The Kansas-based vacancy on the Tenth Circuit vacated by Judge Mary Briscoe in March 2021 is the oldest pending appellate vacancy on the federal judiciary. After the withdrawal of initial nominee Jabari Wamble, the White House is hoping for better luck with federal public defender Rich Federico.
Background
Richard E.N. Federico got a B.A.J. from Indiana University in 1999 and a J.D. from the University of Kansas School of Law in 2002. After graduating, Federico joined the U.S. Navy Judge Advocate Corps as a naval prosecutor, and shifted to being a defense counsel in 2008. In 2015, Federico became appellate defense counsel, while also serving as an Assistant Federal Public Counsel for the District of Oregon.
Since 2017, Federico has served at the Federal Public Defender’s Office for the District of Kansas, serving as Senior Litigator since 2020.
History of the Seat
Federico was tapped for a Kansas seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The seat was vacated by Judge Mary Briscoe’s move to senior status on March 15, 2021. The White House previously nominated federal prosecutor Jabari Wamble to fill the vacancy, and it preliminarily seemed that Wamble had a smooth path to confirmation. However, Wamble’s nomination was subsequently shifted to the U.S. District Court and then, in anticipation of a bad A.B.A. review, Wamble withdrew his nomination entirely.
Legal Career
Federico started his legal career as a naval prosecutor in the J.A.G. Corps, before switching to become a naval defense counsel in 2008. In the latter role, Federico served as defense counsel in the Office of Military Commissions, representing Guantanamo Bay detainees in trials before military tribunals for war crimes. See Lieutenant Commander Rich Federico, The Unusual Punishment: A Call For Congress to Abolish the Death Penalty Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for Unique Military, Non-Homicide Offenses, 18 Berkeley J. Crim. L. 1 (2013).
Since 2017, Federico has served as a federal public defender for the U.S. Public Defender’s Office for the District of Kansas. Notably, Federico represented Tyler Bariss, a Kansas man sentenced to 20 years in prison for a “swatting” attack that led to the death of Andrew Finch. See Steve Almasy and Melissa Alonzo, His ‘Swatting’ Call Led to the Death of a Man. Now He is Going to Prison for 20 Years, CNN.com, Mar. 30, 2019, https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/29/us/swatting-suspect-20-year-sentence/index.html. Bariss plead guilty with both parties arguing sentence, with prosecutors requesting 25 years, while Federico requested 20. See id. Judge Eric Melgren went with the defense request, which was still well above the sentencing guidelines, which recommended 10 years. See California Man Behind ‘Swatting’ Call That Led to Fatal Shooting Gets 20 Years, CBS.com, Mar. 30, 2019, https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/california-man-swatting-call-fatal-shooting-gets-20-years/.
Political Activity
Federico has only two political donations to his name, one in 2020 to Democratic Presidential candidate Amy Klobachar, and one in 2022 to Republican Attorney General candidate Tony Mattivi.
Statements and Writings
In 2013, Federico authored a notable paper urging for the limited abolition of the death penalty under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, arguing to limit the penalty to homicide crimes. See Lieutenant Commander Rich Federico, The Unusual Punishment: A Call For Congress to Abolish the Death Penalty Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for Unique Military, Non-Homicide Offenses, 18 Berkeley J. Crim. L. 1 (2013). Federico’s paper outlines the history of executions in military justice, and has been cited by the D.C. Circuit. See Jackson v. Modly, 949 F.3d 763, 771 n.6 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
In 2015, Federico testified as a witness before the Judicial Proceedings Subcommittee of the U.S. Department of Defense Judicial Proceedings Panel. Among the issues the panel was focused on was the rewriting of sexual assault statutes in order to make them more workable. In his testimony, Federico urged the definition of the term “incapable of consenting” in the statute as it relates to impairment from substances such as alcohol. Testimony starts at P. 253 line 15 (https://texasdefenselawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Transcript-2-1.pdf).
Overall Assessment
After the failure of the Wamble nomination, Federico has at least received a warm reception from his home state senators. Despite having served in court-appointed defense for the past fifteen years, Federico’s military background as well as his support of Mattivi should insulate him from claims that he is strongly left-wing.
The Vetting Room 
I was watching an old episode of “Forensic Files” recently. EDNY judge Nina Morrison was featured in the episode as she helped free an innocent man (wrongly convicted of murder) from jail when she worked at the Innocence Project.. Didn’t click right away but when they kept going to her in the show and the name finally clicked, I wonder if that is the Nina Morrison on the EDNY seat, and it was!
LikeLike
Too bad Schumer has gone away from NY nominees like her. We are getting nominees I would expect from purple or even red states now from NY.
LikeLike
@Dequan
Given what happened in NY in the 2022 elections where Democrats lost in part because they were viewed as soft on crime, I sadly think there won’t be anymore public defenders etc. coming out of NY for judicial seats.
It will be prosecutors etc. all the way.
On that note, I know Joshua Kolar is not everyone’s cup of tea (including mine) but I have to LOL at someone who attacked him on the basis that he prosecuted someone who was a Democratic mayor.
You look up the case in question and you’ll see that the mayor and his wife stole money from his campaign funds and a food pantry to fund gambling trips.
Darn right someone like that deserves to face some prison time and suggesting otherwise is why some Democrats took some hits and rightfully so.
You can want more liberals like Dale Ho and Nina Morrison on the courts without thinking it’s okay to let bad people skate.
LikeLike
@Zack Jones
Sadly I think you are right. I don’t buy it’s a good strategy to not nominate liberal judicial nominees which energizes the base, but I do agree that seems to be the thinking & probably what to expect going forward.
As for Kolar, yea no question the Democrat mayor & his wife deserved to get prosecuted. I wrote that when I mentioned the case in the first place. Did anybody else take a look at the SJC questionnaires for Frederico & Kolar btw? I meant to mention it the other day.
Frederico was first contacted by senator Moran. However Kolar said the White House Counsel’s office reached out to him first. That was the most shocking thing of all. I would have assumed senators Young or Braun would have recommended him. So at this point it seems as though senator Moran is recommending better circuit court nominees than the WHC office.
LikeLike
Many factors explain the recent types of nominees. I would not overemphasize the 2022 midterms in that analysis, specifically in NY.
1: 2022 midterms: Sure. If you insist. (I’m curious how many NYers can name any of the judicial nominees recommended/nominated in our state, and will go into the voting booth in the next election with this on their minds.)
2: NY’s nominees didn’t start getting bad only after the midterms, see Gillibrand’s recommendations. Unless you want to remove her from the analysis. But you’ll have to explain why her nominees shouldn’t count.
3: Dem’s muscle memory. Despite some notable judicial superstars, Dems have had a much longer track record of nominating a certain type of candidates for judgeships. After satisfying the Left’s clamor for some progressive/professionally diverse nominees, Dem senators are simply reverting to the mean. You don’t forget how you approach/practice politics after just 2.5 years. As Frank likes to point out, you cannot always expect progressive nominees from stodgy moderates dead set in their ways.
Advocacy groups have mainly dropped the ball, too. These groups are now more likely to be excited by the quantity of nominations than the quality of the nominees.
4: Another one of Frank’s greatest hits, Biden knows that Dems won’t abandon him over judicial nominations. Since he’s an impossible-to-change 80-year-old, Biden’s not going to make waves with his nominees now we’re in 2024 season, especially when he’s assuming there’ll be no political cost.
@Dequan
When the WH proposed Kolar to the IN senators, how quickly do you think they said YES? I’m guessing 3.5 seconds. They probably wanted to sweeten the deal by carrying Kolar on their backs to DC for his SJC hearing.
I’m the reverse of you, in that, Moran first contacting Frederico is more surprising to me than the WH selecting subpar nominees.
LikeLike
3.5 seconds sounds pretty spot on @Gavi… Haaaaa
I’m too surprised that Frederico was recommended by Moran. There are a couple reasons why I said I’m more surprised the WHC recommended Kolar more though. For one, Frederico is a White man so I’m not surprised Moran didn’t find a White man he could stomach that he knew Biden wouldn’t say no to just to prevent another Black man like Wamble or Jacy Hurst from being the nominee. Second, Frederico has military service so I’m not too surprised Moran went with a nominee with that background. Lastly, I’m surprised no matter who the 7th was didn’t come with a package deal. I would think if the WHC was going to reach out to somebody like Kolar, they would have led with a more progressive nominee first then worked their way to Kolar for a deal to fill the district court vacancies.
But I totally agree with your analysis on your first point. And progressive groups have totally dropped the ball being happy with quantity over quality.
LikeLike
I take your point about Frederico’s background being more in line with what you’d expect Moran would be more comfortable with. But for me, the background that matters is ideology. So in that sense, it’s surprising to me. (To be clear, I’m not saying Frederico’s some flaming liberal, but I agree he’s probably more “progressive” than Wamble.)
Also, I am not surprised about Kolar not being part of a package deal. This WH doesn’t seem to make many package deals. Maybe that’s not their approach?
The clearest deal I can think of is the one for the nominees for LA seats. The others range from murky to not deals at all.
For instance, the pre-2023 PA nominees. I don’t think I’d call those package deals, since the senators had a system in place and the WH went along with it.
Nor would I consider the Ohio seats as being part of a package, when Bloomekatz was so opposed by the two GOP senators.
SC also doesn’t fit the mold as a package, as the GOP senators didn’t accept Biden’s 4th Circuit pick in exchange for a judge of their choosing.
Florida’s is still just a rumor at this point.
(Let’s not even mention the missed opportunity that the F-grade nominee Irma Ramirez is.)
What potential state packages am I missing? Idaho’s? Maybe you’ll make a different and more persuasive argument about the WH’s approach to packages.
LikeLike
I think Kolar is a fine nominee. No progressive background but I don’t see anything I particularly dislike.
Frederico is a solid “A” for me. I am very happy with that one. The fact that Moran and Marshall supported him is icing on the cake.
LikeLike
Yea I agree Frederico is an A for me too. A long time public defender, represented Guantanamo Bay prisoners, in his mid 40’s, military background & has home state support from both Republican senators. He should be the model for Ted state circuit court vacancies if Biden is still worried about blue slips (Which I’m not).
Kolar is a different story. While I agree there’s nothing to dislike about him, that shouldn’t be the standard for circuit court nominees. Nothing progressive in his background at all isn’t good enough. I give him a C at best.
LikeLiked by 1 person
While I don’t grade nominees per se, I feel like who Kolar is replacing cannot be overlooked enough here. I know it has been discussed some, but it bears repeating just how far to the right Kanne was and to get a flip is similar to Trump getting to fill Stephen Reinhardt’s seat.
LikeLike
@Frank
I think your kind of pricing our point with that statement though. Yes judge Kanne was conservative & Biden is replacing him with a (At vest) slightly left of center Kolar. But to use your Judge Stephen Reinhardt’s example, Trump did not replace him with a slightly right of center consensus nominee. He replaced him with a 44 year old, Federalist Society ultra conservative Kenneth Lee. That’s our complaint. The two examples are not the same. Trump lived the courts to the right with his flips more then Biden is moving them to the left.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You can’t know for sure how Kolar (or any nominee) will rule on cases once confirmed. “At best” he could be the most liberal judge on the 7th, but nobody can say for sure either way. That is why I am not a fan of assuming ideology, as I don’t think anyone here would’ve guessed Heytens voting to the left of Freeman, for instance, yet that is what has happened thus far.
LikeLike
@Frank
Of course we are not talking about what COULD happen. We are talking about what we know now. To use your logic Biden COULD pick a bunch of Thomas & Alito law clerks that are members of the Federalist Society as federal judges. They COULD end up being liberal.
There’s a reason he doesn’t do that. Because you pick based on what a person has done up to the present time. That’s why I would rather take my chances on a young progressive than an older conservative.
LikeLike
So being a prosecutor means that you automatically aren’t progressive? I don’t buy the law clerk argument for a second since multiple “progressive” Biden circuit court nominees such as Perez and Freeman clerked for Republican appointed judges.
LikeLike
Didn’t KBJ clerk for Bruce Selya on 1st Circuit and Brad Garcia for Thomas Griffith on DC Circuit?
LikeLike
Yep they did. More examples for why clerkships can’t be used to show what side someone will vote on. As for Bloomekatz, I wouldn’t categorize here as a ‘groopie’. I think she has appeared at FedSoc events, but from my understanding as the token leftist they bring in to provide a different viewpoint. Again, several of Biden’s nominees have spoken or taken part in these events, and they are not conservatives just from being there.
LikeLike
Rachel Bloomekatz was a Federalist Society groupie and no one had a problem with that. What would people have said if Michelle Childs had done the same?
LikeLike
@Dequan
Re: Kenneth Lee
BOOM.
Thank you, Dequan. That’s such an unanswerable point. There’s no coming back from that.
It’s disingenuous to compare Kanne and Reinhardt’s replacements without stating exactly who replaced/is replacing them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s not the big deal you make it out to be. No one ever said Biden or any other Democratic President would be seeking nominees based on their age first and qualifications last.
You can look at Justice Thomas who took a judgeship in his early forties and cannot make it on his salary. The reports of vacations taken and family expenses being paid by billionaire benefactors is appalling.
That’s what you get when you put people on the bench who haven’t earned enough in their early careers to pay their own way through life. Why do people think there’s a necessity to act like Republicans?
LikeLike
@shawnee68
For every justice Thomas you can make, I can name 10 judges who were appointed before they were 50 that hasn’t been embroiled in scandal. The problem is a Clarence Thomas & a very few others problem, not a systemic problem… Lol
LikeLike
That’s because the ethics rules on the lower courts are more stringent. Actually it has been Alito and the late Justice Scalia acquiring billionaire benefactors.
LikeLike
@shawnee68
Haaaaaaaa… You got an answer for everything. Yes lower courts have more stringent rules but that doesn’t mean they don’t have unethical people that don’t care about the rules. The only difference is unlike Justice Thomas, they would actually face consequences. Like the Clinton judge Porteous that was impeached when Obama was in office.
LikeLike
So do you but that’s okay. I don’t know of any lower court judges who violate ethics rules but there is a mechanism that can be used. Unfortunately, that’s not the case with the Supreme Court.
LikeLike
But again your only proving MY point. If out of all the probably over 100 federal judges that have been appointed under the age of 50 since 1990, you can only name Clarence a Thomas as somebody that is making so little money because he was nominated at such a young age that he has to be corrupt in order to make up for it, that proves my point. A nominee being appointed young has nothing to do with them making so little money they need to be corrupt. Clarence Thomas is just corrupt & would probably be so no matter if he was appointed at 40 or 60.
LikeLike
You know what I mean. There are several judges who have left for salary considerations.
I just note Thomas as the most egregious. If he were a lower court judge he would get gobbled up by the ethics rules.
LikeLike
Don’t worry @shaenee68. I already did the math for you months back in this very blog. If you take all of the judges that have been nominated since GW Bush then took the number that left the bench before they met the rule of 80 (Not counting death or disability), the number was less the. 2%. Now to be fair that was all judges & not just judges nominated under 50 but I’ll be happy to do that math one day too.
LikeLike
Yes, we are fully aware that no one could possibly be anything other than fine for you and that everything is just fine. If only Republicans nominee people to important courts even in the absence of a certain background…
LikeLiked by 1 person
There’s been plenty of nominees I’ve taken issue with. Jennifer Reardon, Robert Kirsch. There’s no excuse for blue states to send the WH bad nominees. I think Bjelkengren is also someone who was probably a miss by the Washington senators.
I also gave Ramirez a “C”, which is quite critical as well. My only reservation is that because of blue slips I want to see what the final outcome is for those district vacancies. Depending on how that goes I may go up or down a grade, which I feel is very reasonable.
I think I’ve been pretty consistent in that my overriding goal has always been the filling of vacancies and the remaking of the courts in a center left or liberal fashion. That doesn’t necessarily align with everyone and that’s fine. But I’d rather have raw numbers than a couple of superstar nominees but a lot of vacancies come January 2025/2029.
LikeLike
Totally agree with your final point here. The last thing anyone should want is a bunch more FedSoc hacks being installed by Trump because fillable seats wern’t filled before the end of the current Congress.
LikeLike
I agree that by this point quantity is more important than quality.
LikeLike
I’m at the point where I’m hoping not too many more judges will take senior status because their seats might not be filled (at least liberal judges, I’ll be happy if conservative judges take senior status).
LikeLike
That’s exactly where I am Frank.
If offered the choice between Ramirez + 8 nominees in the mold of John Kazen or we could get a Latina Dale Ho with no district court nominees then I’m taking option A every time. There are a lot of people in red states that deserve to see good judges and those seats aren’t worth playing political games over. Just my opinion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s the point.
You have NOT gotten 8 John Kazens. You’ve gotten a single John Kazen months after the nomination of Ramirez.
Repeat this timeline x8 and we’d be exactly where we would be if we went with the “Latina Dale Ho” model.
No amount of whitewashing can turn Ramirez into a decent nominee. By all metric she’s a terrible nominee.
LikeLiked by 1 person
She hasn’t been confirmed yet. Do you know of any cases that supports your view that she is a “terrible” nominee?
LikeLike
@shawnee68
That’s the problem. We can’t point to ANY cases from Ramirez that shows she is progressive. That is on top of her being 59. And again this is for a circuit court seat which doesn’t not require blue slips in a state that has 8 district court vacancies that do require blue slips. We got no nominees for any of those 8 when Ramirez was nominated & in the ensuing 6 months we got a grand total of ONE nominee for those eight vacancies. So that’s why she’s a terrible nominee… Lol
LikeLike
Ramirez is judge not a member of congress. This referring of judges as “progressives” is nonsense. I have not seen anyone who Biden has nominated refers to themselves as such. It’s a mis-placed term at best and at it’s worst a phony label that suits the purposes of the evaluator.
The judge has a record of ruling on cases for several years. She rules on cases in the 5th Circuit so it is not her place to go headwinds into a conservative circuit.
They have the authority to remove her off certain types of cases if she endeavors to play the games that you wrongly expect a judge to do.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“referring of judges as “progressives” is nonsense.” may be your most laughable comment yet (And that’s saying something)… Haaaaaa
Of course a judicial nominee would never refer to themselves as progressive or conservative. We aren’t judicial nominees on this blog. We are voters who get to judge a president on who they appoint to 1/3 of the branches of government. That is very much in play. And again nothing you said backs up the argument Ramirez is progressive. If you’re saying t doesn’t matter to you that’s fine. You’re a voter & entitled to the type of nominees you want. But I for one want progressive circuit court nominees so if you’re saying I’m wrong & missing something in Ramirez background, please provide it & I will happily retract my previous comments, albeit she’s still 59 regardless.
LikeLike
No, you are missing the point. You say that she is bad nominee. How come you can’t find a case that proves your point. She got the nomination so I don’t have anything to prove.
You are wrong in assuming that these judges can do whatever they feel like. They are not unaccountable.
LikeLike
You did not finish my complete statement. My full statement about Irma Ramirez is “She is a bad nominee for what I am looking for in a Biden circuit court nominees”. I want young progressive nominees. She’s 59 & since you still haven’t sent me anything to counter my claims that she has nothing progressive in her background, I’m gonna go ahead & say that is true as well… Lol
LikeLike
You should run for President!
LikeLike
Haaaaaaa… I think I’ll pass a run for office. I just look forward to making sure I hold those that do run & I vote for accountable…lol
LikeLike
Gavi, my point is that I am withholding judgement until we know how it will play out. If Kazen is all we get then I will bump Ramirez down to probably a D nominee or lower. If we fill all 8 with quality nominees then she’s a B or better in my book.
Until we see how the next 15 months play out it’ll be harder to judge.
LikeLike
Gavi i applaud you , you never sugar coat it and are always firm to many folks make it to be heresy if anyone criticizes biden.
Kolar i could even understand because the indiana senators have worked in good faith but not irma ramirez.
Truly a disgraceful nominee
LikeLiked by 1 person
Plus even if you just look at Kolar & Ramirez straight up, not taking into account the Indiana senators working in good faith, he’s just a better nominee. Ramirez is 59 & has nothing progressive in her background whatsoever. Honestly I only give her nomination a D- instead of a F+ because at least they picked a Latina which the 5th circuit desperately needed. Other than that, I would have much rather we kept the judge that resigned on the court & I never say that, not even for J Childs.
Kolar at least is in his 40’s & I would much rather him versus judge Kanne. Plus I give him some credit for his military service. I give him a C counting the high likelihood we will get all 3 district court vacancies filled too. I had no belief all 8 Texas vacancies will get a nominee. If we got 5 filled without a straight up Republican for any of the seats would be a shock to me.
LikeLike
Look at what happened to this judge.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-04-20-mn-48223-story.html
LikeLike
Does anyone know when the new Vetting Room articles about the judges that were sent to the senate today (Holland, Kazen, Smith, and Manglona will be released)?
LikeLike
Ok, may be time to add Governor Cooper to the same list as Governor Murphy after this pick. A+ all the way. I hope she’s not on the Supreme Court too long though. She should be on the first thing moving to the 4th should a vacancy arise.. A+ all the way
(https://ncnewsline.com/briefs/gov-cooper-selects-judge-allison-riggs-to-fill-nc-supreme-court-vacancy/)
LikeLike
Ha! You beat me. I started typing a post with this story and got distracted. Solid A+++
LikeLike
Haaaaaa… Well @gavi I have to give the credit to @ethan who sent me the article. Simply put, this should NOT be Riggs last judicial appointment. Now that she’s on the SCOT-NC, there’s no excuse for the competent WHC office to not consider her for any future NC vacancy on the 4th. She was already my first choice before her initial court of appeal’s appointment. This should be a no brainer now.
LikeLike
State Supreme Court Watch
Oh, my. This has got to be one of the best Democratic state supreme court appointments in the history of the republic. Hyperbolic? Yeah, I know. But with the 60-year-olds in CT and other blue states, forgive me for going over the top with this 43-ish year-old civil rights jurist. She’ll have to run for a full-term next year. Regardless of the outcome of that partisan election, she’s now an instant SCOTUS candidate in my book. I mean, look at her resume! Don’t tell me you can’t find decent candidates in “red” or any state without Fed Soc. That’s defeatism and learned helplessness.
Unfortunately, her appointment doesn’t change the balance of the NC supreme court, since she’s replacing an old Dem who’s gearing up to run for governor. And Dems last year squandered their majority when they didn’t bother showing up to vote for the supreme court and US Senate candidates.
Article: https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article279111569.html
LikeLike
What happened in North Carolina is just another sad example of how state court races are often ignored.
Sad to say but in NC, the damage done there can’t be fixed until 2028 at the earliest.
LikeLike
Nice to see cummings get confirmed by the senate, i was suprised about how many no votes but looking at his background he appears to be a solid liberal/democrat.
Age aside he is a very fine nominee. Worked for obama , then helped black workers in racial discrimination lawsuits. If he was 10 years younger i would give him an A plus.
LikeLike
Agree that he is a great nominee from a underrepresented background. Liked the pick and glad to see him get confirmed.
LikeLike
I definitely agree @aangren & @frank. Jeffrey Cummings only complaint from me is he was nominated a decade too late. Even with his age he is a better nominee then half of the 7 recommendations for the NDIL. I would have definitely given him an A+ if he was a decade & a half younger. Even with his age I still give him an A- which is saying a lot from me who emphasizes age so much. Good day & now we need either Nicholas Gowen or Karen Sheley to be announced for the final vacancy on the court.
LikeLike
On a different note, several nominees were transmitted to the Senate yesterday so we will have at least three nominees for an upcoming hearing, including Micah Smith.
LikeLike
Actually there were four, counting Ramona Villagomez Manglona for the District Court of the Northern Mariana Islands
LikeLike
I can’t really blame anybody for not counting Ramona Villagomez Manglona for the District Court of the Northern Mariana Islands… Haaaaaa
LikeLike
As Russ Feingold would say, courts matter. Even the District Court of the Northern Mariana Islands.
LikeLike
I’ve always found it odd that the U.S. Courts site includes the Court of Claims since it’s not an Article III court. Same with District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands.
LikeLike
There’s always one question nobody has been able to answer for me to this day. Why are the judges on the Puerto Rico district court lifetime appointments but the judges on the Northern Mariana Islands not? I would think they are under the same category.
And @Frank yes I agree. I was halfway joking but definitely even having a Biden judge versus a federalist society hack on the Northern Mariana Islands is important.
LikeLike
That is because a law was passed in 1966 giving the District Court of Puerto Rico Article III status. Prior to then that court was an article IV court. In theory, a law could be passed to give Guam, Virgin Islands, and Northern Mariana Islands district courts article III status, but it simply hasn’t been done.
LikeLike
Oh ok, thanks for the insight @Frank. I’m surprised a law hasn’t been passed for Guam, Virgin Islands, and Northern Mariana Islands. It seems ridiculous they don’t get lifetime tenure but Puerto Rico does. Now we have to waste a SJC slot at the next hearing for a judge that’s already been doing the job for over a decade just to get another decade on the court.
LikeLike
What Frank said.
But less of a “theory” and more of a standard procedure. Congress has the power to create as many Article III courts as it sees fit. Empowered by Art IV, Congress decided to judicially administer those territories using non-Art II tribunals. (Separately, I personally hold that all non-Article III courts of the US are unconstitutional, but that’s for a different day haha.)
Art II judicial administration of Puerto Rico makes sense as that commonwealth’s status is different than the others, and it was the subject of about 6 of the 9 Insular Cases.
And as to @raylodato, it’s a public-facing administrative website for US courts, not US Article III courts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
All those Article “II” in that last comment should be “III”
LikeLike
I am looking forward to the confirmations of marian gaston and almadani both California nominees, who are among the best of biden district court picks.
Aside from washington i think california senators have done the best jobs recommending district judges
LikeLike
California has too many less than stellar nominees for me to speak that highly of them. Washington state is number one in my book. New Mexico is second in my opinion. All 3 picks so far from Biden have been good. I had New York ahead of them for a while but there post midterm picks have dropped off way too much for me.
Obviously New Jersey is last for blue states. Hell I’ll even throw in Louisiana above New Jersey although after Edward Kiel is officially nominated I may finally put NJ slightly ahead. But still no red state should be anywhere close to a blue state in quality of nominees.
LikeLike
Who are the confirmed judges in NJ that are below a ‘B’ grade?
LikeLike
The easier question is who out of the (Soon to be) 10 NJ judges are above a B. So far only Castner & Semper. Padin would have been stellar if she wasn’t in her 60’s. I would probably give Neals a B- & same for Quraishi simply because he’s the first Muslim judge. But the rest, no way I could go as high as a B. Maybe you can make the argument B- for Farbiarz.
LikeLike
Absolutely amazing that a terrible nominee (pre-appointment) like Quraishi could be elevated into B territory simply for the fact that he’s Muslim.
By that logic, no matter the destruction he’s caused or his swampy ethics, there’s still hope for Clarence Thomas just because of the race he achieved.
I will never understand the inexorable draw that is identity politics.
LikeLike
@gavi
I do not think Quraishi was a great nominee for a blue state. However I do think it was important to check off the first Muslim federal judge. Sometimes the first isn’t the greatest. It just is the way it is. But I said I could be talked into him possibly being a B- (Not a B). But more than likely I would say he’s a C+.
LikeLike
I agree with Dequan here, there have been too many traditional nominees to put CA so high in terms of the quality of nominees. They have been completely fine, but nothing spectacular as a whole. If forced to choose, I would probably put GA as the highest on such a list.
LikeLike
@Frank
How could I forget Georgia. You are correct, I would put Georgia ahead of New Mexico. I think I even agree with you to put it ahead if Washington state. While Washington state has some phenomenal nominees, the Eastern district moves them down a peg a bit.
LikeLike
I guess that was all the judicial confirmations for this week.
LikeLike
I get that @Gavi but the Tax Court is an Article I court with 6 vacancies and they are not listed on the U.S. Courts site. I don’t know why Claims is listed if Tax is not.
LikeLike
I wish biden would get a few more vacancies in georgia, his two picks have been fantastic, i trust warnock and ossoff to recommend strong nominees.
Also shout out to massachusetts senators as well, angel kelley, margaret guzman, kobick and joun are solid strong nominees as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Warren & Markley have been good too. I can’t put them above Georgia, Washington state & New Mexico however because of the ages of both Angel Kelley, Margaret Guzman. Not bad nominees, but age is too important to me.
LikeLike
On GA, we are in agreement. MA has also been good as well, can’t argue with the nominees there either.
LikeLike
NDIL Chief Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer turns 69 today. Since her chief term ends in a year, I wonder if she’ll announce senior status plans in the near future.
LikeLike
All 9 nominees passed through SJC this morning. Graham had a hissy fit about Mehalchick, but that was the closest vote. The R Senators seem to think they can ride immigration to victory next year, so they postured on that.
Can’t wait for another statement from Schumer saying how intent he is on confirming judges, while at the same time not actually scheduling any votes to do so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It makes me even more sick when nominees like Mehalchick get a bitch fit from Graham & unilateral opposition. She is not the most progressive possibility even from that area of the state, yet we get this push back. If that’s the case, we might as well get a progressive in their low 40’s or even 30’s. I thought the whole point of this new strategy of nominating non-controversial nominees was to get more bi-partisan support.
LikeLike
This is my oft-repeated argument. Folks jump and dance for joy for mediocre at best nominees because they reason that those nominations will be easier to confirm, then you end up with the same 2 or 3 or no GOP votes. But it’s always easier to double down on an error than to admit when we’re wrong.
LikeLike
Exactly. If these nominees were getting 10 plus Republican votes maybe I would shut up. But we’re struggling to get Graham for this nominee? So now nobody is happy. If that’s the case just go with a young liberal so at least you excite the base. Give them a reason to vote for Democrats & not just against Republicans.
People were dancing in the streets partying like it was 1999 when Dale Ho was confirmed. This nominee will likely be confirmed by only a couple more votes & I didn’t even bother watching the SJC hearing this morning…smh
LikeLike
Thanks for this! I couldn’t tune in for the votes. Graham’s has had a thing against Mehalchick for a while. What was the vote on her nomination this morning?
LikeLike
Gavi
Today’s results
Click to access 2023-09-14_-_ebm_-_results.pdf
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hawley, Cotton & Blackburn all voted no even on Joseph A. Laroski, Jr. for the United States Court of International Trade. They are disgusting.
I am angry Durbin still thinks they along with a few others will work in good faith to fill judicial vacancies in their states when they can’t even vote for a non-controversial Republican for a non-controversial state. No wonder we have a total of ZERO blue slips turned in for their three states even though they have had at least SEVEN vacancies in their states since Biden took office.
LikeLike
@Rick
Thanks a lot. It gives me a savage satisfaction to see that only Graham voted for Margaret Garnett. I take nominations to SDNY personally since it’s my court. We were promised that such a highly respected nominee would have wide crossover appeal! Ha!
@Dequan
As you know, I go back and forth on ditching the blue slip, but usually leaning toward preserving it. I’m at my lowest ebb of support when Rs just can’t find it in themselves to support even a certified fellow Republican. There is zero chance those three would allow Biden to fill any district court in their state, unless it’s for a Chad Meredith type nominee.
I can’t wait to see Biden give away the store to negotiate a terrible 6th Circuit nominee that would make Irma Ramirez look like Dale Ho. Only for Blackburn to not play ball on the district court nomination. It would be foolish to assume Biden would go the Andre Mathis route again.
LikeLike
@Gavi
Yup. The days of shoving an Andre Mathis down a no good faith Republican’s throat are over for the time being sadly. And remember, when Biden does give away the store to get blue slips returned for whoever he nominates to the 6th, that will be followed by a city shut down all day parade hosted by Durbin with a 21 gun salute to start the SJC hearing for that nominee as he joyfully boast about how Blackburn & Haggerty turned in their blue slips. Uuuggghhh
LikeLike
Haha
I truly hope these are the last Dem politicians of this kind. And this has nothing to do with age. We need fighters, like Whitehouse!
LikeLike
I wouldn’t hold your breath on that. Democrats want conscecous building moderates willing to work to get things done, not fire breathers (and I certainly don’t want someone in an all white club as the SJC chair or anywhere near leadership).
LikeLike
Let me fix it for you:
“Frank wants conscious building moderates willing to work to get things done, not fire breathers…”
There.
LikeLike
Look at who wins Democratic primaries these days. It is almost always the candidate most aligned with Joe Biden, not Bernie Sanders. That’s all I’ll say.
LikeLike
SJC meeting wrapped up, here are the votes:
-As expected, Mehalchick (M.D. PA) was a party-line vote, 11-10
-McMillion (E.D. MI), Garnett (S.D. NY) Wang (Intl Trade) were 12-9 votes, with Graham voting Yes
-Maddox (Maryland) was 13-8 (Graham and Kennedy voted Yes)
-Edwards (W.D. LA) and Long (E.D. LA) were both 16-5 16-5 (Cruz, Lee, Hawley, Cotton, Blackburn voted No)
-Hall (Delaware) was 16-5 (Cruz, Hawley, Cotton, Kennedy, Blackburn voted No)
-Laroski (Intl Trade) was 19-3 (Hawley, Cotton, Blackburn voted No)
-I didn’t get the vote on Hadji (Federal Claims), the audio cut out while the Democrats were voting, although watching the video I did see thumbs up from Grassley and Tillis’s proxy voters.
Lutzko (N.D. Ohio Attorney) was voice voted, Lee, Cruz, Blackburn, Hawley recorded as No (Durbin made a hot mic remark to Durbin about how Vance is blocking her confirmation with a hold over the DOJ prosecuting Trump, despite Vance turning in his blue slip for her)
Perry (N.D. Illinois Attorney) was 12-9, with Graham voting Yes
LikeLike
Schumer files cloture on Vernon Oliver and Rita Lin.
LikeLike
I don’t understand why Schumer keeps passing over Kenly Kiya Kato. Vernon Oliver was nominated May 4, 2023. Kato was nominated December 15, 2021. It’s way past time to get her confirmed.
LikeLiked by 2 people
My only thought would be that he knows he needs perfect attendance for her, plus maybe the VP, and has a hard time feeling safe in scheduling her.
LikeLike
He might be waiting for one week to confirm all of the nominees like Kato that will need perfect attendance plus the VP to offset a Manchin no vote. There was a couple week stretch where we finally got most of the hard line A+ nominees like Abudu & Ho confirmed. I assume they can knock it out on October.
LikeLike
There is also the possibility that Sinema is a no on Kato and they are waiting for some R absences.
LikeLike
Even McConnell didn’t have the guts to confirm a nominee who would fail with all 100 senators voting while a bunch of Democrats were out. When Tim Scott and Marco Rubio opposed Ryan Bounds, his nomination was over.
LikeLike
I can’t think of any successful Trump nominee who had more than 1 Republican voting against, even with their 53-47 majority in 2019-20.
LikeLike
Mark Bennett – Hawaii was confirmed to the 9th circuit with double digit no votes from Republicans. It makes no sense to know a Republican senator will be out & not take advantage of it
LikeLike
Ohh yup… forgot about the consensus nominees where the Democrats all or almost all voted Yes and the Republicans were divided.
LikeLike
Mitch McConnell & Republicans have stolen two Supreme Court seats in the past 7 years. I don’t care if a Republican senator is out because they are feeding the needy in Bangladesh. Screw them. This is our country & rights we’re talking about. Three of them just voted no in a non controversial Republican to a non controversial court today in the SJC executive meeting. It’s time to stop bringing a knife ti gun fights. I wish Tim Scott well at the debate as Kato, de Alba & anybody else is confirmed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agree with that.
LikeLike
For now though, good to see a few more confirmations next week. Hopefully at least one of the spending bills can be wrapped up then too.
LikeLike
My guess is Kato is going to need every Democratic vote she can get and some missing Republicans to get across the finish line.
In the mean time, I’ll take any judicial confirmations we can get, especially in areas where they need every judge they can get.
LikeLike
I’m not sure if Duckworth is back yet from having Covid, and if Dems have another absence, Kato won’t be confirmed. I doubt that Sinema is a no on Kato. She voted for Dale Ho, who is a lot more extreme than Kato.
LikeLike
If Chuck doesn’t just set up those close judicial votes for 9/26-9/27 when Tim Scott is going to the debate in California it’s just gonna be unbelievable.
LikeLike
Ideally, he should, but if there’s a governmental shutdown bill, I’m sure that’s going to be the priority.
LikeLike
I’m hoping Schumer is smart enough to know when Tim Scott will be 3,000 miles away to confirm Kato, de Alba & maybe one or two more during those two days. But I’ve been disappointed with hope before.
LikeLike
Kenly Kato can’t be anymore controversial than Dale Ho or Nancy Abudu – can she?. I don’t think she has a Twitter history of yelling swear words at conservatives or saying overly controversial things.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kenly Kato can’t be anymore controversial than Dale Ho or Nancy Abudu – can she?. I don’t think she has a Twitter history of yelling swear words at conservatives or saying overly controversial things.
LikeLike
Looking back on the KBJ SCOTUS hearings re Hawley & Romney
I like that Josh Hawley is toxic within his own caucus, though the extent of that is unknown (perhaps not equal to the pre-2016 Ted Cruz level of toxicity). Now that Romney is retiring and he’s spilling the beans, it reminds me of the days post-SCOTUS hearings for KBJ. Hawley et al went hard on her about being soft on child p. I remember Romney being so disgusted with their tactics and coming out in favor of her nomination shortly thereafter. If only Romney had consistently voted for other judicial nominations after Hawley and co. level baseless attacks against them.
Based on the Republicans lining up to succeed to that seat, we might get yet another Hawley instead of a Romney.
LikeLike
To be honest, I think Spencer Cox is probably about the best that we could hope for from Utah at the moment. More likely we’ll get some Mike Lee clone unfortunately.
LikeLike
Evan McMullin would probably be the best hope for replacing Romney but I would take Spencer Cox over another Mike Lee type too
LikeLike
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/the-gilder-lehrman-institute-of-american-history_votingrights-activity-7107076679948218368-IPIc?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop
There is an upcoming webinar online in a few minutes, titled The Right to Vote: The Role of States and the US Constitution” it features second circuit judge myrna perez and is hosted by CNN john avlon. You can register and watch it for free online.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve been researching Kirk Sheriff, whose selection for Eastern California surprised me. It turns out that he’s a renown expert on white collar crime, particularly mortgage and unemployment fraud. He’s also made a name for himself investigating forest fires.
There is a place in the judiciary for judges who have great expertise in arcane areas of the law.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There’s definitely a place for people like Kirk Sheriff. They are called red states, maybe purple states. But in blue states, particularly bright blue states like California, we need to maximize the young progressive nominees to most seats. And for God’s sake he’s about a decade older than the judge he’s replacing. I give his nomination a D+ personally.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Completely agree Mitch. Diversity of experience is never a bad thing to bring as a federal judge.
LikeLike
Harsh must be hard at work gathering info on pending nominees we don’t have an article for yet. The Richard Frederico write up may break this blog record for most comments if we don’t get a new one soon… Lol
LikeLike
Wren’t there over 800 comments on one of the articles from earlier this year? Still a ways to go there.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s right, Frank. a bit over 800.
Remember during the dry months I’ve been pleading with Harsh to hold back on the frequency of new write ups. Getting 2 or 3 write ups a week guaranteed that we’d be out of new nominees before long.
The last time I pointed this out, I remember Frank saying that we still had 3 or 4 to go. Well, you forget that we go through those 3 or 4 quickly and this WH is never in any rush to name new nominees.
LikeLike
Sounds like Harsh wants to get the write ups all out of the way and then go have a nice long vacation (at least a vacation from writing these posts). Just like the senators (except the senators go on vacation without getting all the nominees out of the way)
LikeLike
Haaaaaa… I’d much rather the reverse. I still can’t believe Schumer recessed for 5 weeks with so much pending even not including judges. I swear it’s hard being a Democrat sometimes…smh
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am new to this website, but I can tell other users know a lot about the ideologies of lower court judges, which is something I’ve been wondering about (especially 9th Circuit judges). Can you guys tell me how liberal/centrist/conservative these following judges are: Jeffrey White (ND CA), William Orrick (ND CA), Mary Murguia (9th CCA), Mary Schroeder (9th CCA), Ronald Gould (9th CCA), Johnnie Rawlinson (9th CCA), Morgan Christen (9th CCA), Jacqueline Nguyen (9th CCA), Andrew Hurwitz (9th CCA), Mark Bennett (9th CCA), Anthony Johnstone (9th CCA), L. Felipe Restrepo (3rd CCA), D. Brooks Smith (3rd CCA), Jeffrey Howard (1st CCA), and Anne Traum (D NV)
LikeLike
Hello CJ. Welcome to the blog. I’ll be happy to give my opinion on the judges you mentioned that are in active status. To be honest I don’t really keep up with judges once they go senior status or retire (although as a side note Andrew Hurwitz (9th CCA) was very liberal & I’m still surprised to this day he was able to get confirmed since Arizona had two Republican senators at the time & blue slips were still in play under Obama). I’ll give you my personal grade for each at the end.
Mary Murguia (9th CCA) – She was a good pick… A-
Ronald Gould (9th CCA) – He is at best left of center, probably closer to a centrist. I am really hoping he goes leaves the bench under Biden with a Democrat senate majority. He is wheelchair bound so if he leaves the bench, I hope he would be replaced by judge Whitehead from the WDWA so we can get a young, disabled, progressive Black man on the bench in his place… D+ for Gould
Johnnie Rawlinson (9th CCA) – She is amongst one of the worse Democrat appointed circuit court judges on the bench. She even tried to name her replacement & decided to stay on the bench after that offer was soundly rejected. She is to the right of some Republican appointees on LGBT rights for instance… D-
Morgan Christen (9th CCA) – She is about as good of a judge you can expect out of Alaska… B+
Jacqueline Nguyen (9th CCA) – Another good pick… A-
Mark Bennett (9th CCA) – This was the best Trump circuit court judge we got coming from the perspective of a Democrat like myself. He’s the oldest & not particularly conservative.
Anthony Johnstone (9th CCA) – He was my first pick for the seat from the very beginning. To date he is the only law professor out of all of Biden’s circuit court nominees… A
L. Felipe Restrepo (3rd CCA) – He had a progressive pre judge career. He’s another judge I’m surprised got confirmed with a Republican home state senator & blue slips. The only reason I don’t give him an A+ is because of his age… A
Anne Traum (D NV) – Another good progressive pick & another law professor. I only am taking some off her grade because of her age but to be fair she would have been higher 5 years ago had she been confirmed when Obama nominated her.
LikeLike
I think Dequan did a pretty job categorizing the judges. Murguia & Nguyen are good judges but more moderate than Dequan’s grades suggest. I think Murguia actually leaned conservative her first few years but seeing from her recent en banc votes Murguia is definitely a liberal now. Nguyen has joined conservative dissents on whether to go en banc; she voted with the conservatives on death penalty cases & the private prisons case, but most of her rulings are good/at least reasonable.
I’ll try to answer for the ones Dequan didn’t. For circuit judges, I’m familiar with the ideologies of any judges who were still in active status in 2019 (the year I gained interest in the circuit courts and their judges).
Jeffrey White is left of center and has ruled in favor of gay rights and environmental protection.
William Orrick & Mary Schroeder are standard center-left Dems.
D. Brooks Smith is a center-right Republican. A study on the 3rd circuit showed that very few if any judges on that court were ideologues (the study occurred before Trump appointed judges joined the court).
Jeffrey Howard is also a center-right Republican. He was the most conservative member of the 3rd circuit for many years but only because the court was so liberal. Juan Torruella, the other Republican appointee, was left-of-center, and the rest of the court was Democrats.
I would say the few true moderates on the 9th circuit are Ronald Gould, Johnnie Rawlinson, Milan Smith, & John Owens. I think it’s too early to tell exactly where the Biden judges are ideologically but I would wager that they are to the left of the moderates and to the right of liberal lions such as Berzon/Fletcher/Paez.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’d say the more surprising thing about Restrepo wasn’t his blue slip by Toomey, it was the fact he was confirmed under a Republican-controlled Senate, which only confirmed two appeals court judges during Obama’s final two years as President (and the other was a Federal Circuit nominee, and that court isn’t really fought over by the parties anyway).
LikeLike
I’d say the bigger surprise with Restrepo wasn’t Toomey’s support, but that he was confirmed under a Republican Senate that only confirmed two appeals court judges during Obama’s final two years as President. The other nominee being a Federal Circuit nominee, which that court isn’t really fought over between the two parties anyway.
LikeLike
In relation to Johnnie Rawlinson, I find it strange that she’s conservative leaning on LGBT issues, but liberal leaning on envirnmental issues. Also, has their ever been a judge who named someone they wanted as their successor ever succeed in having the president nomination them, because, Rawlinson failed to do it, Judge King (4th CCA) failed to do it, with Biden refusing to nominate Carte Goodwin, and with Michael Kanne (7th CCA) also failing to it, with Trump refusing to nominate Tom Fisher.
LikeLike
On this blog many people label black women as “conservative” is they make a ruling against an LGBT person.
When KBJ was a district judge she ruled against against black plaintiff’s in employment discrimination cases on a few occasions. No one ever called her a “conservative.”
You’ll see people refer to Judge Childs on the DC Circuit the same way. It’s nonsense and a peculiar form of racism.
LikeLike
shawnee68, when I said Rawlinson was conservative-leaning on LGBT issues, I was referring to what Dequan said about her being to the right of some Republican appointees on LGBT rights. I wasn’t trying to say Rawlinson is a conservative, but that she has mixed views, because at same time, she is liberal-leaning on envirnmental issues.
LikeLike
I am sorry I did not mean to imply what about you personally.
I think Dequan plays fast and loose with labels like “conservative” on a small subset of cases. In most instances, it isn’t cases it has to do with the job before they became a job.
Some people on here are pushing an agenda but it’s not going to change anything as no one here works in the White House.
LikeLike
@shawnee68
There you go again. I see you mention me calling Rawlinson & Childs conservative. I also see you conveniently left out the dozens upon dozens of non-Black woman Democrat appointed judges I’ve called too conservative. Hell just from Biden new Jersey nominees alone I can think of a few. Nice try though… Lol
LikeLike
@shawnee68
I would say a judge that rules against the rights for under privileged& underserved communities are the ones that “plays fast and loose with labels like “conservative””, not me… Lol
And aaahhh yes, it’s time for your weekly advise that we the people sit down, shut up & take whatever our government gives us silently. Of course, you will completely ignore progressive groups rising up against governor Hochul trying to put another conservative on the highest court in New York & getting him voted down & replaced by a liberal pick instead. You definitely will ignore countless other examples of similar examples from both the right & left. But hey, let’s just take your advised, sit back & do nothing… Haaaaa
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am new to this website and am curious about the ideologies of lower court judges (especially the 9th Circuit). You guys seem to be good at finding the ideology of lowers court judges and I’m wondering if you could tell me how liberal/centrist/conservative these following judges are: Anne Traum (D NV), Jeffrey White (ND CA), Jon Tigar (ND CA), William Orrick (ND CA), Mary Schroeder (9th CCA) Mary Murguia (9th CCA), Morgan Christen (9th CCA), Jacqueline Nguyen (9th CCA) Andrew Hurwitz (9 CCA), John Owens (9th CCA), Mark Bennet (9th CCA), Anthony Johnstone (9th CCA), L. Felipe Restrepo (3rd CCA), D. Brooks Smith (3rd CCA), Jeffrey Howard (1st CCA), Roger Gregory (4th CCA), Dabney Friedrich (D DC), and Jane Kelly (8 CCA)
I know a few of these judges haven’t been on the bench for very long, but for those I’m hoping someone could give a prediction for their ideology.
LikeLike
For a few of the senior status judges I named, I was especially wondering the ideologies of the GOP nominees who went senior under Biden, because of how much to the left Biden would be able to shift the seat. The ones that I named were the first few I could think of.
LikeLike
@CJ
D. Brooks Smith (3rd CCA) was conservative. He left the bench because he got a big pay day from his current employer.
Jeffrey Howard (1st CCA) wasn’t nearly as conservative. He was right of center but not too much of a surprise to me he would go senior under Biden.
I know you didn’t mention her but Julia Gibbons has some health issues another user mentioned on this blog. If true, that is likely the reason she chose to go senior under Biden.
LikeLike
There’s a Homeland security hearing for the remaining Superior court of DC nominees this upcoming Thursday.
(https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/hearings/nominations-2/)
LikeLike
I learned that last June, Camille McMullen was named Presiding Judge of the Tennessee Court of Appeals. She is the first woman and the first person of color to achieve that.
I still think she’s a name to watch for the Sixth Circuit, with Julie Gibbons taking Senior Status. Kevin Ritz is another name in the mix. I can see them as a package for a Sixth Circuit and Western District Judge vacancy.
I think McMullen has a better chance of being the nominee this time because she’d succeed a Republican appointee. Bernice Donald was a progressive judge if I’m not mistaken, but McMullen strikes me as pretty moderate.
LikeLike
@Mitch
Most definitely. We have spoken on this blog at length about what you wrote above in regard to the 6th vacancy. Former Obama nominee Edward L. Stanton III could also be in the mix for the district court vacacny. I would also throw the other Us attorney Henry Leventis in the mix for the 6th as well if Biden is going to work in good faith & not do what I would want which is a repeat of Andre Mathis nomination. The only thing that may work against McMullin is if she were to be confirmed, 2 of the 3 6th judges from Tennessee would be Black. I think Blackburn would rather eat chalk then have anything to do with that… Lol
I wish Bidne would just continue the Trump model & nominate who he wants for circuit court vacancies in red states. There are several A & A+ possibilities for this seat. I’ll mention a few below;
Stephen Ross Johnson (born c. 1976) – A+
Tricia Herzfeld (born c. 1975) – A
Maha Ayesh (born c. 1980) – A
LikeLike
@Mitch,
I know you’ve mentioned Magistrate Judge Tu Pham. I’d also throw in Magistrate Judge Alistair Newbern (born c. 1973). She (yes, she) used to be a law professor at Vanderbilt, where she directed the Appellate Litigation Clinic.
I do wonder though if Tennessee Senators will push for someone from the eastern part of the state (like Travis McDonough) because Mathis is from Memphis and Stranch is from Nashville. Gibbons is also from Memphis so maybe they see the vacancy as an opportunity to even out the distribution of Tennessee judges on the 6th circuit.
LikeLike
Camille McMullen would be a good pick. Don’t see how anyone could be upset by her. I did like Mathis slightly more than her, but she would be a solid B+.
Regarding Ralwinson and King, I understand that the administration may not have wanted to play their games in 2021 but it might make a bit more sense in 23/24. There are fewer more potential seats to be filled.
LikeLike
@joe
I admittedly think like you inside at times. The problem is you don’t want to start setting the precedent that judges can pick their successor. Over the long term I think it causes more damage than the short-term gain.
What needs to happen is the conversations happen behind closed doors & never be made public. I don’t think Ralwinson would have gotten her way either way because both Nevada senators have made it clear a commission would be formed for any vacancy on the 9th. I think in King’s case it was possible. The man he wanted to replace him with was actually my number one pick so I wish they could have quietly given him what he wanted.
There are many examples of past backroom deals that weren’t known at the time. The seat that was vacated & eventually filled by Thurgood Marshall on the SCOTUS was due to a backroom deal. More recently I wouldn’t be surprised to find out years later that Candace Jackson-Akiwumi being appointed to the 7th was part of some back-room deal making since we saw her father announce senior status shortly after she was commissioned despite them being in different circuits & having no risk of conflict of interest.
There are other opportunities for backroom deals right now. Carl Stewart on the 5th comes to mind. His daughter is a magistrate judge in Louisiana.
LikeLike
I agree. It is a dangerous precedent and I certainly wouldn’t want it to become public. But yeah, someone should get Joe Manchin and Judge King together in a room and work that one out. Seems like a no brainer.
LikeLike
Would you agree with my ranking of the circuit courts from most liberal to least liberal?
1. 1st circuit
2. DC circuit
3. 4th circuit
4. 2nd circuit
5. 9th circuit
6. 10th circuit
7. 3rd circuit
8. 6th circuit
9. 11th circuit
10. 7th circuit
11. 5th circuit
12. 8th circuit
LikeLike
@Ethan
The 1st circuit is definitely the most liberal now with more help still to come from New Hampshire. I might switch the 2nd (1 seat Democrat advantage) & 9th once de Alba is confirmed but for now I would agree.
And of course, there’s always a back & fourth about if the 5th or 8th is the most conservative. i personally agree with you that the 8th is the most conservative, but I wouldn’t argue if anybody put the 5th ahead.
LikeLike
@Dequan,
The are more firebrand conservatives on the 5th than the 8th but the odds of getting a liberal panel are slightly higher on the 5th.
LikeLike
Yup, that’s why I personally would put the 8th as more conservative than the 5th. But to be fair, the opposite argument that has been made is understandable.
There’s little to no chance of changing the minds of many of the conservatives on the 5th, combined with the possibility of getting one of the Democrat appointees to join the conservatives in rulings (Especially after Ramirez is confirmed). There is at least a chance at changing the minds of a small number of Republican appointees on the 8th even if you get a bad panel draw.
LikeLike
@Dequan- Just because your feel pity for a particular party in case doesn’t mean they are required to prevail in their case. It sounds like your are saying that judges can make up decisions based on their background.
We don’t have kangaroo courts in this country. Nor are we a banana republic. None of the judges who wear your label as progressive is going give anyone preferential treatment.
Have you ever served on a jury? It’s made pretty clear there.
I am a big fan of the politics of the sixties. What people do now is whining. Lot’s of folks not voting and then they bitch and moan about the government we have. I wish you would address that issue
You live in Florida I am sure you know people from Venezuela. Ask them to compare their government to ours see what they say.
LikeLike
Pointing out judicial rulings & criticizing them isn’t what I call “whining”. I have voted in every election since I was legally able to, so I certainly do my part. I agree with you that more people need to vote but that is a separate issue from what the new user CJ was asking, which was our opinions on the judges he asked about.
My issue with what you have said is you act as if us speaking up isn’t the way it’s supposed to work. You make it seem as if we should remain silent & just take what we are given. We have CLEAR examples of groups & people speaking out to change policies including who is nominated to the judiciary.
If you have an argument against some of the grades some of us give nominees on this blog, I would welcome that discussion. But to suggest that the argument itself isn’t warranted & can’t lead to any change completely ignores precedent, facts & reality.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you don’t like a judge’s decision in a case feel free to write them and explain why they are wrong. You see what I mean? You can direct your complaints directly to that person or you can whine on a blog. There’s a difference.
Let’s be clear complaining on blogs is not “speaking up.”If John Lewis and people in the sixties had blogs to bitch in do you really think any change would happen? Of course not. They had skin in the game and that something this generation knows nothing about. They don’t even have the decency to acknowledge sacrifices that previous generations have made.
The grades for judicial nominees are silly and can’t be taken seriously. It’s far too subjective to have any real meaning. It’s created to suit the purposes of the evaluator.
LikeLike
Lawd I don’t even know where to begin. Let’s go step by step;
Why would anybody write a judge if we don’t agree with their opinion? They are already confirmed with lifetime tenure. That’s the whole point of lifetime tenure, so the judge theoretically can’t be influenced.
Nobody on this blog has compared themselves to John Lewis. We are Americans who have an opinion & are expressing them with people who are interested in the judiciary.
If you don’t like grading nominees you don’t have to. But once again I will repeat myself from numerous other times. This is a blog about the judiciary. Therefore we talk about the judiciary on here. That will include praise, complaints, grades & other discussions about the judiciary. I’m not sure what part of that you don’t understand…lol
LikeLiked by 1 person
I know disagreement is difficult for you. You don’t have a problem telling me if you think I am wrong.
Of course you can write a judge and tell them what you think of their rulings. I can almost guarantee you they will write back.
The people you disagree with in article 3 positions are not the high and mighty boogeymen you portend them to be.
LikeLike
Actually disagreement isn’t difficult for me at all. I have friends that are hard core Trump supporters for example. As I’ve told you if you or anybody want to talk about a nominee or judge & we disagree I welcome it.
That’s not what this is about. This is about you thinking we don’t have the right on a blog about the judiciary to discuss the judiciary… Lol
LikeLiked by 1 person
Then you should have problem with writing the judge who issues a opinion you don’t like.
My issue is that like you prefer to whine on a blog than complain to person you have an issue with. (Not just you many others on here too)
As if whining on blog is like a protest in Tianiman Square. If you don’t like something then say something so long as it’s the person you have a problem with.
To whine on a blog is not enough. What’s the point?
LikeLike
I have participated in the process outside of this blog. I am part of two progressive groups, written the White House twice & have written to several representatives.
But that is not the point. If I (Or anybody else on this blog) had not done any of that, it still has nothing to do with us wanting to come on this blog to discuss the judiciary with others who are interested. If you don’t want to read or discuss the judiciary then there are plenty of other blogs out there. I’m sure you can find one where people will discuss what you like. But on this blog we discuss the judiciary. There are really no limits on this blog so that discussion make include criticism, praise & grades. Nobody is forced to be on this blog so if you choose to be on it, be prepared for all of the above.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You see you don’t like incoming. You can dish it out but can’t take it. Go ahead issue grades and the like on nominees who you really know nothing about as if there’s value in that.
I have to say respectfully that you don’t own this blog nor are your views kingpin over anyone else’s.
I don’t have a problem with you writing to the White House and complaining that judges are too old or not liberal enough. I think they have weightier matters to address than that.
It must be nice to complain about issues like that when many people don’t have roof over their head. This is certainly true in Miami where you sweltering heat in the evening hours. Have at it.
LikeLike
What part of anything I wrote days to you I don’t like incoming disagreement. I literally wrote in my reply I welcome a difference of opinion… Lol
I’m not even sure what you mean by “It must be nice to complain about issues like that when many people don’t have roof over their head.” I am not pro homelessness, I’m pro being an American & being allowed to state my opinion however.
And I definitely don’t know what you are referring to when you write I don’t “own this blog nor are your views kingpin over anyone else’s.” I often refer to Harsh who does own this blog & I have never once said my views are more important than anybody else’s. I actually said the opposite, that I welcome everybody’s views. You are literally the ONLY person on this blog who is trying to get people NOT to give their opinions. Hell I don’t always agree with @Frank but at least he brings alternative arguments that make sense. You are simply making things up that we’re not said whatsoever to try & guilt people out of giving their opinions… Lol
LikeLiked by 1 person
You can say that I tell people not have opinions as many times as want but doesn’t make it true.
You contradict yourself saying that you welcome opposing views but suggest that things that I say are out there no one else agrees.
I have my own opinions and I am a grown man. I don’t need assurance from others.
So, at the supreme court the conservatives outnumber the liberals 2-1. When the rulings are handed down does that mean the liberals are wrong and conservatives are correct? Talk about not making sense.
I was trying to make a larger point about homelessness. Those people have real problems and you are complaining about the age and ideology of judges.That’s all I was saying.
LikeLike
@shawnee68
Uuuggghhh… You never miss a moment to miss a moment.
Yes I am on here “complaining about the age and ideology of judges”. You want to know why? For the 200th time, because this is a blog about the judiciary. Therefore, we will discuss the judiciary on here. What part of that you don’t get I just don’t know at this point. Us discussing the judiciary on a blog about the judiciary doesn’t mean we do not care about other issues such as homelessness. But this isn’t a blog about homelessness which is why (Say it with me so maybe this time you get it) we talk about the judiciary on this blog about the judiciary.
I am not contradicting myself. I do welcome any opposing views from you or anybody else on this blog. The issue is you’re not talking about the judiciary (Again which is what this blog is about). You’re bringing up other crap that has nothing to do about the nominees & judges we are talking about.
If you have a problem with anybody’s opinion about a judge let’s hear it. As of now you have spent two days talking about everything but judges… Lol
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree with most of the list, but I personally think the 6th Circuit is more conservative than the 11th. And I do agree with the placement of the 7th Circuit for now, but I think the Circuit will move up the list upon the confirmation of Joshua Kolar (I’m aware that Kolar is not a hard-core liberal, but I think he’ll vote along with the court’s liberal wing). But other than that, I very much agree with the list, especially with the 1st Circuit being the most liberal.
LikeLike