New Orleans prosecutor Brandon Scott Long has been tapped to replace the legendary Judge Martin Feldman, who passed away last year.
Background
Brandon Scott Long attended the University of Texas at Austin, graduating in 1999 and then received a law degree from Duke University Law School in 2005.
After graduation, Long joined the Washington D.C. office of King & Spalding as an associate. In 2010, Long moved to become a federal prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia. In 2014, Long moved to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Louisiana, where he has served since. Between 2020 and 2021, Long worked on detail as Deputy Chief of Staff for FBI Director Christopher Wray.
History of the Seat
Long has been nominated for a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. This seat was opened by the death of Judge Martin Feldman on January 26, 2022. Long has received support for his nomination from Republican Senator Bill Cassidy, although the House Black caucus has asked the White House to withdraw his nomination due to a lack of consultation with Rep. Troy Carter.
Legal Experience
Long started his legal career at the firm of King & Spalding in Washington D.C. before shifting to become a federal prosecutor under U.S. Attorney Ronald Machen. While in that role, Long prosecuted drug and violent crimes, handling appeals before the D.C. Court of Appeals. See, e.g., James v. United States, 39 A.3d 1262 (D.C. 2012). See also Haney v. United States, 41 A.3d 1227 (D.C. 2012).
Since 2014, Long has worked as a federal prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Louisiana. In this role, Long has prosecuted drug crimes on the federal level. See, e.g. United States v. Pendleton, Crim. Act. No. 16-41 (E.D. La.) (Triche-Milazzo, J.) Long has also handled appellate matters before the Fifth Circuit. See, e.g., United States v. Daniels, 930 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 2019). For example, Long was part of a prosecution team successfully defending sentencing enhancements imposed by a judge in methamphetamine distribution cases. See United States v. Cantu-Cox, 53 F.4th 324 (5th Cir. 2022).
Writings
As a law student at Duke, Long authored an article discussing noncompete restrictions in employment contracts. See Brandon S. Long, Protecting Employer Investment in Training: Noncompetes vs. Repayment Agreements, 54 Duke L.J. 1295 (2005).
Overall Assessment
With a fairly conventional record as a prosecutor and the support of his home state senators, Long is expected to sail to confirmation. While many will be less than thrilled with Long’s prosecution-heavy background, most critics from the left will likely deem the nomination of an apolitical government attorney to be better than leaving the seat vacant for a future Republican Administration to fill.
The Vetting Room 
Another good nominee. If we could get nominees that matched Longs or Edwards profile in every red state it’d be a triumph.
LikeLike
Agree. This is the most traditional of the 3 LA picks thus far, but as such he should be able to easily glide through confirmation.
LikeLike
I’d agree, a decently good nominee for a red state. Better than a fed society hack.
New future vacancy alert: Paul Gardephe, SD NY, 8/9/23.
Plus other known future vacancies have now shown on the US courts list: Aiken, Seabright, Kobayashi.
LikeLike
That will be a flip, assuming Biden can fill the seat, since Gardephe was appointed by G.W. Bush.
LikeLike
I really hope that whoever is picked for this seat, it’s someone more in the mold of Natasha Merle, Nusrat Choudhury, and Dale Ho and not Jennifer Rearden or Jennifer Rochon.
My guess is that it will be another former SCOTUS clerk in the mold of Subramanian. Could be:
-Janet R. Carter (former O’Connor clerk who is the Senior Director, Issues and Appeals at Everytown Law).
-Daniel Habib (former Sotomayor clerk who is an Appellate Attorney with Federal Defenders of New York).
-Jaren Janghorbani (former Breyer clerk who is a Partner at Paul Weiss but was involved in successfully challenging the constitutionality of DOMA).
-Vincent Levy (former Ginsburg clerk who is a Partner at Howell Shuster & Goldberg and did some pro bono work challenging Trump’s travel ban).
-Joshua Matz (former Kennedy clerk who is a Partner at Partner, Kaplan, Hecker, & Fink who has done pro bono work challenging Florida’s “don’t say gay” law).
-Anitha Reddy (former Ginsburg clerk who is a Partner at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz and is a board member of the Center for Reproductive Rights).
-Daniel Rubens (former Ginsburg clerk who is a Partner at Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe and a member of the Second Circuit pro bono panel).
-Stephen Shackelford (former Breyer clerk and Partner at Susman Godfrey who successfully represented Dominion Voting Systems in their defamation lawsuit against Fox News).
LikeLike
Included in my rating for nominee, besides the age and ideology, will now be flips. So the top three grade criteria: young age, progressive ideology, party flip.
If long is confirmed, he’ll replace a conservative Reagan appointee. I don’t know much about this nominee, though, so I won’t rate him. Let’s see what his questionnaire says (I put very little stock in SJC hearings).
(Conversely, for me, the biggest drag on rating: conservative/misaligned (i.e. Republican-type nominee from a blue state) ideology, old age, and “backfillability”)
On this blog
I was hoping Harsh would post new writeups a little less frequently, maybe once a week? We get so few nominees these days that once we run out of names, we’ll be stuck on the last writeup for weeks, if not a month, before new nominees are announced. I remember last year Harsh could publish up to three nominees a week. Gone are those days.
LikeLike
I was hoping Harsh write up would reveal something I previously didn’t know about the nominee because I couldn’t find much of a progressive background for him. It looks like he straight up has an a-political background. I’ll assume he’s either an Independent, or barely a right of center Republican/left of center Democrat. If he is the “Republican pick” in a package deal then I’m fine with that.
@Gavi
Good point in the speed of the write ups. The good ole days are gone when Harsh had to rush & have new post… Lol
If we get no new batch this week, go ahead & mark down a fourth SJC slot missed. The good news is whenever we get a new batch it’s likely to have 4 nominees in it since we have rotated between 2 & 4 every other batch this year so far & the last batch had 2.
LikeLike
@Dequan
I just noticed that your top SCOTUS-pick prediction is back at her old job. Nathan and Dick Sullivan have been sitting by designation on SDNY for a while now. They’ll leave once the two appointed judges take their seats.
Which brings me to…
@Frank
When we note that a confirmed appointee hasn’t gotten their commission yet, you never fail to repeat that they will once they are ready to assume the responsibilities of the office. Don’t let Arun Subramanian know, since he’s had his commission for months but hasn’t assumed office yet, thus causing one of the above-mentioned circuit judges to sit by designation on SDNY.
Subramanian is lucky that he got his commission already even though he isn’t ready to take office. His judicial start date is his commissioned date. He’ll be able to use that date when he considers his retirement.
https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2018cv06308/497325/81
LikeLike
@Gavi
You actually just taught me two things. One, I didn’t know judges sat by designation for lower courts. I only thought it was for equal or higher courts. And two, I didn’t know once commissioned, judges could delay when they start. That makes me wonder why doesn’t Biden just sign all of the commissions the same day then?
Speaking of commissions… When is it going to be International Dale Ho Commission Day? Haaaaaa
Now that there will be two vacancies in the SDNY, I hope we get two all star picks & nothing like the two Jennifer’s we got last year. If I got my dream picks it would be any combination of Joshua Matz, Melissa Murray or Samuel Spital.
LikeLike
Yeah, sitting by designation works both ways on the inferior courts.
Getting the commission is the bigger deal. Once you have that, at any time you can take the two oaths and, bang, just like that, you’ve assumed office.
You should really put to rest your hope about Melissa Murray and Leah Litman. There’s a better chance of my eating my head than their being nominated for federal judgeships. It simply will not happen. Just because you think they are good attorneys doesn’t mean they want to be judges or would be good at it, for that matter. I’m also thoroughly unconvinced that Josh Matz would want to be a judge.
Back to reality, one of those nominees might be Gilibrand’s, so unless you think we’ll get another Merle-type nominee, pace yourself.
LikeLike
Uuuggghhh… Gilibrand picks mine as well let Menendez & Booker pick…smh
LikeLike
What Gavi said. The example(s) I always remember are former SCOTUS justices sitting on the appeals courts after their tenure on the nations highest court (like Souter occasionally sitting on the 1st Circuit up until the pandemic).
LikeLike
@Gavi don’t be silly – Nathan and Sullivan are not forced to do extra work because Subramanian hasn’t taken the bench yet. Circuit judges, especially those who were former district judges, often like to sit by designation at their former district courts to preside over a trial or otherwise do things they enjoyed as a district judge. No circuit judge does so unless they actively want to, and they certainly aren’t being “caused” to do so because of vacancies on the district court – no chief judge of a district court is going to make (or honestly even ask) a circuit judge to help with case management. Nathan and Sullivan will likely continue sitting by designation on SDNY after Subramanian of any of the new district judges take the bench.
I don’t care when new nominees take the bench – once they’re confirmed, they’re set for life. Right now the problem is getting more nominees so Dems will people to confirm in a few months, which shouldn’t be as hard as this WHC is making it. Ideally we get nominees tomorrow, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Patently inaccurate. I said nothing about anyone being forced to sit.
Sitting by designation is available under certain circumstances, by statute. It’s not a free for all and not per a judge’s fancy.
LikeLike
Don’t agree with Hank often, but he’s right on here. The important thing is actually getting confirmation votes for each of the nominees. The commission date, along with actually taking cases, are semantics in the larger scheme of things besides reducing the caseloads of other judges in the long run.
As for Gilibrand, do we know for a fact exactly what the ratio is between her picks and Schumer’s? I’ve heard multiple ratios thrown out, but I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a source on it one way or the other. As for who will be nominated from NY, I don’t see Schumer (never mind Gillibrand) recommending any of the names Dequan mentioned, nor would the current WHC be on board even if one of them did. Someone in the mold of Subramanian seems about right.
LikeLike
Schumer most certainly would recommend any of the attorneys I mentioned. Have you not seen who he has recommended already? Haaaaa
I do agree they likely won’t be recommended but certainly not because Schumer wouldn’t. I just think this WHC office is content on less controversial & outspoken nominees that will likely end up voting the same way in the long run & be easier to confirm in the short run. So do I think they will be nominated, no. But not for the same reason as you.
LikeLike
At least the first two names are much more controversial than anyone Schumer has recommended before (including Dale Ho). Not as familiar with Spital but a quick google search reveals a bunch of issues that the current WHC isn’t interested in dealing with.
LikeLike
Melissa Murray is outspoken on woman’s reproduction rights. The argument could be made it’s more likely in a post-Rikelman world that she could be nominated if not for the many issues we know this WHC office doesn’t want to deal with to get her confirmed such as Feinstein’s health & red state senators up for reelection increasing the likelihood they need to vote no on more nominees. The image of the VP sitting in the senate president’s chair to cast the tie breaking vote to confirm one of the most outspoken Roe advocates this side of RBG would be a positive image going into the campaign if you ask me.
LikeLike
I agree with Hank & Frank here. As long as Biden or Harris stays alive, the judicial nominees can get their commission anytime between now and Jan. 20, 2025/2029.
LikeLike
Talk about a Captain Obvious.
Can someone show me where anyone said that confirmations weren’t more important please? Dequan and I were merely talking about post-confirmation steps in terms of one of our favorite nominees starting his job. There’s been no disagreement or debate on the sequence of events before confirmation.
So you’ll forgive me for not being shocked about just finding out that you can’t get a judicial commission if you haven’t been confirmed first.
LikeLike
Haaaaaaa… @Gavi
We can still invite Captain Obvious to celebrate International Dale Ho Commission Day. Hell let’s even invite @Frank & @shawnee68. Everybody is welcome… Lol
LikeLiked by 1 person
Possible 1st Circuit nominees ?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Landya B. McCafferty would have been a disastrous pick at 61 by the time she would be confirmed. Thankfully she’s happy & not interested. Here’s my thoughts on the others;
Sarah Mattson Dustin (Born c. 1975) – She is in the mold of Samantha Elliott (Who I gave an A to) & wouldn’t require backfilling a district court seat. She would get an A in my book.
Pamela Phelan – I can’t find her age but there is one bankruptcy judge with the name Pamela E. Phelan that’s born around 1967. If that’s her, I would give her an A- only because of her age. Otherwise, she has a solid background. If that’s not her & she’s anywhere near the age of Elliott or Dustin, she’s easily an A, maybe higher.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s nice for Democrats to have one Circuit they are in complete control of, just like the GOP is in total control of the 8th Circuit
LikeLike
@Joe
Yea I agree, either possibility would be a good pick. Even Pamela Phelan being 2 years older than Mike Delaney would make her a much better pick then he was. I think Biden so far has only picked one disability rights attorney when he nominated now judge Jamal Whitehead so she would be a welcome addition, particularly on the circuit courts. I know one of the 6 Oregon recommendations is also a disability rights attorney so perhaps we will get 3 by the end of the year.
@Rick
Yea seeing al Democrat appointees on a circuit court is a welcome sight. I’m not sure if there’s any other court, we will be able to say the same for in quite some time even if Biden won next year. I truly hope the 8th gets a vacancy or two Biden can fill so Jane Kelly doesn’t remain the only Democrat appointee & woman on that court.
LikeLike
I could’ve lived with McCafferty since she is a former public defender and could have gone senior in as little as 5 years – would’ve had to check her record as a district judge, but leagues better than Delaney.
That being said, I’m not bummed that McCafferty doesn’t want it – the other two candidates would be great. The Phelan that was born in 1965 and is a current bankruptcy judge is the wrong person – the article is clear that this Phelan is currently an appellate defender with the NH state public defender.
More generally, the article read more like attorneys in NH who are not that involved in the process (and this able to talk to the press about this) throwing out names rather than a shortlist. Maybe it’s just because I’m skeptical of Shaheen/Hassan actually picking decent nominees after Delaney, but hopefully both these women are on the list. The number of Biden appointees with civil legal aid experience like Dustin is not actually that high, so she in particular would be great.
LikeLike
Either of those first two sound good to me. Hopefully we get a nominee by the fall so we can fully fill the first circuit.
LikeLike
Between the two, I guess this is probably the best we could hope for in NH. I was really hoping for a Sul Ozerden/Cory Wilson outcome, to sock it to the Republicans.
We’ll have to wait and see, but I’ve always been skeptical that Samantha Elliott would be the nominee, despite all the breathless assurances on here that it’s her “nomination to lose.” I guess she just might.
LikeLike
This site used to have “where we stand now,” which were informative and interesting pages. If no new announcements come soon, it would be a good idea to bring them back.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re probably jumping the gun by a couple weeks. Those status update posts are usually around mid-year and end of year, so, “there’s still time,” as the infamous refrain goes.
LikeLike
There is an article out there in Detroit regarding Biden’s plans to nominate Brandy R. McMillion to the Eastern District of Michigan. The article references she is part of Biden’s 35th round of nominees – so expect some more nominations this morning!
LikeLike
Wow, yet another AUSA. So no more of the professional diversity? Public defenders don’t fit into Zients’ view of who’s confirmable?
Some will be over the moon that a woman of color is about to be nominated. I’m disappointed that yet another prosecutor is going to the bench.
LikeLike
Yeah wholeheartedly agree with you on the disappointment of yet another prosecutor – between Davis, Grey, Declerq, and McMillion, the Michigan federal bench is turning into a retirement home for the EDMI US Attorney’s Office. Now I’ll admit that prosecutors can turn out to be empathetic and decent judges (Sotomayor, McKee, etc.), but my impression of Davis from the relatively few panels she’s sat on/en banc decisions she’s been a part of is that she’s not particularly liberal on criminal issues.
Zients is definitely at least partly to blame for this return to the Obama years with these diverse prosecutor/big law nominees, but the Michigan senators are also pretty bad on judges. (Somebody correct me if I’m wrong, but haven’t all the Michigan nominees been former prosecutors/private practitioners who became state court judges? Not to mention the Michigan senators returned their blue slip on Larsen and let Trump fill 2 district court vacancies – one being Davis, but the other is Fed Soc member Jarbou). I wish somebody would press Slotkin on nominating better judges as she runs for Senate – given her background, I have low expectations for who she’ll default to picking.
LikeLike
Before Frank posts his default response that Slotkin will defer to Peters, I want to share your hope that someone will press her on this issue. I think she can be at least forced to give it some thought. I think they’ve managed to press on her the filibuster.
LikeLike
Brandy McMillion could face questions about her prosecution of a doctor on health care fraud charges. He was acquitted after spending three years in jail awaiting trial.
LikeLike
The end of the article mentions there will have been a total of 176 nominees with this 35th batch. There were a total of 170 nominees with the most recent (34th) batch, so we should expect 6 names today.
LikeLike
Would be nice if this round includes a circuit court nominee, but glad we are picking up pace again…
I believe this round of nominations ensures we will have two more hearings before the August recess. Can anyone out there do the math and figure out how many more hearings we squeeze into the rest of the year?
LikeLike
7 after the recess, I think. I think it was 9 from now until the end of the year. I’m not good with this though, that’s why I wanted a spreadsheet to track haha. Joe’s great in this area and I think it’s his calculation I’m using.
LikeLike
Six new nominees today which is good. A black woman born c. 1979 which is good. But get another prosecutor in a blue state. My God can Rob Klain & Paige please please come back. I wonder will there be any A or A+ nominees out of the six today. My guess is we will get one Michigan, Nicholas Gowen or Karen Shelley for the NDIL, one California, one Pennsylvania & one red state. I’m hoping the sixth will be for the 4th finally for God’s sake. Well at least we won’t miss a 4th SJC hearing this year.
LikeLike
If SJC were to max out every possible hearing date we could see hearings on:
7/12
7/26
9/6
9/20
10/4
10/18
11/1
11/15
11/29
12/13
The calendar actually works out favorably. After the August recess there are only two more recesses the rest of the year and they are both for just one week (Columbus Day week and Thanksgiving Week).
However, the reality is several of those will likely be missed or pushed back a week, so I’m expecting the actual number post August recess to be 6 or 7 instead of the maximum of 8.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Even if they only had 4 nominees per hearing, there could be 40 nominees processed if those hearings were held. The max number of nominees I’ve seen is 6, but you figure there may be some Wamble/Colom repeats later this year that may lead to a hearing or two with only 3 nominees in it.
Getting 6 names today is really good. There’s nominee going through the vetting process so the post Summer recess SJC schedule should be set up nicely not to miss another hearing the rest of the year.
LikeLike
I’m hitting refresh on the White House site every 5 minutes. Post it already, WHC!
LikeLike
Don’t worry, you literally won’t miss it.
I am sure the same official release will even be posted here multiple times haha.
LikeLike
And here it is. But only 4 not 6, so in keeping with releases for the year:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/
LikeLike
Wow.
The entire batch of 4 Article III nominees are USUAs and a private law practice. Stunning professional diversity. Hope it was worth the wait!
The NY nominee was a bit unexpected.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I guess you missed when the WHC got changed and that edict was seemingly dropped. I’m not a fan of seeing more AUSAs, but it is what it is. Expect more of them and other traditional picks for the remainder of Biden’s first term.
LikeLike
@Gavi
It’s 6 because the Court of International Trade are lifetime appointments too.
Margaret Garnett had to be Gillibrand’s pick. What a horrible pick compared to what we could have got for Manhattan. And of course born c. 1970.
Jennifer L. Hall has an interesting background for a federal judgeship. She seems to be qualified & I know the type of socket Delaware has with many patent & specialized cases so not much of a surprise there.
Judge Karoline Mehalchick is another pick we could have gotten with Toomey. Pennsylvania had better picks with a split delegation.
The court of International Trade had two vacancies & one by statute has to be a Republican. I’m not sure which one of the two are.
Overall another blah batch. Manchin may not vote no in another nominee again at this rate. Oh & another batch with no circuit court nominees. Truly infuriating.
LikeLike
No, she was Schumer’s!!!
And I said unexpected because I didn’t expect her to be in this batch. It was announced only a month ago that she was being considered, which shows that vetting doesn’t have to be this long drawn-out process. But yeah, I love her anti–corruption background, but totally a missed opportunity.
LikeLike
Oh no, if she was Schumer’s pick then we may get a straight up Republican for Gillibrand’s pick. I missed the article of her being considered. Schumer usually makes a big deal about when he recommend judges. It’s the first time I’ve missed it durning Biden’s presidency. Nobody put it on the blog or I definitely would have seen it.
How the Hell did we not get Nicholas Gowen or Karen Shelley for the NDIL. They were recommended almost 2 years ago. That’s low hanging fruit.
LikeLike
Paywalled, but almost useless at this point hahaha:
https://www.law360.com/articles/1678326/schumer-recommends-deputy-us-atty-as-sdny-judge
Again, the IL pick just reinforces that the best we can do is speculate.
And NO COA nominees as you said. Hahaha. It’s so sad that it’s funny.
LikeLike
@Dequan, I think you’ve said everything I would’ve said.
D- for Garnett.
B+ for Hall.
B- for McMillion.
B for Mehalchick.
LikeLike
@Dequan
Margaret Garnett was recommended by Chuck Schumer. She’s well known in southern New York. When she worked for the NYC Office of Investigations, she cited Mayor Bill DeBlasio for misusing his official security detail and he forced her out of office. She returned to the U.S. Attorney’s office shortly afterwards.
LikeLike
I thought the package would include 3 Southern Florida nominees. Perhaps the White House is waiting until a nominee for a pending vacancy is agreed upon.
LikeLike
2 for the court of international trade. And 3 for DC Superior Court as well, that will make some folks happy.
Either way, glad we will not miss another SJC slot. I’d look for another batch to be released prior to August 9 (hopefully well before that) in order to not miss the next hearing date.
LikeLike
What an absolute disgrace of a batch this is, this is an insult to black voters who put this man in office after his campaign was floundering after iowa, NH and NV defeat to sanders.
Another milquetoast centrist batch filled with prosecutors who spent their careers locking people up.
This literally could have been a batch from trump or george bush.
Let the bootlickers continue excusing biden and the white house counsel office of their total failure on nominees this year and cowardice to fill the remaining circuit court vacancies,(Still no nominee to the 10th and 7th circuit) i can bet my dime that those would still be vacant by next year January. Just an absolute disgrace.
Lets refresh everyone’s memory, maria cantwell and patty murray vociferously opposed eric miller, trump said screw you, and shoved him on the court for life, in bidens case he is allowing charlatans like ted cruz dictate to him who he can or cant appoint on the 5th circuit. Irma ramirez nomination is just the topping of what an absolute disgrace and failure judical nominations has been this year. A nearly 60 year old center right nominee that should have been the breaking point.
Take me back to the Good old days of arianna freeman and holly thomas or district judges like tana lin, not center right prosecutors.
Here comes the troll frank and other biden bootlickers in 3…2..1
LikeLike
@Gavi
OMG I don’t have a Law360 subscription. You can’t leave your buddy out in the cold like that. Pleaseeeeee send me any of those types of articles in the future. Pretty please with a cherry on top. I’ll even be nice to Hochul, Cruz & Blackburn for a week if you do. Ok maybe not a week, but at least a day… Haaaaaa
@aangren
I use to disagree with you a lot but again I can’t dispute what you say here & recently. This was an underwhelming batch to put it as nicely as I can. Hell the only bright spots were the Superior Court of DC nominees. At least one is a former federal defender. And two International Trade Court nominees finally.
LikeLike
How is Ramirez a center-right nominee? The only problem w her is her age. Also regarding Freeman, I don’t know how progressive/liberal she actually is considering she just voted with Republican appointees on an enbanc panel in a second amendment case where all the Obama appointees dissented.
LikeLike
Don’t bother reasoning with “aangren”. He is not someone who is interested in having a nuanced conversation and only looks for reasons to trash Biden (and troll) even when he actually does something positive.
LikeLike
Yeah Ramirez being center-right is just exaggerating (per usual for some posters) – the issue is that she’s almost 60 and has nothing progressive in her background (AUSA + brief stint in what looks like Texas big law), but the hyperventilating about her being some Republican in waiting is a bit much. Folks assume she’ll be more conservative than Costa, which makes no sense – they were both former AUSAs/in private practice before joining the bench (and Costa clerking for Rehnquist of all people would’ve suggested he would be more conservative than he ended up being). I would’ve preferred a more liberal candidate for sure (and just to stick it to Cruz), but it’s not going to make a difference on CA5 anyways and it’s better than leaving the seat vacant (which might’ve happened given the ridiculous delays with the CA10 and CA7 vacancies).
The en banc CA3 decision you’re referring to addressed whether the federal felon in possession law violates the 2nd Amendment. I’m not surprised that Freeman, as a former federal defender, ruled in favor of the criminal defendant in this case and held that he had a right to purchase a firearm – in fact, 2nd Amendment issues are the only one in which the left-right positions are switched, with liberals siding with the government and conservatives (for now) siding with defendants. It’s interesting that Restrepo (the other former PD on CA3) came out differently, but just goes to show that analyzing judges as across-the-board liberal or conservative is sometimes tricky (see Gorsuch and Native American issues as another example).
LikeLiked by 2 people
Pretty boring nominees in this latest batch, and all to district court – better than nothing I guess, but it’s been over 2 months without a circuit nominee (and there have only been 2 circuit nominees since the midterms).
It’s not a perfect comparison because there were more blue state circuit vacancies back then, but by June of 2021 (5 months after taking office and dealing with a lot more in terms of trying to pass legislation), there were 7 circuit nominees. I’m wondering if Biden will fill even the 5 circuit seats that are currently vacant by the end of the term, let alone any new circuit vacancies (which do not seem to be materializing, likely because no one at the WHC is making any effort to encourage the likes of Wardlaw/Gould/Moore/Clay/etc. to just go senior already).
LikeLike
I am confident that the five remaining circuit court seats will get filled. I do hate how long that is taking though, because it may be dissuading some current appellate judges to go senior.
I can excuse the 1st and maybe even the 3rd Circuit vacancies because those are fairly new but no excuse for 4th, 7th, and 10th to still be outstanding.
I know with the 7th and 10th that Biden is trying to negotiate deals but it’s been well over a year since Kanne’s death and Wamble’s situation has been known for months.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Frank is going to tell you that Kanne’s death over a year ago is still such a shock that the WH still can’t shake off to get to the business of replacing him. But enough is enough.
I see no reason for your overconfidence about filling those COA vacancies, but I totally agree with you about current judges going senior. Currently, it makes no sense doing what Hank suggests because Biden is in no rush to fill the vacancies we have now, let alone new ones.
LikeLike
It is frustrating without a doubt. My confidence comes from the relatively fast pace with which they moved in 2021-2022. But then again we have seen only 3 appellate nominees (1 of which withdrew) since September. At some point the WH Counsel has to get their act together.
But I will not complain too much for now. We got a much needed batch and the SJC will be able to continue moving along. I really, really hope that the next one will have at least 1-2 appellate nominees on it though.
LikeLike
Biden just name checked Tubbberville in his speech in Chicago just now. He said he’s bragging about Alabama residents getting broadband but he voted against it. We need more of that. Name check they hypocrites by name.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Since you mention Tubbbbberville (I followed your lead and added a couple more Bs).
The Democratic Party summed up in two lines, the second line by the caucus’s chief vote whipper:
—
For now, **Democratic leaders aren’t planning any immediate action,** instead hoping that GOP leadership will find a way to talk Tuberville out of his hold.
“We’re trying everything we can think of, but most of all, we’re appealing to other Republicans who we think are reasonable to come to their senses…”
—
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/28/politics/tuberville-senate-holds/index.html
There are some nominations the Senate simply cannot delegate away, but I think the courts would allow them to give the WH the power to appoint the Deputy Assistant Undersecretary for Cupcakes (or whatever it is you call it haha) without the need for senate confirmation.
LikeLike
Haaaaaa… Yes I think we can spare 4 hours if senate floor time for a cloture & confirmation vote to confirm the Secretary of Baking Cookies
LikeLike
@Gavi. They definitely need to reduce the number of positions requiring Senate confirmation. No other country has a similar number of administration positions requiring legislative approval.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There will be a future district court opening in RI, as William E. Smith will take senior status on January 1, 2025. https://www.rid.uscourts.gov/sites/rid/files/Smith%20Senior.pdf
LikeLike
That’s a flip. That will leave the court with an Obama, Trump & Biden judge. The Grump judge is a Democrat & I expect a stellar nominee for this vacancy so great news.
I am a little worried about the date of the vacancy however. If Biden or the senate Democrats lose next year, the judge could postpone his senior status by 3 weeks blocking Biden from signing the commission & the next president to fill the seat instead. I don’t know if that’s the judges intention but I would have felt much better if he had set the date before November of next year. Setting that date may scare the senators & WHC into a more consensus pick. I still would go for a home run pick & let the chips fall where they fall.
LikeLike
If his date were set 3 weeks later i would assume he was being as non-partisan as possible by letting the winner of the 2024 election pick his successor without knowing who that is.
However, Smith was born on December 31, 1959, meaning his 65th birthday is December 31, 2024. Based on that, I’m assuming Smith wants to take senior status as soon as he can.
LikeLike
In reality, I don’t think they will rush to fill that seat, especially since many of the Dem senators seem to believe that blue slips will still be honored under the next Republican presidency & senate.
LikeLike
Is that some sort of record for a pre-announced retirement date?
LikeLike
What would happen in a scenario where a replacement is nominated and confirmed (let’s say for example November 15, 2024) and then Judge Smith rescinds his retirement afterwards. Is he even allowed to? I assume so. In that case would the newly confirmed nominee be out of luck? Or is there a scenario where the court would temporarily expand until the next retirement?
LikeLike
I know @Gavi is much much more well versed in the law then I am as I have said many times before, I have never stepped foot inside of a law school. But even with that caveat, I am confident in the answer to your question.
A judge can’t officially take their seat until there is either a vacancy or Congress adds a seat for them to take. The latter has happened twice so far under Biden per statue, most recently with Natasha Merle. In both her & (Once confirmed) Jefferey Cummings case, whenever judges Roslynn R. Mauskopf & Robert Michael Dow Jr. retire, there seats will not be backfilled.
In the case of judge William E. Smith, he has given the senate a heads up that he plans on stepping down on January 1, 2025. At anytime before then, he can rescind, extend or change the planned retirement irregardless of what the president & senate has done because he is appointed for life or until he decides to leave for whatever reason.
So I see nothing stopping him from changing his mind if he either doesn’t like his replacement or doesn’t like the president & senate replacing him after the election results. It sucks but without a new law, judges have the prerogative to do it. So I fully expect a nominee in line with the ones from today versus a Nancy Abudu or Dale Ho type because of that.
LikeLike
I’ve tried my hardest to be optimistic and reasonable with this WH and whichever status quo defender they have in charge of the judicial nominee vetting process, but damn is it getting harder to be optimistic.
There needs to be 0 negotiation on the circuit judges from this point on. Joe Biden is the goddamn President of the United States and he’s currently letting senators from Indiana, Maryland, and f*cking Kansas tell him what he can and cannot do when it comes to his judicial nominees. I can remember vividly Trump and McConnell ramming through conservative ideologues on circuit courts in California, New York, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington, and not giving a singular shit about what the home-state senators thought about their records or commitment to impartiality. The best Biden could do is Andre Mathis and Anthony Johnston? PATHETIC! (Not the judges themselves, but the number of judges confirmed over the objections of 3 senators)
What better opportunity to exact revenge and show them that you mean business than to find a young attorney (38-45) who works for progressive/leftist causes and jam him/her onto a conservative circuit court in the south. Do it and tell Cruz/Cornyn to go pound sand. Then turn around and do the same thing in Indiana, and South Carolina, and Kansas, and in EVERY state with 2 GOP senators. Spot the vacancy and proceed to put young progressive lawyers working for the ACLU or Emily’s list or the SPLC and have them sit on that court for 3-4 decades. How is that hard to return fire and do what was done to you without any reservation or purpose of evasion?
At this point in time, I’m not even convinced that the Dem caucus has the balls/backbone (for the female senators) to block a SCOTUS opening/nominee similar to what McConnell did. Hypothetically, if in 2028, if Trump or Desantis becomes President and there is a Dem majority in the Senate, does Schumer have the balls to look at either one of them and tell them “You’re not going to fill this vacancy”?? Probably not. They would more than likely fill the vacancy and give speeches on how great they are for keeping the institution of the court “whole” and “intact”. Spineless
At this point, I think the GOP senators smell weakness so they’re stalling and doing everything they can to run the clock out and get a GOP president to fill their vacancies. I still hold out hope that Biden will fill all remaining circuit vacancies, but there is a real chance that the goddamn circuit court vacancy in ROYAL BLUE Maryland remains open for a FedSoc hack to be confirmed to. Disappointing isn’t even the appropriate word.
If Dems still had the House and had to worry about legislation, then I could at least give them that excuse to not have enough time to vet nominees and engage in meaningful negotiation for red-state district court judges. But you have almost no legislation to worry about holding a vote-a-rama on, what the f*ck are you doing with all that spare time? Nominate some judges and turn the senate into a judge conveyor belt. Line ’em up one by one and confirm them. Ugh
And don’t even get me started on the style change away from public defenders and civil rights attorneys in the new nominees A.RK, (After Ron Klain). Pretty sure we’re just going to get former AUSA’s, law clerks from elite law schools, and Magistrate Judges from here on out. *sigh*
LikeLike
@dawsont825
No lies detected. At this point I think the only person more upset than us is Joe Manchin. I’m sure he wanted to vote no on more nominees between now & the election so they can’t run those “He’s voted with President Biden (9% of the time” commercials. At this rate the nominees we are getting might get more than the normal 3 GOP votes.
I’d be fine if these were filling red states, but we are getting them for blue states. And this isn’t even New Jersey yet. We might get another out right Republican there. And the situation for the circuit court vacancies is ridiculous. The idea that it is taking this long to fill these seats is absolutely ridiculous.
LikeLike
Simply put, unlike Trump, Biden is a longtime former senator and politician who built his career as a consensus builder. He is never going to tell senators to pound sand because it is the complete opposite of what he believes, that being both sides can get along and find common ground together. You can disagree with that worldview if you’d like, but it is what you have with Biden.
LikeLike
You’re completely right, but it is incredibly frustrating to have the GOP act in a certain way with little regard for the other side’s feelings or thoughts, and for the other side to act in good faith and play nice.
It is the equivalent of bringing a knife to a gun fight. One side punches you and tells you to go eff yourself and the other either gives you the other cheek to punch or will complain about it not being fair. At best, the side that got punched will give a light warning slap in response, then immediately feel bad for retaliating.
FedSoc hacks in blue states, and consensus moderates in red states. The result? A judiciary filled with radicals and no counterbalancing force. Frustrating isn’t even the right word.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Regarding the vacancy in RI, the judge chose that date as it is the day after his 65th birthday and the earliest he could assume senior status. By announcing so far out, it seems he has every intention of making sure a nominee is put forth prior to the end of Biden’s presidency. Interestingly enough, he was at one time a nominee to the 1st Circuit (towards the end of G.W. Bush’s second term).
Looking at the nominees to the Court of International Trade, it would appear that Lisa Wang is the Dem pick (she currently serves in the Biden administration) so safe to say Laroski is the Rep pick. Hopefully, the last hearing before the summer recess includes all of today’s noms, and that these two in particular are voice votes.
Anyone know what’s going on with the vacancies in AL? I guess very little chance they get filled by end of next year, especially now that Shelby has retired. It’s a shame AL elected that moron Coach Tuberville, especially considering what a good senator Doug Jones was.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Mike S
Ok thanks for the clarification. I thought Wang was the Democrat but wasn’t sure. Since Laroski is more than a decade older than her, I was hoping he was the Republican out of the two. He doesn’t seem to be an ideologue so that’s good for a seat that requires a Republican in the seat.
LikeLike
@Mike S.
Lots of vacancies in states with two Republican Senators where we’ve heard almost nothing:
-Alabama (Middle and Northern districts).
-Alaska.
-Arkansas (Western District).
-Florida (Middle District specifically; we’ve heard rumblings for the Southern District vacancies).
-Indiana (Northern District).
-Kansas (since Wamble’s nomination was withdrawn).
-Missouri (Eastern and Western districts).
-Nebraska.
-North Carolina (Western district).
-Oklahoma (Northern district).
-Tennessee (Western district).
-Utah.
-Wyoming.
LikeLike
Alaska should be an easy state to fill with the moderate Murkowski taking the lead and Sullivan not inclined to openly challenge or oppose her.
Likewise, I’m 20% confident that Mike Lee and Mittens Romney will recommend someone “decent”.
I’d see what you could get out of Alaska, Florida, Texas, and Indiana. Some of the district court vacancies in states with charlatans like Missouri (Hawley and Schmitt), Alabama (failed football coach and Britt), Tennessee (corrupt senate version of MTG and Boebert.. er, I meant Blackburn and Hagerty), etc., will NEVER work with you in good faith in filling their states vacancies.
You either ditch the blue slips and put lefty lawyers in their states with less than no f*cks given about their objections, or you work in good faith and hope they do too. But given this current administration, pretty sure we’ll get nothing and leave a chunk of red state vacancies for Ronny Boy of Trump to fill.
LikeLike
Of those states, I think FL (southern district only), IN, and NE are the most likely states to see nominees. For one reason or another, I don’t think it’s terribly likely that we will see nominees in AK, AL, AK, MO, NC, OK, UT, and WY.
LikeLike
for Rhode Island, these are four possibilities on my radar:
-Angelyne Cooper (1983 born; Black woman; Legal Counsel, Rhode Island Department of Labor & Training/
Associate Judge, Cranston Municipal Court)
-Adi Goldstein (1973 born; Deputy Attorney General of Rhode Island)
-Kara Maguire (1984; Appellate Chief of the Rhode Island Public Defender’s office)
-Bethany Wong (1983; Chief of the Civil Division of the Rhode Island US Attorney’s office)
LikeLike
This WHC isn’t looking at public defenders, full stop.
LikeLike
I think they would nominate one if Senators from a blue state recommended one. They’re looking at quantity over quality. Even Trump nominated a public defender in Rhode Island as part of a deal. That being said, I think Goldstein is the most likely pick.
LikeLike
@Frank
I think it’s fair to say this WHC office is substantially worse than the first two years when it comes to nominees with progressive backgrounds. I don’t think it’s fair to say there won’t be ANY more federal defenders with a year plus of nominees left but I do agree they won’t be as frequent as we have grown accustomed to.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Perhaps, but I also think if the WHC gets a public defender versus a more traditional option, they will go with the traditional option.
LikeLike
Frank may wish that this WHC will never nominate another PD, but if he had done a basic Google search that anyone with half a brain can do, he’d see that Edelman, Gaston, and Hurson were nominated after Delery took over in July 2022.
That being said, I fully agree that PDs are less likely now than before – hence why liberal groups and the CBC should be putting pressure on the admin to give Delery (and Zients too, to be honest) the boot (rather than asking for nominees be withdrawn like Troy Carter is doing).
LikeLike
I’ve never said that I wished the WHC would nominate another PD; in fact I’ve noted here that I want to see more PDs and other underrepresented legal backgrounds get picked, I just simply don’t see that happening. Simply put, the larger trends point to Biden almost exclusively going with more traditional nominees. I probably shouldn’t have used language seen as absolute though.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Frank is Biden’s biggest apologist in here, and that’s because Zack hasn’t commented as frequently. Comments like Biden nominating law professors or more PDs, Biden playing hardball, Dems going toe to toe with Rs, WH taking too long to fill vacancies — especially Kanne’s, doing anything other than sitting on your hand and saying “it is what it is,” etc., are like Pavlov’s bell for Frank. It’s sure to get a oft-repeated response from him.
LikeLike
I have a lot of issues with how Biden’s team is handling nominations. If you noticed, I just noted today that it was a missed opportunity on Wednesday to nominate more candidates from underrepresented backgrounds and was continuing towards the same types of candidates seen in previous administrations. Biden just isn’t the type of person to play hardball with Republicans, and is the type to compromise with Republicans because that’s what he thinks is the right thing to do. You can criticize that, and there’s most definitely flaws in the current WHC strategy, but that’s the new plan in place.
LikeLike
In Rhode Island, I don’t rule out Melissa Long being nominated if she’s interested. I think she was considered for the First Circuit last year.
LikeLike
Another name to eye in Rhode Island is Christopher Smith of state Superior Court.
LikeLike
Look to new readers and viewers, the member frank is an imbecile and a known troll on here, i advise folks not to engage the bad faith charlatan.
This is the same guy that was advocating for bringing back blue slips even for circuit court nominees so GOP can put a total blockade on biden judical nominees.
Frank your a pathetic bootlicker and you should be treated like the bad faith charlatan like you are.
Frank the more you talk the more you reveal yourself as a charlatan. Please go away.
I reiterate the biden whitehouse has been a total failure on judical nominations this year and there is no excuse given the increased senate majority.
This disgrace of a batch is filled with prosecutors that could have well be nominated by george bush or trump.
LikeLike
I take it you are trolling, since I just wrote a couple posts above you “I have a lot of issues with how Biden’s team is handling nominations.” That is the exact opposite of “bootlicking”.
LikeLike
I take you as a good for nothing troll, that’s what i take you as.
The resident imbecile weighs in again. Frank tell us as the pathetic troll that you are, do you still support reinstating back blue slips so vile GOP senators can even further block biden nominees?
Your a bootlicker and a right wing shill in disguise, every word or sentence from you makes excuses for the right wing and the terrible judicial nominations.
You lost the benefit of the doubt and proved yourself as just a breitbart troll and charlatan the moment you suggested something so asinine as blue slips be brought back for circuit court nominations. Just imagine!!
Only a right wing troll would ever dare suggest that after mcconnell shoved right wing federalist society hacks down democrats throats despite the clear objections over their home state democratic senators.
Go away frank your a troll. I wont hold back from calling you out every single time you play the role of bootlicker.
I repeat again. This so called latest ”batch” is an absolute disgrace. Filled with prosecutors that might have as well been nominated by trump or bush
LikeLike
You know little except how to troll. I have much disdain for many things McConnell has done, and you will never hear me sign praise for him. As for your (actually reasonable) question, I understand the point made regarding how the Republicans were the ones to give up blue slips for the circuit courts and Democrats shouldn’t be willing to bring them back without a lot of give up. In a perfect world, I’d like to see a return to blue slips for the circuit courts, but this is not a perfect world and this is not the right time to do so.
LikeLike
@Frank
I’m of the mindset that blue slips should go away all together. However even if I did think blue slips should return for circuit court seats (Uuuggghhh, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth just typing that), at the very least it shouldn’t even be entertained until after Biden has 4 years without them just like Trump had.
For the record, my argument for ditching blue slips for district court seats is further backed up by what’s happening with circuit court vacancies now. I’ve said I believe blue slips are de facto back for circuit courts seats with this new WHC. But without them officially being back, I believe the process is working better. The Republican senators with vacancies are working in good faith much more now then if blue slips were officially back because if they don’t, they know Biden can just nominated a young liberal.
That leads to some nominees such as Irma Ramirez but if the goal is to fill every seat, this is the process that works better despite my disdain for some of the judges we get as a result. If we had the same process for the district courts, I think we would have a lot more Irma Ramirez instead of vacancies without a nominee.
LikeLike
I saw the number of more progressive nominees declining constantly since January 2022, so that is no surprise and so that’s an unsurprising development.
As you remember, there were since just at least one nominee with a more progressive background, but in this one there is none for the first time, except when there are just two of them.
If that has to be blamed to the WHC or the CoS is not that clear for me than for you, as the developement started earlier in my opinion.
The home state senators can actively push against, but after the start of the new administration, some daily routine has established there after two and a half years.
That the number will decrease IF vacancies in Red States can be filled, should also be clear, the subject to make progress here, is another one.
At the DC nominations, this time the WH has nominated all three recommendations for the Campbell vacancy, that is pretty strange, but at least we see it goes forward.
And IT is also done, Tax Court is needed, as the terms of two Bush nominees are running out this fall, and there are already three vacancies.
LikeLike
@Thomas
One reason the nominees are becoming less progressive is that most of the first Biden nominees were from states with two Democratic Senators. There is less low-hanging fruit than before.
Also, the Presidential election is approaching. Joe Manchin has started breaking ranks of judicial nominations and there are some Democratic Senators from Republican-voting states who have incentive to show independence.
LikeLike
@Mitch, that is definitely a big part of it. There isn’t much low hanging fruit these days, as most of the vacancies are newer or in red states.
Senators had probably been sitting on recommendations for the whole Trump presidency (or longer) so it was a lot easier to roll those out.
As far as blue state vacancies with no nominees, these are the only ones I see after yesterday’s batch (Probably missing a few)
ED California
ND California
SD California
D Minnesota
ND Illinois
ED Michigan
ED Pennsylvania
D New Jersey
D New Jersey
SD New York
WD New York
D Connecticut
D Rhode Island
LikeLike
There are a few vacancies in Hawaii.
LikeLike
@Joe
Both Oregon & Hawaii have two vacancies to fill as well. The NDIL will likely go to either Nicholas Gowen or Karen Shelley. We have 6 recommendations for the two Oregon vacancies. It’s likely Claire Connors will get one of the Hawaii vacancies.
But it’s time to start filling the red & purple seats. There’s a good chance both Indiana, the remaining Louisiana, South Carolina & 3 SDFL seats will get nominees in the near future. Some of the Texas 8 vacancies will get nominees & we have 2 recommendations for the Wisconsin vacancy (Although I don’t trust senator Johnson until I see him turn in his blue slip).
LikeLike
I left off the two:
D Hawaii
D Hawaii
LikeLike
Ha, we posted at just about the same time on that!
LikeLike
Thanks Dequan. I was going off the ACS website, but it was a little hard to get info from.
I agree, I definitely hope we see some red state nominees soon.
LikeLike
@Joe
Yea I use the ACS site as well but unfortunately they don’t update it as often & accurately as they should. Ironically I released that when for the longest they showed Hawaii had 2 vacancies when they had nine. I write them & it still stayed up for about 4 months.
Now Hawaii actually has 2 vacancies… Lol
The other night when I checked it showed the federal claims court had 2 vacancies even though one of those vacancies were filled over a month ago. So it’s a good guide but not always completely accurate.
LikeLike
A very strange event at wikipedia. Someone proposed deleting the page for Jennifer Hall, the nominee for Delaware.
LikeLike
And this is happening just as Tiffany Cartwright’s name changed from red to blue…
LikeLike
Tiffany Cartwright’s name should have never been removed. One Wikipedia idiot used a loophole to get her page taken down. I hate Wikipedia rules for even allowing such nonsense. For the record, the same user trying to take down Jennifer Hall’s page is the same person that for Jorge Alberto Rodriguez‘a page taken down. He must be a low life loser that lives in his moms basement & has nothing better to do than piss people off by using loopholes to get pages piled down that he knows people are interested in. His life must truly suck…smh
LikeLike
Looks like the same person did it for several of Biden’s other nominees as well, including Brandy R. McMillion and Karoline Mehalchick. I don’t understand why people do what they do sometimes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
WOW… I truly think some people’s lives are so miserable that the only joy they get is to make other people’s lives miserable. I can’t imagine logging in to Wikipedia & thinking to myself, let me see how I can get a judicial nominees page pulled down. I’m more mad at Wikipedia for allowing it.
LikeLiked by 3 people
One of us needs to learn all of the Wikipedia lingo so these stunts don’t get rewarded.
LikeLike
So the bad thing about Wikipedia is there’s no one person, group or department in charge of making final decisions. Basically, they leave it up to the “consensus” of the users. I’ve gone on each of the nominee’s deletion discussion pages & commented on the need to keep the pages along with a couple other users that are passionate about the judiciary.
However it doesn’t work by numbers. For instance, if 30 users comment the article should be kept but only 5 comment it should be removed or sent to draft until they are deemed “notable” later, the group of 5 can still win. There’s no exact science & since “notable” is in the eye of teh beholder, assholes can put in a request to have the page taken down. It’s ridiculous.
LikeLike
Now the Wikipedia user has gone to virtually every pending nominees page & put in a deletion request. He doesn’t want any judicial nominees to have a page until they are confirmed. If any of you are Wikipedia users, feel free to go to each nominees page & comment on the deletion page at the top of their pages. Wikipedia usually has some lingo that will allow this user’s ridiculous request to be approved so it’s important to stop him now in the process. Once a page is taken down, it’s virtually impossible to get them back up until the nominee is nearly confirmed.
LikeLike
BOOM!
(in my best RuPaul voice:)
Equal protection, you stay!
AA, sashay away!
Click to access 20-1199_hgdj.pdf
Finally, the Court has now aligned American law with the majority views of Americans and, more importantly, the Constitution. Now, for the first time since slavery, Jewish exclusion/quota, and Jim Crow, Americans can rely on the strength of their grades, hard work, and merit to matriculate to college. (And for those wondering, Clarence Thomas was an AA student, I WAS NOT!)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sad but not surprising ruling. And I’m sure the constitution didn’t want things the way they were before this ruling because minorities, woman & even non land owners weren’t considered equal when the constitution was written. There have been so many minorities that got an opportunity to go to college because of affirmative action including one of the authors of this majority decision.
LikeLike
“Strength of their grades, hard work, and merit” – AKA how much money a person’s parents spent on paying for SAT prep courses/tutoring/etc. The idea that some WASP Upper East Side kid with 1500 on the SAT has more “merit” than a Black kid who got a 1400 may be the most idiotic propositions I have ever heard.
And if you really think equal protection applies while legacy admissions are still permissible, I have a bridge to sell you.
LikeLike
Even though I oppose affirmative action, I agree with this all. Legacy admissions are a big problem (see my comment above for my position on SAT/ACT). One of my friends admitted that they supported legacy admissions until they got rejected from their parents’ alma mater and then opposed it after that.
LikeLike
I agree that race should not be a factor in admissions. But the Biden administration also pointed out that legacy admissions are a problem.
I also support economic-based “affirmative action” to counter the wealth gap created by test scores (additionally, I would support colleges returning to test-optional, which was their policy during the pandemic).
LikeLike
The UC’s went further and won’t consider test scores at all. I prefer test-optional, but I’m biased because I got a high ACT score.
LikeLike
Just gone, decades of precedence, this will directly lead to a sharp decline in latino and especially black students in colleges/universities. Meanwhile biden who black people voted for and saved his floundering campaign in the primary, cant even be brave enough to tell a charlatan and bigot like ted cruz and roger marshall, who voted to throw away legally cast vote of Americans, to kick rocks.
He bends over backwards and let them dictate to him who is and isnt acceptable.
Bootlickers and imbeciles like frank and other people afraid to criticize biden on this forum will bend over to excuse this whitehouse timidity and cowardice,when the other side are ripping away freedoms and rights of women and minorities in this country and pulling out all the stops to enact their fascist agenda, the opposition is trying to work in good faith who literally want black people to have permanent second class status.
Its not an equal playing field, one side fights with a loaded gun the other brings a butter knife to the fight.
Absolute disgrace.
What is biden going to do in reaction to this atrocious decision? Surely we are going to have a list of civil rights/NAACP right lawyers waiting to be nominated to appellate and district judgeships right?
Wrong! Biden will do and change nothing, he will keep appointing folks who spent their careers trying to lock people up for a living as federal judges .
LikeLike
When all one does is trash Biden (or praise him), they are the exact opposite a intelligent thinker.
I also am as enthusiastic as Gavi regarding the affirmative action cases decided today by SCOTUS. Disagree with the conservative justices on quite a bit, but here they are 100% on point.
LikeLike
Oh what a surprise! The right wing troll masquerading on this site who wants to reinstate blue slips for circuit court nominees so vile charlatans like ted cruz and other bad faith senators can enact total blockades on biden nominees doesnt agree with a radical extreme decision overturning decades of precedence, isn’t he kind and generous?
Get back to bootlicking and playing defense for biden as he nominates prosecutor after prosecutor even in the face of an all out assault by an extremist supreme court on minorties rights and liberties.
LikeLike
You really must had problems with Barack Obama because his policies aren’t much different than Biden.
LikeLike
Great tweet thread here about the affirmative action cases: https://twitter.com/RichardHanania/status/1674423922178281474
LikeLike
“… For the guarantee of equal protection cannot mean one thing when applied to one individual and something else when applied to a person of ANOTHER COLOR” Plain and simple.
It’s not even a big deal because applicants can still mention their race in essays and get preference that way. Let’s use anything because basic fairness.
LikeLike
No surprise in the affirmative action case. I think the Bakke line of precedent was the best position on it – no quotas, but allowed to consider it as a factor in admissions – but I certainly understand the argument in principle against the practice.
At the risk of coming across as a slightly smug Brit, I think Section 159 of the Equality Act 2010 offers the best approach to this issue, i.e. affirmative action is presumptively illegal except in circumstances where it is a proportionate means to remedy a disadvantage or under-representation suffered by a particular group.
Ultimately, I think rigid grade-based admissions are a bad thing and disadvantage people from socio-economic backgrounds – and, indirectly, certain ethnic groups – whose access to educational resources is more limited. Talent is not just a question of SAT/A Level scores and universities should be allowed to take into account other characteristics for the purposes of achieving a balanced and representative student body, as long as there is a clear plan of action to ensure that support does not stop after matriculation.
LikeLike
Can I make a point and say that I find aangren’s abusive conduct towards Frank to be incredibly off-putting. It is perfectly possible to disagree with him in a civilised way – almost everyone else does – and without resorting to constant personalised attacks.
I know Frank and I are slightly in the minority here given our more ‘centrist’ views on judicial nominees, and most people have been nothing but courteous with him and I, but aangren’s behaviour actually puts me off commenting here.
LikeLike
@livesofthelaw
I too think civility is important here. Harsh has provided those of us passionate about the judiciary a forum to discuss it with other users who are also passionate. I love this blog. I actually have a separate ring tone whenever there is a new comment. Whenever my coworkers hear my phone ring Rauw Alejandro – Curame, they say you got a new blog… Lol
I can say I am probably most aligned with @Ethan & mostly @Gavi (Except when it comes to affirmative action) but I have never felt any less welcome speaking to @Frank, @shawnee68, @Jill or anybody else who I disagree with more. I would like everybody to feel just as welcome as I do every time I log in & comment.
We don’t want to get to the point where Harsh feels the need to block, suspend or delete any comments. He has been really good at letting everybody have their opinions so I would hope none of us put him in a difficult situation to make any tough choices about the blog he hasn’t have to make before.
If any of you were around about a year or so ago there was a couple week period where Harsh didn’t know there was a glitch with the blog & it was out of commission. I felt bad not being able to communicate with all of you about the judiciary. That was a glitch, so I hope it doesn’t need to be repeated in the future because of any abusive commenting.
Thanks all & I appreciate all of you!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Dequan @livesofthelaw
If we are calling out people I think it’s important to be, dare I say, fair and balanced. Frank was the one who, on a former commenter’s cue, started the name-calling. And just like at recess, what does that lead to? More name-calling and escalated abuse. That commenter stopped using the blog but Frank still does and continued the name-calling.
I have a pretty good memory when it comes to this blog and I can say for a fact that aagren wasn’t the one to start it.
No doubt Frank and I disagree plenty, but I never feel the need to get abusive (though I enjoy lightly ribbing him). And I certainly don’t mind just calling out errors or wild statements.
I cannot stand pile on, not IRL or on here, so I thought I’d remind us all of how we got here.
Happy Equal Protection Day, Dequan and all those who celebrate the constitution (emoji with tongue sticking out)
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Gavi
Oh yea, I’m not placing the blame on any one person. Just saying like you, we can disagree without being disagreeable.
And on Hell no. I’m not celebrating that holiday. I’ll rejoin you when it’s Happy International Dale Ho Commission Day though… Haaaaaa
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gavi, that poster has stated numerous times that GW Bush would be nominating candidates just as progressive as Biden is currently doing, without any actual evidence. How is that being remotely reasonable or serious?
LikeLike
Completely agree. He’s a radical, and pissed because nobody here shares his exaggerated negative perception about Joe Biden and the administration – though I observe that some people here are moving in his direction a bit – if he’s that discontent, he’s free to vote a third party, in a serious discussion he’s not interested in, just repeating over and over again the same content.
I’m also not satisfied with everything, but I see a clear progress since Obama, many qualified and diverse judges have been appointed.
LikeLike
This new WH Council really has just let all the air of excitement from winning the senate out of the ballon.
I guess we should readjust our goals to Obama-esq candidates who’ll at least be anti-overthrowing elections.
LikeLike
That’s why I don’t eagerly predict or await nomination announcements anymore. What is there to look forward to? Nominees of yesteryear?
In fact, the fewer nominees announced, the fewer career prosecutors we’re wasting our history-defying and hard-won senate majority confirming.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Absolutely agree gavi, the nominations this year has been an abomination and an absolute disgrace, whats even worse, is voters gave democrats an increase senate majority and they cant even utilize it.
I agree strongly with you gavi, we don’t need any more prosecutors and AUSA on the bench, especially as district judges, i rather the seat be left vacant in states with two democratic senators, than spend valuable time confirming prosecutors.
The whitehouse has dropped the ball
LikeLike
Thank you gavi for accurately presenting both sides of the argument in my absence.
Frank was the one who started the name calling and insults and decided to denigrate anyone who doesn’t support the cowardice and total surrender of the biden white house.
Now the bad faith troll wants to play victim after starting what he couldn’t finish, i urge members to go back to go back to previous posts any one slightly overtly critical of this shameful white house counsel was deemed a troll
by charaltan frank.
that poster has stated numerous times that GW Bush would be nominating candidates just as progressive as Biden ”
Another blatant lie by bad faith member frank, i have said that some of the recent biden batch of nominees could have been nominated by bush as they are the standard ausa/prosecutor which is absolutely and objectively true.
Frank how do you expect to be taken seriously and not as a troll when you still advocate for reinstating blue slips for circuit court nominees? How does that make you any more serious and not reveal you to be the bad faith charlatan?
I remind people if frank had his way there would be no judge arianna freeman, andre mathis or anthony johnstone because gop senators would have been able to block them completely, and that something frank supports, becuase he wants blue slips back for nominees.
Thats why he deserves all the venom and harsh criticism, and i wont relent. He is a bad faith troll who started the name calling as gavi pointed out but no wants to play victim. I wont let you troll.
LikeLike
Pingback: Six Months Into the Unexpected Democratic Senate – Assessing the Landscape of Judicial Vacancies | The Vetting Room
@Frank
Sorry I can’t reply directly to your comment above (no reply button).
—
The question is how do you see that comparison as unreasonable or unserious?
Margaret Garnett is replacing Paul Gardephe, a GW appointee with a nearly identical pre-bench career.
Then how about Karoline Mehalchick? Her pre-bench career mirrors that of John E. Jones, the GW judge she is to replace.
And that’s just from this latest batch. So tell me again how aagren isn’t being serious by comparing the two presidents on nomination?
We are talking about what Biden is “currently doing” and I have made a presentation of the evidence as we have seen this week, you can’t get more current than that. I am highlighting this point because I know your tendency, so if you are going to rebut, ground your rebuttal within the scope you yourself set forth.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You need look no further than SCOTUS. Nobody in their right mind would equate KBJ (Biden) with Alito or Roberts (both GW Bush), and for good reason, as they are nowhere close to each other in the way they view the law. Of course there are going to be some similarities with other administrations at the lower courts with some of the district court judges (and the recent batches haven’t been super impressive in terms of career diversity), but even there there is no way any Republican administration would nominate any candidates from the Innocence Project, LDF, NAACP, or Public Counsel, all of which have seen at least one nominee from Biden (and not to mention many more public defenders than any previous administration, including Obama and Clinton).
I get that there is a new WHC in town and they are mostly going back to the way Democratic administrations have done judicial nominations before, but to cherry pick and claim just because of that Biden has been simply nominating the same types of candidates GW Bush would’ve overall is simply not true, and is not close to being true. I’ve got a lot of issues with Biden, but anyone say he is nominating only Republican-lite candidates is being plainly inaccurate.
LikeLike
Forgot to add, but even in the case of Margaret Garnett she spent time exonerating defendants. Of course that poster you have defended time and time again failed to mention that since it would go against his “Biden is a complete failure” message.
LikeLike
What aangren is arguing for without actually saying it is that he would rather see the seats stay vacant rather than filling the seats with “career prosecutors” so the Republicans will be able to fill those seats after getting rid of blue slips with FedSoc hacks, if you are of the mind of Dequan and others and don’t trust the Republicans not to get rid of them.
LikeLike