would agree. But we have to look at reality. We have senator Tina Smith not Al Franken. That, along with other reasons, is why I really wanted him to remain in the senate. We would be getting better judges had he stayed but that is not the reality we live in so a 46-year-old, left of center Latino who has a VERY progressive wife is probably the best we can hope for.

        Like

      • Gavi's avatar

        So it’s affirmative action for judges?
        Thank god one form of AA will be struck down this week or next.

        At any rate, I identify two buckets of identity politics in the judicial selection process:
        Bucket 1: a matter of political strategy
        Bucket 2: mere diversity for diversity’s sake/racial “catching up-ism” etc.
        I understand the reason for one and absolutely reject the other. Dequan previously said he believes in both.
        As I’ve said before, reasonable people may disagree and I am not trying to persuade or change anyone’s position on this topic. I am, however, very pleased that most of America is with me. AA loses every time it goes on the ballot, even in liberal California.
        Racial preference is literally the antithesis of “equal protection.”

        All else being equal, I care only about age and ideology. This literally filters out the Clarence Thomases and James Hos of the world. No one on the other side can explain their inconsistencies about their Bucket 2 preferences and their rejection of Clarence Thomas and James Ho. Put another way, in my world, Thomas and Ho is an impossibility, because my standard doesn’t go beyond ideology. Whereas in Dequan’s world, Thomas and Ho is a possibility, since ideology isn’t enough and race and other identity stuff also matter.
        Clarence Thomas could have written that opinion by St. Eve. You know who would never write such an opinion? The very white male Toby Heytens.

        With respect to Alison Nathan, I guess we’ll just have to wait and see. Hopefully sooner rather than later.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        But @Gavi, I would argue you’re wrong that your method would never lead to a judge Clarence Thomas or James Ho. Because in the year 2023, had Biden only nominated 38 straight White males, there’s a very good chance he would lose votes next year. And guess what that means in the close elections we have in this country. A president Trump or DeSantis getting elected on January 20, 2025. So your scenario very well could lead to the judges neither of us don’t want in the long term.

        Biden is getting blasted NOW for not nominating enough Hispanics, LGBT & Black men to the federal bench. And only THREE of his 38 circuit court judges have been White men. Can you imagine what the blow back would be had all of his circuit court appointments been straight White men? You know in the real world that is not even remotely gonna fly.

        I’m all for being principled but if you’re not in power, you can have your principles while the other side makes the rules. I’m not sure who the Supreme Court & the majority of the country, even in liberal states agrees with. But what I can tell you is if Biden did things the way you are suggesting, come January 20, 2025 he mine as well join us in the blog & discuss his views because he likely wouldn’t be president anymore after noon that day.

        I do 1000% agree with your last sentence though. I would love to have the opportunity to be proven wrong about the next justice if that means getting a non Sotomayor vacancy, since my Nathan prediction goes out the window for her seat as I’ve said because I fully expect a Hispanic for that seat.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Hank's avatar

        @Gavi you’re missing the point – I can’t speak for Dequan, but my preference is that if a nominee meets your age and ideology criteria (which I wholeheartedly agree with, though I’m more flexible on age if the nominee is very progressive), then race/gender/sexuality can and should be considered. In this world, of course a Dem president would never nominate a James Ho or a Clarence Thomas because they would fail the ideology test.

        If your point is that we shouldn’t be nominating centrists, moderates, or especially conservatives just because they’re minorities or women, I (and I think many folks on here) definitely agree with that. If your point is that Biden should pick the white man when there is a white man and a woman or minority with the same ideology/age/qualifications, that’s where I disagree – and I don’t see how anyone who isn’t a racist Republican would accept a judicial system where all of our judges are white men and most of the people being sentenced, experiencing discrimination/harassment, or being denied their rights are not.

        Liked by 1 person

  16. Joe's avatar

    We will see. I still maintain that regional diversity would be a factor, as would getting someone from not from an Ivy League school.

    Obviously I would love to see us get the chance but it’s a very unlikely scenario either way and not worth a ton of mental energy.

    Like

  17. Gavi's avatar

    Jeffrey Bryan
    It’s hilarious how deadly committed we are to identity politics. But since we are so committed, shouldn’t be know for sure who is what? We seem to can’t decide who’s a latino on the federal bench in Minnesota. Just goes to show how nebulous and arbitrary the whole thing is. Yet people will go to their graves for it.
    We’ve really come full circle.

    Liked by 1 person

      • Gavi's avatar

        Ha!
        I would suggest that you look at the electoral analyses of AA being on the ballot, you know, after it’s gone down to defeat. Majorities across all demographies are against it. If you can’t deal with this fact, that’s your struggle to bear.

        Like

      • Gavi's avatar

        For example, this fine piece:

        I hope it isn’t paywalled for you. I don’t want to copy and paste such a long article.
        It gives me hope that people tend to know what’s fair, even if their craven politicians don’t follow their lead. MLK would be proud of the results. Content over color.

        Liked by 1 person

      • shawnee68's avatar

        It’s not. I live in California and the AA is far more complicated than it’s opponents portend.

        People can be ignorant about history. This is especially true when it’s not their history.

        I can see on Ancestry how people in my family were slaves. I have read their death certificates. If you do the same you will see it too. The only exception would be Native Americans but it was unconstitutional for them to be slaves.

        How to apply policies like AA is hard to do I admit that. But , the fact the fact that it is not well taken with the general public is besides the point.

        We are a shrinking population so the sooner we address the issue with reparations the better.

        Like

    • Gavi's avatar

      Thanks for sharing, Rick.

      Analyses of senators’ voting patterns get outdated very quickly, since the senate is always voting. But last year someone did an analysis of Collins’ negative votes on judicial nominees. It showed that a large number of her nay votes were for women of color nominees. This might not mean a lot, since:
      a) that data is probably obsolete now
      b) Biden nominated a lot of women of color so statistically speaking Collins’ opposition may be a coefficient of that
      c) Biden’s women of color nominees tended to be more liberal than Collins could stomach

      People tend to lump Collins and Lisa Murkowski together in the same bucket. I think that’s lazy and inaccurate. Collins is an ideological moderate, for sure. But she’s either a partisan Republican or an anti-Democrat. Either way, it gives the same effect: loathing Democrats even if she sometimes votes with them on policy.
      Murkowski, on the other hand, is only a bit more conservative. Murkowski’s position on oil and natural resources policies, being from Alaska, is what drives her moderate conservatism. Murkowski, however, isn’t (and can’t) be as anti-Democratic as Collins. Dem-friendly voters in her state have saved her political career more than once.

      She’s been decent on Democratic judicial nominees, but I look forward to Collins’ retirement. Not to engage in any horserace 3 years out from an election, I don’t assume that this will be an easy Dem flip as I’ve seen the usual optimists here predict. If this election is in year 6 of a Biden admin, expect it to be tough for Dems to win. If it’s the first mid-term of a Republican president, it should be easier for Dems. Check back in 3 years.

      Liked by 1 person

  19. Mitch's avatar

    I keep waiting for the next batch of nominees to be announced. I don’t know what’s taking so long.

    There is another vacancy in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. I’m predicting that Karoline Mehalchick will get the nomination. The Biden Administration tends to pick Magistrate Judges. Also, Bob Casey takes the leads on judges in his state and he prefers safe and conventional nominees.

    Like

    • Ethan's avatar

      @Mitch, Mehalchick was on my radar for the the Middle District of Pennsylvania. But she is based in Scranton, and Munley got that seat. The other vacancy is in Harrisburg. The Middle District of Pennsylvania is small enough that duty station does matter. I’m hoping for Federal Defender Heidi Freese for the Harrisburg seat. But it may end up being someone from the state government that I’ve never heard of.

      Like

    • Dequan's avatar

      Either we get another batch this week or not only will we miss a 4th SJC hearing, but we will only have one hearing between now & September. That would be unacceptable even for THIS White House Counsel’s office.

      This shouldn’t be too hard for a small batch. At the very least we should get the nominee for the 4th, NDIL (Either Nicholas Gowen or Karen Shelley), Claire Connors (She’s currently a U.S. Attorney so vetting shouldn’t take that long), at least one of the two California vacancies & at least one of the five vacancies between Michigan, Connecticut & Pennsylvania should be ready.

      Hope is on the way for a new batch by early August to set up a SJC hearing after the Summer recess. Vetting should be done for the three SDFL, South Carolina (Two woman near 60 were recommended so blue slips shouldn’t be an issue for either) & Jeffrey Bryan for Minnesota should be vetted by then. And I imagine we should have recommendations for both New York vacancies as well as the other blue states I mentioned above by then as well.

      Like

      • Gavi's avatar

        Hey Dequan, you’ve mentioned a few times that Cruz’s antics led Reid to confirm a few of Obama’s judicial nominees. Can you remind me of when this happened? Reid was majority leader for only 2 years after Cruz got to the senate so I assume this was in 2013 or 2014.
        Anyway, please remind me of at least the date range or one of the nominees so that I can look it up. I’m curious to know what really happened. Thanks.

        Like

    • Dequan's avatar

      @Gavi

      I wrote a long reply to answer your questions but apparently it didn’t go through. One of the few things bad about the blog is when you put links in the reply, sometimes it doesn’t go through. I will try to send it again but if you don’t see it, we will have to wait for Harsh to go in & manually send it I guess…

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        I sent it again but it says “Awaiting moderations from the editor” so I guess it won’t send with the links to the articles. I’ll just copy & paste what I wrote & you will have to look the article up online. It’s from AP News from December 15, 2014. The title of the article is Republicans blame Cruz for year-end confirmations.

        @Gavi

        I will be happy to take a stroll down memory lane anytime it reminds me of how dumb Ted Cruz is. Below is a news article explaining how Ted Cruz’s stupidity led to confirming 12 of Obama judicial nominees after the Democrats lost the senate majority but before the Republicans took over. Below that link is the link of Obama judicial confirmations. Go to the district court judges & look at #239 – #250 & those are the 12 judges confirmed on December 16, 2014. My personal favorite is Stephen Bough, an outright liberal in Missouri. Also three Texas judges were confirmed which feels extra good. Throw Amit Mehta & I was truly jumping for joy.

        Liked by 1 person

  21. Gavi's avatar

    Thank you, gentlemen.

    I checked the article and the record, and I fear you might be disappointed with what I found. Notwithstanding, it’s there in black and white for all to see. let me start with a preamble to set it up for you.

    The December 2014 maneuver is analogous to Tuberville’s military promotion holds, in terms of who’s to blame. Today, Tuberville is the face of the holds but other senators, though less vocal/visible, agrees with him and would continue the hold in Tuberville’ absence and not just out of courtesy to him.
    A similar dynamic took place in 2014. It just happened that Cruz wasn’t the one to pull the trigger (again, not a matter of opinion but of fact). Cruz’s staff is right that he can’t be fully blamed for the confirmations. As usual, I can include only one link per post, which is so annoying.

    —
    December 12, 2014
    Cruz did not object to a UC for adjournment sine die as was originally thought. None was sought.
    Reid requested a UC dealing with voting on the House-passed government funding bill Monday December 15, which, if granted, would have been followed up with a bill to extend government funding for a few days while the final bill was negotiated. Then Reid would have sought an adjournment until Monday.
    However, Mike LEE of Utah objected. He didn’t want the senate to leave for the weekend without addressing a response to DACA, which Obama had recently announced. This was the issue that made Cruz, Lee, and the other conservatives hopping mad. They wanted to use the funding bill to try to prevent DACA.
    (Found on page 75 https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-160/issue-152/senate-section)
    The Senate eventually adjourned until the next day, Dec 13.

    —
    December 13
    The next day, Reid accused a “small group of Rs” holding up the funding bill and said:
    “So now we wait. But while we wait, we shouldn’t waste time. Republicans and their leader have known for weeks, if not months, that we intend to vote on the President’s nominations. So it is clear that this impasse we are having here today is not about nominees, it is about preventing us from funding the government.
    Then Reid sent cloture motions for a bunch of non-judicial nominations. And then cloture motions for the 12 judicial nominations, over Grassley’s “objections” about confirming judges in a lame duck session. It’s not an actual objection, though, since there was no UC request. He just wanted to protest and use false data as proof. So, typical Grassley.

    —
    December 16
    The nominations that were set up on the 13th were ready to be voted on.
    All but Stephen Bough (WDMO) were confirmed by voice vote. Bough had significant opposition to his nomination due to allegations of judge shopping, which he seemed to have engineered. One Dem, Heitkamp, voted against him. No Republican supported him. Senator Blunt, whose blue slip was returned, missed the vote.
    (Side note: It’s so funny reading Rs talk about judge shopping. It’s like reading something that happened in the 1800s compared to how little they care about it today. Apparently, even the 5th Circuit, before it became extreme and the single biggest facilitator of the practice, wrote damningly about it. Don’t let anyone tell you that nothing changes.)

    Bottomline, the senate had to do something while negotiations were ongoing on the funding bill. So to kill time, they confirmed a whole bunch of *mostly* non-controversial nominees to many different offices, including judicial ones.

    As we’ve seen, Reid was going to set up votes on Monday anyway, for at least the 4 or 5 controversial nominees, including: Antony Blinken Ass. Sec of State; Murthy for Surgeon General; Saldana for Homeland Security; and Bough for the MO district court. There’s no way Dems would have left without confirming these 4 knowing that the incoming Republican majority would kill those nominations. So after setting up these votes, it made sense that Dems kept going with the voice vote for other nominees, since Republicans weren’t going to block them anyway.

    I am reminded what a bad year 2014 was for Senate Dems. Of the many bad losses, there were 4 Dem senators named Mark on the ballot and 3 of them lost: Udall, Pryor, and Begich. Mark Warner alone was still standing (and still is) but only barely.
    Let’s not have many returns of 2014.

    Like

    • Ryan J's avatar

      Democrats also had a really bad map in 2014. 7 of the 9 states that Republicans flipped that night are now solid red states that Democrats could only dream of winning (those 7 states are Montana, South Dakota, Iowa, West Virginia, Arkansas, Louisiana, & Alaska).

      Dems have another bad map in 2024 but not nearly as bad as 2014; in 2024 Dems have incumbents in 3 solid red states (Montana, Ohio, West Virginia) and 5 more in swing states. It could be a bloodbath for Dems — the GOP can get a slim majority without winning any states Biden won in 2020 but if only the 3 red states are flipped I wouldn’t consider that a bloodbath for Dems. My current prediction would be the GOP gains 3-4 seats in 2024 (the 3 red states and maybe Arizona)

      Like

    • Dequan's avatar

      @Gavi

      Oh yea technically Cruz is right, the 12 judges likely would have been confirmed regardless. But as we know anything could have happened. Some senators could have gotten sick, some that just lost their seats could have said screw it & left town or any other number of things.

      But the main thing is it makes us feel good for not only us to blame Cruz, but also his fellow GOP senators… Haaaaaa

      And yea 2014 was a blood bath for senate Democrats, particularly those named Mark. Mark Begich would have had a pinchers chance in todays Alaska voting system. It makes me sick that Mark Pryor was an incumbent running in 2014 & 6 years later the Democrats didn’t even field an opponent against Tom Cotton.

      Like

  22. Joe's avatar

    I agree. No harm in fielding a strong candidate for every major election. You never know what could happen or what kind of scandal could come up (see Alabama 2017 special election).

    Like

  23. Dequan's avatar

    Ben Crump has wrote to The White House asking them to commit to nominating a Black woman to one of the 4 vacancies in the SDFL. Of course out of the three rumored names so far, none were Black. He posted the letter on his Instagram.

    Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        I think the White House is making a mistake with just nominating the three we all know about. Rubio would lift Heaven & Earth to get his financial backer’s nephew a judgeship.

        Biden should demand a package deal for the 4 SDFL as well as the MDFL vacancies to all get filled at once & I would tell him the nephew will be confirmed after the others. Once he gets the nephew in the first three, he has no incentive to work in good faith on the other four vacancies. Especially as the election gets closer.

        Like

    • Dequan's avatar

      Oh yea, I was talking about what the initial strategy was from the beginning. Similar to Texas, you’re giving up your biggest negotiating leverage if you give them what they want from the beginning. Cornyn & Cruz can’t block whoever is selected for the 5th so nominating Ramirez without a single district court nominee gives up your biggest leverage. Rubio has been trying to get the nephew a judgeship for two presidents now. Sucks that Ron Klain was so good but gone.

      Like

Leave a reply to Gavi Cancel reply