Joseph Laroski has spent virtually his entire career in the field of international trade law, traversing both private practice and the federal government. He is now poised to join the Court of International Trade.
Background
Joseph A. Laroski received a B.S.F.S. from the Georgetown University Walsh School of Foreign Service in 1993, his J.D. from Fordham University School of Law in 1997 and an L.L.M. from the Georgetown University Law Center in 1998. After graduating, Laroski clerked for Judge Dominick DiCarlo on the U.S. Court of International Trade and then joined Skadden Arps as an Associate. In 2004, Laroski shifted to Wilkie Farr & Gallagher L.L.P. and again in 2006 to Vinson & Elkins. In 2008, Laroski joined the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative as Associate General Counsel.
In 2012, Laroski returned to private practice at King & Spalding. In 2016, Laroski spent a year as Attorney-Advisor to the U.S. International Trade Commission, before becoming Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations and Director of Policy in the International Trade Administration at the Department of Commerce under Wilbur Ross. In 2021, Laroski returned to private practice at Schagrin Associates, where he currently works.
History of the Seat
Laroski has been nominated for a seat vacated by Judge Timothy Stanceu, an appointee of President George W. Bush, on April 5, 2021.
Legal Experience
Laroski started his legal career at the firm of Skadden Arps, where he worked with the International Trade Group working on antidumping and countervailing duty litigation. In 2004, he shifted to join the international trade practice group at Wilkie Farr, which shifted in 2006 to Vinson & Elkins.
In 2008, Laroski joined the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, representing the U.S. government in trade dispute resolutions against other nations. In this role, Laroski was lead counsel in an international arbitration involving a dispute between the United States and the European Union regarding disparities between U.S. laws and a World Trade Organization Anti-Dumping Agreement. He also served as lead counsel for the United States in a suit involving Chinese steel tariffs.
Between 2012 and 2016, Laroski worked in both litigation and policy at King and Spalding. In this role, Laroski represented aerospace manufacturer Embraer and advised the Government of Brazil with regard to a dispute brought by the United States against the European Union for Airbus subsidies they provided.
In 2017, Laroski joined the U.S. Department of Commerce as Director of Policy to the Undersecretary of Commerce for International Trade. In that role, he advised Commerce Department officials on trade policy, being promoted to Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations in 2020. In that role, Laroski also participated in the administrative litigation over the countervailing duty over softwood lumber (also participated in by fellow nominee Lisa Wang).
Since 2021, Laroski has worked at Schagrin Associates, returning to his work on antidumping and countervailing duty litigation. Notably, in this role, Laroski represented Daiking America Inc., a chemical products manufacturer, who intervened in a trade suit brought by Indian chemical producer Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd. See Guajarat Fluorochemicals Ltd. v. United States, 578 F. Supp. 3d 1346 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2022), available at https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=512358947348396049&q=%22Joseph+A.+Laroski%22+OR+%22Joseph+Laroski%22&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47&as_rr=1.
Political Activity
Laroski’s sole contribution of record is to Matt Doherty, a Democrat who served on the Borough Council and as Mayor of Belmar, New Jersey.
Overall Assessment
Laroski has a strangely parallel life trajectory to his co-nominee, with the two both overlapping and intersecting at the Office of the Trade Representative and the Department of Commerce, as well as sharing expertise over anti-dumping and countervailing duty litigation. This experience will serve Laroski well on the bench and he is likely to see a smooth confirmation.
The Vetting Room 
With two vacancies on the International Trade Court & one of them having to be a Republican by statute, this was about as good as we could hope for. He seems to be non controversial & even donated to a Democrat. Good pick
LikeLike
I wonder if Karen Nelson Moore and Eric Clay have officially decided not to go senior any time soon. Maybe they saw how long it is taking for Diana Gribbon Motz’s seat on the 4th circuit to be filled.
LikeLike
Why can’t it be that they simply enjoy their job and want to keep a full caseload?
LikeLike
I don’t think Moore and Clay are going senior under Biden, but not because of Motz – why would they be concerned by how long it’s taking to fill another seat in another circuit when nominees from their own states were confirmed (took a long time in the case of Bloomekatz, but still)? More likely that it’s just what Frank said + an overinflated ego.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Both Michigan and Ohio have different senators and each of them have already picked a successor under Biden, so this reason is very strange to compare them with Maryland.
I know, there is actually no more announcement of retiring and it’s August recess, but as Frank said, they enjoy their jobs, are healthy and maybe aren’t that political than folks here.
If they would be, they would have had the opportunity to leave in the past two and a half years as others did, but as we have already discussed, there have also been lots of eligible GOP judges who stayed in office under Trump, although the administration has actively asked them to do. I believe it were 26, they stayed out of the same reasons the ones under Democratic presidents do no.
The 6th Circuit had a very old liberal wing with White as the youngest judge when Biden started, so with three appointments the situation has improved much.
There won’t be much movement until end of 2024, and if, I suppose, that would happen due to health reasons or death.
Joseph Laroski is like Lisa Wang an uncontroversal candidate, so I also hope for a quick confirmation to fill both seats, who are open for such long time.
Now the US Tax Court should also be taken in consideration, Judge Elizabeth Paris term has officially ran out at 29 July, she has not transferred to the senior judges on the courts website so far, and Judge Richard Morrison is following at 28 August, both were appointed by GWB, so the court should soon have 5 vacancies out of 19 judges.
LikeLike
Another pick whom no one should have a problem with. He and Lisa Wang could be confirmed on a voice vote.
LikeLike
As you can probably tell, I am simply fascinated by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The new liberal majority there is already making waves. They’ve just fired the administrative director and it’s making the local news. Good! Liberals tend to be scared of using their power.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court is by far the most partisan state high court I know (maybe you know another?). Imagine, the Chief Justice of that court stayed away from the oath-taking ceremonies of the incoming justice. It was basically a partisan affair. Lots of state and national elected Dems. Only the other liberal justices showed up and the swing-conservative justice, Hagedorn. He literally was the one vote that saved Wisconsin’s 2020 election certification.
One justice, Ann Walsh Bradley, a liberal, literally had to write op-eds and did media tours to beg local Wisconsin media to do their best to distinguish her from the new ultra-conservative justice, Rebecca Bradley. After Scott Walker appointed her, Rebecca Bradley had to run for a full term, so she went by her last name, in an effort to trick/confuse voters into thinking she was the other Bradley who was already serving for years and had won multiple elections. Rebecca Bradley infamously wrote very nasty Ronald Reagan-level things about gays and AIDS.
The biggest unanswered question is about the court’s chiefship.
When the Republicans pushed a new state constitutional amendment in 2015 to change how the chief justice is selected, the court’s conservatives waited only 15 minutes for the amendment to be certified before stripping then-Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson of the title and placing it on one of their own.
Chiefs are now selected for renewable 2-year terms. The current chief, the viperous Annette Ziegler (who was extraordinarily rebuked by the court upon taking office) was reelected as chief by her conservative peers just in March for another 2-year term. Now that there’s a new majority, I do not know if that means that the 4 liberals can take the chiefship from Ziegler or if she has to remain chief for the entire 2 years. Does anyone know? Ziegler’s letter yesterday on the firing of the director was especially venomous and reads like a Republican partisan policy response. If she can be replaced mid-term, I really hope they do so. No more being coy about using power.
https://wisconsinexaminer.com/brief/new-supreme-court-majoritys-firing-of-state-courts-director-stirs-controversy/
LikeLike
WOW… Democrats in power actually using their power. Can we set up a field trip from Madison to DC say around the first week in September? Sure would be nice if Democrats in the nation’s capital figure out what Democrats in Wisconsin’s capital seem to have figured out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Biden has officially fallen behind Trump in confirmations at this point in his presidency. This is unbelievable considering McConnell had to change the rules in 2018 due to Dems slowing down confirmations the first two years.
https://www.acslaw.org/expertforum/president-biden-has-fallen-behind-his-predecessor-on-judicial-confirmations/
LikeLike
I knew this day would come at some point this Summer. There was one day the senate confirmed about 16 Trump judges in one day because McConnell threatened to shorten their recess if they didn’t agree to unanimous consent & confirm them the hard way. There simply is no threat of Schumer cancelling any recess. Hell this senate is now taking a majority of Monday’s off. They are coming in Tuesday afternoon & high tailing out of town Thursday afternoon most weeks. There’s no sign of that changing the closer we get to the election.
LikeLike
Ridiculous
Some will reflectively defend Biden by saying he inherited fewer vacancies. They won’t touch on the fact that Biden inherited all the senate confirmation advantages (COA blue slip/2 hour change in district court) that Trump did not have from Day 1.
I am not complaining like some on here about liberal judges staying in active status: 1 – because some of them do enjoy their job. 2 – because this WH sucks at replacing them. Now we have the figures to back this up.
Schumer seems to be the most feckless majority leader in a while. Look out for people coming to his defense by blaming western senators, or whatever.
LikeLike
Thank you for sharing Mike.
I know some will groan when I say this but I feel good about the senate coming close to the 47 number the ACS cited.
There are 17 (2 appellate and 15 district) nominees currently awaiting votes. I expect all of them to be confirmed prior to the end of the year.
There are an additional 12 nominees (2 appellate and 10 district) that are in SJC. Other than Colom, I expect all of them to get sent to the senate and confirmed prior to the end of the year.
The next 19 nominees to get to 47 will be tougher. But unlike 2022, there are many more SJC slots and executive business meetings the rest of the year. After the recess, the senate is only off the weeks of Columbus Day and Thanksgiving, which gives them 13 more working weeks. For the sake of comparison, in 2021, 10 judges who were nominated after August 1 were confirmed prior to the end of the year
LikeLike
At this point Schumer & Durbin can’t really be too much to blame if Biden doesn’t start to pick up due pace on nominations. We got another batch with just 4 nominees so we can’t fill 5 or even the max 6 slots of the SJC hearing when the senate re to end in September. We would need another batch in the next two weeks to not kiss another SJC slot. If we could get a Florida & Texas batch to hat would be enough to fill one hearing alone. I’m not sure if the backlash against the 3 SDFL candidates not having a Black woman in it had stalled or even ended that deal. Hopefully they can keep those 3 & just add a Black woman to the fourth vacancy.
LikeLike
I definitely agree on the need for more nomination from the WH.
Assuming the latest 4 nominees are at a 9/6 hearing date, there could be potential SJC hearings on:
9/20
10/4
10/18
11/1
11/15
11/29
12/13
So hopefully 7 more batches the rest of the year, with 4-5 nominees in each batch. Hopefully 1st, 3rd, and 4th circuit nominees are forthcoming as well, because I’d love to see every appellate seat filled going into an election year.
LikeLike
On the brighter side of things today.
The 140 Biden judges are starting to have an impact in their rulings.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4127619-how-bidens-court-picks-are-fighting-trumps-radical-judicial-agenda/
LikeLike
Good afternoon y’all! Had a random thought this morning and I never thought to look into it, but there is no better place to ask it than here.
When it comes to the Circuit Justice position (whichever justice is tasked with overseeing each circuit for emergency appeals and whatnot), I know that the Chief Justice is in charge of assigning circuits to each justice. After meticulously going through it and seeing which justices were assigned to each circuit, I noticed a bit of a pattern. If a Justice was elevated from a particular circuit outside of the DC circuit, they were assigned to oversee that circuit (Barrett – 7th circuit, Sotomayor – 2nd circuit, Alito – 3rd circuit). Then, I’m assuming that state of birth factors in because Clarence Thomas oversees the 11th circuit (he’s from Georgia). And potentially where a justice went to school and spent majority of their legal career (KBJ – overseeing the 1st circuit due to her involvement with Harvard)
Other than that, I wonder if the ideology of any particular circuit factors into Roberts’ decision to assign a justice over that circuit. Would he put Kagan over an uber-conservative circuit like the 5th or 8th? Or would he only put one of the liberals over the 9th to keep the peace?
Brief sidebar, but Thomas only oversees one circuit and he’s going on 31 years on the bench, he HAS to be nearing the end soon. It’s so imperative that a Dem president gets to replace him. I don’t even want to think about what a 5th circuit FedSoc hack like Judge Ho would do if he felt emboldened with no supervision or limits to his hackery as a judge anymore. Cannot have a Scalia 2.0 situation. Get the seat, fix the court.
LikeLike
This is not accurate.
The chief doesn’t randomly assign the circuits. The justices decide their own circuits, based on seniority. So if two justices want to be assigned to the First, the more senior gets it. This is why the Chief usually gets the DC Circuit, because his seniority gets him the biggest price. There’s no automatic anything, not birth or home state. It just so happens that if you are coming from a state within a certain circuit, you are more likely to want to be the circuit justice for that circuit. The rest of the court is accommodative and will more than likely allow you to take that assignment, even if you are less junior than someone else who may have wanted it.
Also, the circuit assignments are usually weighted based on the caseload. Newer justices will have fewer assignments or smaller circuits. Also, large circuits aren’t going to be doubled up. So you probably won’t see the Ninth and the Fifth assigned to one justice. Using the Chief again: while the DC Circuit is the most important circuit court, it doesn’t have a very large docket, so the Chief usually gets another assignment.
Justices also love to be assigned to a circuit that’s ideologically close to them.
This is why we need 13 justices. Historically, the number of justices matched the number of circuits for when the justices had to “ride” the circuits. (Circuit courts also worked differently back then before the pre-Tucker days.)
LikeLike
Thanks for explaining a bit better how circuit courts are assigned. I have noticed that justices who have sat on circuit courts (that aren’t the D.C. Circuit) usually get their old circuit. A review of each circuit and the recent justices who sat on it.
1st Cir. – Souter (formerly on 1st Cir.), Breyer (also formerly on 1st Cir.), Jackson (succeeded Breyer, so I assume Jackson getting the 1st Cir. was just the most logical option)
2nd Cir. – Ginsburg (lived in NY), Sotomayor (formerly on 2nd Cir.)
3rd Cir. – Alito (formerly on 3rd Cir.)
4th Cir. – Roberts (traditionally, chief gets the 4th Cir. + Roberts is from Maryland)
5th Cir. – Scalia (lived in TX), Alito
6th Cir. – Kavanaugh
7th Cir. – Barrett (formerly on 7th Cir.)
8th Cir. – Kavanaugh
9th Cir. – Kagan
10th Cir. – Gorsuch (formerly on 10th Cir.)
11th Cir. – Thomas (grew up in GA)
D.C. Cir. – Roberts
Fed Cir. – Roberts
LikeLike
Hypothetically, let’s say that the most senior associate justice grew up in Texas, spent half of their adult life in California & half of it in Ohio. Since this is hypothetical and I can make whatever parameters I want, this hypothetical justice loves all 3 of those states and is a workaholic. Thus, they are willing to take an absurd workload and want the 5th, 6th, & 9th circuits.
Does the Chief Justice swoop in and say no? Or are all the other justices happy as in “less work for me!” I could see it being a problem if multiple justices demanded they take 2-3 circuit courts for themselves and I think the Chief would step in if their demands prevented the junior justices from getting any circuit court.
LikeLike
In the current SCOTUS, things seem to work out pretty nicely. Every justice except for Kagan, Kavanaugh, & maybe Jackson oversees a circuit court that they have ties with either the circuit court itself or a state within the circuit court.
Historically, “diversity” on SCOTUS meant regional diversity so that justices could have their home circuit court — “circuit riding” often meant taking a trip home (and it still can: I’m guessing that the justices who do have their home circuit courts will visit home while circuit riding, which can now be done by car/plane).
LikeLike
Sorry for so many comments at once… this is my last one.
At least for now, the justices are cordial enough not to grant or deny appeals behind each other’s backs. Alito granted a 1 week stay to the bogus abortion pill case in Texas so the other justices could look over it, then Alito dissented from granting an indefinite stay. Ginsburg granted a stay in the Trump tax records case, which was extended when the court took the case up. Kagan often grants temporary stays, which become permanent when SCOTUS decides to reverse the 9th circuit once again.
Justices will generally refer controversial cases to the whole court. If a justice unilaterally decides a case, it means the case was uncontroversial. Until justices start unilaterally deciding cases where they think they might be in the minority (which I wouldn’t be surprised if they do at some point), the circuit justice assignments do not matter.
LikeLike
Haha, lots of notifications from you.
Riding the circuit doesn’t exist anymore. Sure, justices may visit their circuit from time to time and host events there, but that’s not riding it. As I said in my initial response to Dawson, circuit courts were organized differently back then, where the justices sat with district court judges to form an appellate court. So in order to hear an appeal, the justices had to literally ride in their horse-drawn wagons to their circuits to form the appellate court.
The granting of stays to petitions file in an emergency posture also includes capital cases. If you are against the death penalty like Powell and Stevens were, you could grant stays in such cases and force one of your colleagues to overturn you and kick the case to the full court. It takes only one justice to do that. It’s embarrassing for the granter, so you see why most justices don’t unilaterally grant them, if only out of fear of reversal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The only time I ever remember a unilateral grant being reversed was when Justice Douglas ruled that Nixon cannot bomb Cambodia. The other 8 justices reversed him the next day. Justice Douglas didn’t really care about what others thought about him.
LikeLike
I was going to list that but thought it was too much in the weeds for some. Douglas, the most outdoorsman justice ever, did that from the the Yakima mountain ridge! He was an OG that couldn’t care what you thought about him, just as long as you were thinking about him.
LikeLike
I feel the need to point out that you either misread what I said or purposefully chose to mischaracterize my statement.
Would also like to note that I correctly pointed out that the CJ has the power to and has assigned circuit assignments due to vacancies and untimely deaths. Nowhere in my statement did I use the term “random” in regard to a circuit assignment. Pretty accurate to me.
LikeLike
Dawson, I don’t think Thomas would retire under a Dem under any circumstances. Even if he was hospitalized long term. There are simply no consequences for him.
Frankly, I’m not convinced he’ll retire under the next GOP president either unless his hand was forced. I think he’ll be on the bench another 10-15 years.
LikeLike
I’ve always thought Thomas would want to break Douglas’s record for longevity, both for his own purposes and to stick it to liberals.
And I don’t think it’s making excuses or blaming Western Senators to explain Schumer’s scheduling. As I’ve said previously, I think he believes that vulnerable Democrats need more time in-state to defend their seats, and the only vulnerable Westerner is Tester. Brown and Manchin are not Westerners. While I’m not a huge defender of Schumer’s scheduling on judges (if the NDAA passed with 86 votes, it probably could have been scheduled earlier last week, even if it passed with 76 votes, for example), I do think that if he felt full Monday sessions or late Thursday or even Friday sessions were necessary for whatever purpose, he’d do it if he didn’t have the balance of the Senate in play. But I think all Schumer thinks about is how to keep the majority in 2025, no matter how the Presidency goes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think with all of the amendments that were voted on with the NDAA, there was a time agreement negotiated on where they’d just vote on as many amendments as their hearts desired in exchange for not needing to vote on a motion to proceed/cloture, I had the C-SPAN feed up last Thursday where they passed the last few amendments on voice votes and jumped right to final passage. The chamber was packed as I’m sure most Senators cast a vote and then immediately skipped town.
Not sure what September will be like for judges, since the biggest issue will be trying to stop the government from shutting down at the end of the month. The House is a complete clustuerf*ck on their Appropriations bills while the Senate so far as voted their 12 Appropriations bills out of committee on unanimous or near-unanimous votes. Reminds me of 2011-2015 where the Democratic Senate had to negotiate and pass the must-pass bills because Boehner, much like McCarthy now with the Freedom Caucus, had the Tea Party wing of his party running roughshod on him on bills like this and would require House Democrats to bail him out.
It had me thinking of last September where the entire month was dedicated to confirming appeals court judges and then had to pivot to funding the government at the end of the month, so maybe they’ll be able to squeeze some judges in the first half of the month?
LikeLike
I’m thinking along the same lines as you regarding what will happen after the recess. de Alba and Ramirez should be confirmed in relatively short order with bipartisan support, along with perhaps a few district court judges, before the focus turns to keeping the government running.
LikeLike
Ramirez obviously shouldn’t have a problem being confirmed given her voice vote in committee, not so sure about De Alba. She was a party-line vote in committee so I wouldn’t expect any Republican support by the full Senate, so that may well be a vote they take if Democrats know they’ll have full attendance. She could be anywhere from a Bloomekatz vote (no Republicans + Manchin) to a Rikelman vote (party-line vote in committee but still got every Democrat w/ Collins+Murkowski).
From a committee standpoint in September, the nominations from last week should be lined up for a hearing on the 6th, the Wednesday on the week the Senate gets back. The business meeting that should happen on the 7th will look to be a holdover week for every nominee that had a hearing in July, setting up the business meeting on the 14th where we could have 10 nominees voted out (the seven district court nominees with July hearings plus the International Trade/Federal Claims nominees, who I’d hope would be voice votes).
Ideally we’d get another batch before the end of next week (although I’d put the odds of that as fairly slim), so that we could have more than four nominees appearing on the 9/6 hearing. If not, it looks like the next batch would have to be no later than the 25th this month to get nominees for a potential 9/20 hearing slot.
LikeLike
Tim, I suspect that Long/Edwards/Maddox/Hadji batch will get voted on in committee that first week back. Yes, they have not been “held over” yet, but a meeting at the end of July was canceled and usually the SJC considers that same thing as a hold over.
The same thing actually happened with the prior batch, although one nominee was held an additional week because of a question.
LikeLike
Joe, normally I’d agree with you on nominees from a cancelled business meeting being considered held over, but the cancelled business meeting on the 27th only listed that Ohio attorney on their agenda and no judicial nominees, so I don’t know if they’ve been “listed on the agenda for the first time”. If you go back to that cancelled business meeting right before the 4th of July break, you saw several judicial nominees on the agenda that were set to be held over anyway (and were considered held over and were voted on after the 4th of July break), you don’t see that with last week’s hearing.
One thing that I noticed earlier on with the redesigned SJC website is that nominees listed for the first time are given a red font, which made it much easier for idiots like me.
LikeLike
The entire held over process is abused. So a nominee has a hearing on a Wednesday. The next week on Thursday they are pretty much automatically held over if one Republican request it (Which they do 100% of the time) to give them more time to review answers from their written questions that they have until a week after the hearing to turn in.
What bothers me is when there is a recess or when a Democrat missed a meeting like Durbin did last week because of Covid, why don’t they still have a executive meeting even if it’s just to gavel the meeting in to then officially hold the nominees over. There should never be a week after a hearing that there is not a meeting to hold nominees over maybe unless it’s Christmas, Thanksgiving or a few more major holidays. Holding over is now like cloture votes for judicial nominees. It was intended for the nominees it was really meant for but now it’s just universally used for all nominees even when they are not controversial.
LikeLike
Yeah, I only really started following Senate activity (largely for judicial nominations) in 2021 when we finally had a Democratic President and Senate, so I wasn’t all too familiar with Senate tradition before then (how non-SCOTUS judicial nominees were routinely confirmed on voice votes, UCs, if they were voted on there was no cloture vote beforehand, generally a really short time between nomination and confirmation, the fact that if the opposite party of the President controlled the Senate didn’t automatically mean that the entire judicial confirmation process was shut down, etc), but I never knew really why the process of holding over nominees existed. At first I thought maybe it was a feature/bug of a 50-50 Senate and an evenly divided committee, but I never knew that nominees were generally never held over unless there was an actual issue.
LikeLike
I would love to see de Alba and Ramirez lined up for votes as soon as possible once the senate finishes up with the Fed nominees. To me, appellate nominees should always be prioritized as soon as they’re voted out of committee.
After that Schumer can pivot to the district judge backlog.
LikeLike
I highly doubt they’ll have even 5 SJC hearings for the rest of this year, there’s only 19 (counting Maine) vacancies left for blue states and I don’t see Biden getting a dozen red state nominees especially when so many vacancies are in TX & FL.
LikeLike
This is getting good. Hopefully it ends with Biden getting to name her replacement one way or another.
LikeLike
Sorry, I forgot to include the link
(https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/federal-circuit-panel-votes-to-suspend-judge-newman-for-a-year?source=newsletter&item=body-link®ion=text-section)
LikeLike
That’s really the sad state of politics in this country. How anyone would think there’s any “good” out of this situation is beyond me.
LikeLike
“ This is getting good” is an expression, & an old one at that. It’s like saying you can take my word to the bank. There’s not really a bank involved when a person says that. It’s just an expression. But let’s be honest. You already knew that… Lol
LikeLike
Yeah right. I am sure you are overwhelmed with grief.
LikeLike
Haaaaaaa… If judge Newman can’t discharge her duties then fine. Her colleagues don’t seem to think she can. If true then yes, I want president Biden to make a judge in her place. It has nothing to do with emotions.
LikeLike
I know you can’t contain yourself but there’s no vacancy yet.
LikeLike
Correct. There currently isn’t any vacant. Hence why the first word in my statement was “IF”…
LikeLike
Fascinating and also sad situation on the Federal Circuit. What and ugly ending to a great career.
LikeLike
Talk about not reading the room. The other judges tried to keep it quiet & behind the scenes when they initially tried to get her to take senior status at the age of 95. Now she’s 96 & having her caseload taken for her. I just hope this can come to a conclusion one way or another by April or May of next year. Biden should have enough time to get a judge confirmed even that late into next year if so since the Federal Circuit nominees draw less scrutiny. I would hope the WHC had a nominee teed up & vetting not take too long once a decision is made that would result in him getting to name a judge to the court.
LikeLike
When you love your job and it’s a life long one, it can be hard to let go.
Thus you see ugly things like this happen when they shouldn’t.
What a shame.
LikeLike
I think another contributing factor is that she has no living family and presumably few friends that aren’t also on the bench. But yeah, sometimes you have to read the room.
I agree with Dequan though, as long as there is resolution sometime prior to June or even July 2024 I think this is an easy seat to fill.
LikeLike
I think this has a personal factor, which is sad, that a long and successful career has to end in this way. On the other hand the professional factor is, that if everything is true we can read here, she’s definitely unfit to serve.
Beside the medical matter, we can’t evaluate here, I would agree, that under these private circumstances Newman won’t like to leave the court and waiting for death alone at home. On the other side it’s also naive to believe that she will ever return to a courtroom and make decisions there, especially after she’s also refusing to cooperate on independent healthcare matters.
I doubt with that behavior she will convince the DC District Court to re-instate her.
And time is clearly running against her.
LikeLike