The 39-year-old Holland has served for the last five years as a career law clerk to Chief Judge Elizabeth Wolford on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. Holland now has been nominated to join Wolford as a judge on the court.
Background
Born in 1984, Holland received a Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Science from the University of Rochester in 2006 and went onto earn her J.D. summa cum laude from Cornell Law School in 2010 (graduating first in her class). Holland then went into private practice, moving between Nixon Peabody LLP, LeClairRyan PC and Boylan Code LLP.
In between her private practice positions, Holland clerked for Judge Elizabeth Wolford and for Judge Michael Telesca on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York.
Since 2018, Holland has served as a career law clerk for Chief Judge Wolford and also as special counsel for her since 2021.
History of the Seat
Holland has been nominated to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. This seat opened on April 1, 2023, when Judge Frank Geraci moved to senior status.
Legal Experience
Of the thirteen years that Holland has spent out of law school, she has spent more than half in the chambers of the Western District of New York, where she has served as a clerk and an advisor to the judges of the court, including in drafting “hundreds of judicial opinions.” However, as none of Holland’s work as a clerk bears her name, it is difficult to determine the exact nature of her work product.
Outside of her time at the Western District of New York, Holland has worked in commercial litigation in the Rochester area. Among her cases during this time, Holland represented Tumac Lumber Company in a contract dispute involving a failure to pay for delivered goods. See Tumac Lumber Inc. v. Chenango Valley Pet Foods, Inc., Civil Action No. 3:11-CV-0698 (DEP) (N.D.N.Y. May 15, 2012). Holland also filed a breach of contract suit against Coupons.com, alleging that the site was using proprietary technology that was provided to them for use in evaluating a business relationship. See Document Security Sys. Inc. v. Coupons.com, Inc., No. 11-CV-6528-CJS (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2012).
Writings
As a law student, Holland authored a note discussing the increasing diagnoses of Autism Spectrum Disorders (“ASDs”) and the legal rights implicated for those diagnosed. See Colleen D. Holland, Autism, Insurance, and the Idea: Providing a Comprehensive Legal Framework, 95 Cornell L. Rev. 1253 (2009-2010), available at https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3183&context=clr. In the paper, Holland advocates for a new conception of ASDs, arguing that it is important to support the “actual, expressed needs of the autistic individual.” See id. at 1282.
Overall Assessment
It is not unprecedented for career law clerks to be appointed to the federal bench (Judge Frank Volk in West Virginia is another recent example), as many of the skills they develop on the job transfer over to the position of judge. However, as much of their work as a career law clerk is behind the scenes, it is difficult to gauge a nominee’s temperament or philosophy when they have spent a significant portion of their career as a career law clerk. When combined with Holland’s youth and the fact that she has spent over 4-5 years litigating, many may criticize Holland over a lack of judicial experience. As such, perhaps more than other nominees, Holland needs to watch out for “gotcha” moments at her confirmation hearing.
The Vetting Room 
I have this fantastical fantasy that Chuck sets up like 10 or 15 district cloture votes next week so he can more easily fit in a confirmation vote during other business throughout the weeks and months to come.
It’s totally doable but in my mind I know they’d never do it.
LikeLike
That is very unlikely. Schumer usually only does cloture for the next 1-2 days worth of business at a time. Really the only possible exception would be at the end of the year when he’s trying to clear a backlog.
LikeLike
I have this fantastical fantasy that Dua Lipa will marry me.
Actually, that probably has better chance of occurring than Schumer setting up 10+ cloture votes for judges.
But to be fair, the District Court nominees won’t take that much time to confirm with only 2 hrs post cloture time needed
And 3/4 Circuit nominees aren’t even controversial so there may even be a voice vote for one or two ? of them..
LikeLike
My previous prediction of 180 by the end of 2023 isn’t looking too hot. We’re at 145 now, and by my count (Article III only), we have 36 nominees at various stages, with one of them (Colom) who won’t get confirmed by the end of the year, if ever.
So we’d have to have a clean sweep by the end of the year, and if all it took was for Schumer to issue another statement saying how committed he is to confirming judicial nominees, we’d be in good shape. But I’m sure there’s another Deputy Under Secretary of Public Affairs for some department who’ll move to the front of the line.
Right now, I would settle for Kato, all the CCAs (including Aframe), and 10 other district court nominees. But oh, I forgot–we have to prioritize the nominees for Fall 2024 vacancies.
LikeLike
I would estimate closer to 170 by the end of the year.
LikeLike
Thought this article might interest y’all:
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/biden-judicial-appointment-status-report-topping-trump-seems-impossible/
LikeLike
I think we are at 145 rn, so by end of year:
1) we can probably get to 160 if schumer does 5 more judges this month, 5 more in november and 5 more in december
2) or we can get to 170 if schumer does 5 more this month, 10 next month and 10 in december
LikeLike
Not disagreeing with either @Joe or @madan9125–my guess is probably too high now. I think it was wishful thinking, b/c if we got to 180 by the end of the first session, there was a chance (however slight) we could surpass 234 by the end of Biden’s first term.
LikeLike
Yesterday, the Judiciary Committee had a hearing. John Neely Kennedy went after Mustafa T. Kasubhai and succeeded in giving the impression that Kasubhai wants to eliminate proof and evidence standards for equity cases. He also ridiculed Kasubhai about instructing participants to include their preferred pronouns. It wound up on youtube. He could get bottled up in committee.
LikeLike
Yesterday, the Judiciary Committee had a hearing. John Neely Kennedy went after Mustafa T. Kasubhai and succeeded in giving the impression that Kasubhai wants to eliminate proof and evidence standards for equity cases. He also ridiculed Kasubhai about instructing participants to include their preferred pronouns. It wound up on youtube. He could get bottled up in committee.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kasubhai had a rough hearing yesterday. Durbin tried to save him a couple times. There’s two good things out of that though. First, it took the heat off the other nominees. Second, regardless of what happens to Kasubhai, there are 5 other recommended possibilities for Oregon & 4 of them would be an A or higher in my book.
LikeLike
It was bound to happen. I think he would be the 3rd Muslim federal judge if he were confirmed. He and the people in the WHC office, who are responsible for preparing judicial nominees, should’ve known that the GOP senators would turn their collective outrage towards an openly progressive Muslim federal judge nominee.
It’s better to be overprepared and realize the preparation was unnecessary after a less-than-contentious hearing, than to underprepare and get tripped up by Sen. Kennedy’s gotcha questions and a group effort by the committee republicans.
Any nominee left of Ayn Rand will cause them to get pissed off and grandstand before the cameras, prepare for war and get the votes outta the way. Even nominees that Trump nominated whom Biden RE-nominated gets 40+ of them to vote against, these aren’t serious people.
LikeLike
For anyone interested, Balls & Strikes has a tracking page with nominees, a short bio and a picture (for most). One thing of interest to me, at this point of his presidency, Trump had appointed 150 nominees to Biden’s 145 confirmed thus far. So, we need more of a push, but we can get there…
https://ballsandstrikes.org/bidens-nominees/
By and large I have been pleased with the types of nominees we have been seeing. Their is a nice mix of progressive and center left nominees, with a few moderates here and there. For me, its terrific to see a good mix of professional diversity, along with more nominees who are women and folks of color. Biden has down a really nice job of diversifying the judiciary in a way we have not seen since Carter. Not to mention Justice Jackson, the first black women to sit on the high court and seemingly an overall great nominee. Every seat Biden has filled so far is one less Trump appointed judge – important to not lose sight of that!
My biggest gripe with the Biden White House has been the slow pace recently of nominees. There is no excuse for not maxing out the number of nominees at each hearing. Trump and McConnell really got this when it came to filling seats. The example I use is often is the too soon death of Judge Pam Reeves in the E.D. of Tennessee. Six days later after her death in Sept. 2020, they had a nominee for the seat announced!
The White House Counsel should be doing a better job getting nominees announced timely, no excuses!
LikeLike
@Mike S.
I looked at the Balls & Strikes tracker the other day. Biden is even further behind where GW Bush was at the same time. Obama was behind all three. Just goes to show you that Democrats work in good faith when Republicans are in power but it’s not reciprocal. That’s another argument I’ve been making for Durbin to ditch blue slips.
But overall I definitely agree with you Biden has done a great job diversifying the courts & it hasn’t been seen since Carter. By the way I’m happy to see him celebrate his 99th birthday last week. It’s a shame he’s the only president in history to serve at least 4 years & not get a SCOTUS pick. He, not Reagan would have appointed the first woman justice had he had the opportunity.
LikeLike
One other thing of interest when the Senate gets back is if and when they pass the new organizing resolution for Butler’s committee assignments. The business meeting on the 19th would be to vote for Lee and likely hold over the nominees from this week’s hearing. Most likely outcome IMO is the meeting is cancelled, the nominees are considered held over, and then the nominees from this week and Lee are all voted out on the 26th business meeting, even if the new committee assignments are in place by the 19th.
I feel the latter is the most likely outcome since it feels the norm for this Congress is to vote out the judicial nominees in one big batch, it felt like last Congress they were voted out incrementally.
LikeLike
Yes, I’m surprised they didn’t do the reorganization this past week. Hopefully that is address the week they return.
LikeLike
While Biden is only 5 behind Trump at this point in their respective presidencies, Trump had 5 more district court confirmations by October 24, 2019.
With the Senate not returning until 10/16 this year, and only 2 nominations teed up for that week so far, there’s no way Biden’s pace doesn’t fall further behind. He’d need 7 confirmations between now and 10/24 to get even.
But who knows? Maybe Schumer will hold a Friday session just for judges. Or work late on a Thursday. And I’ll grow a third arm…
LikeLike
When are folks on here going to seriously start considering that biden is likely a one term president? High quality polls both national and state have shown biden trailing donald trump, its fair to say bidens odds of re election is at best 50 percent odds, trump was in a stronger position this time in his presidency a year out from the election than biden and he lost narrowly electoral wise. This whole year judicial nomination wise has been a total disappointment in my eyes, we taught democrats gaining an extra seat on the judiciary committee and having more leeway would result in progressive nominees even further left, only to get back to the mold of white men and prosecutors.
If you told me back in 2021 when we were getting stellar picks like jackson akiwumi on the 7th and myrna perez on the 2nd circuit, that a white man who has been a prosecutor for decades in the US attorney office was being celebrated on here for an appellate pick i would have laughed you out. The bar has been dropped so low and expectations reduced to nothing.
I will maintain my position on seth aframe we dont need more white men federal prosecutors on the bench period, if i had my way that would be a dis qualifier especially for appellate nominees.
He clerked for a GW bush appointee and was the head of the criminal division in the us attorney office! Not even the civil rights division! He is an mediocre pick but nothing to write home about at all , we have enough federal prosecutors on the bench, period! No amount of cope can change that issue
Please dont insult our intelligence, can you even compare a pick like seth aframe to arianna freeman or holly thomas? or heck even toby heytens!
A white guy in the same mold of toby heytens who was was a professor would have been palatable not another prosecutor who has spent the vast majority of his career locking people up.
LikeLike
@aangren
Just this morning a Marquette University Lae School poll shows Biden 51% to Trump’s 49%. The polls are all over the place my man. The honest truth is it’s way too early to pay too much mind to polls.
As for Seth Aframe, it seems as if you still haven’t either done research on the nominee or you’re simply leaving out what you found in your research. The only thing you got right about him is he’s a White man. Again, if you’re saying he’s a bad nominee because he’s White, even though I disagree with you, that’s your prerogative.
But to say he’s a bad nominee because he “has spent the vast majority of his career locking people up” is simply leaving out far too much that led me to grade him an A+.
He oversaw complaints of election fraud and abuse of voting rights. He worked with the Justice Department on their Election Day Program. He literally was at poll stations on Election Day in that capacity to protect voter rights & fight against election intimidation. He worked on on programs to helped prisoners & defendants to get treatment over punishment for some low-level drug offenses.
And yes he prosecuted people but a lot of them should have been prosecutors. Bitcoin fraud thrives are one example. Plus he is a current law professor which is a field we have said is underrepresented by Biden picks.
So I’m sorry but just saying somebody is a prosecutor while leaving all of the above our is not an accurate portrayal of the nominee. Him being White is but again we simply don’t feel the same way about worrying about somebody’s skin color when they are otherwise a stellar nominee.
LikeLike
I actually find myself agreeing with you here somewhat. While Aframe isn’t a terrible pick and is certainly qualified, you are right on that there is an overrepresentation of prosecutors on the federal bench, and I’m not seeing anything in his background that suggests he’ll approach cases any differently than one of the many other prosecutors already on the bench. Expectations have dropped, and that is because there is new leadership in both the WHC and COS who are looking for more traditional picks. You and I may not like it, but it is what it is. That being said, the fact that Aframe clerked for a GW Bush appointee is irrelevant, seeing as Perez (and several of Biden’s best circuit court nominees) clerked for a Republican. Every time I hear that argument, I laugh since it is so far from being accurate.
LikeLike
Dale Ho also clerked for a Republican appointees which is why I completely bypassed that statement. I would disagree expectations have dropped. I personally have criticized Biden for many of his post midterm nominees. I’m raving about this nominee because he is straight out of central casting for what I’m looking for.
A current law professor that has fought against election fraud, fought for voter rights, fought to decrease our prison population by pushing for treatment for low level drug offenders versus jailing them, in his 40’s. I’m not sure what else you can ask for. He would be a great Biden pick no matter if it’s October 2023 or October 2021.
Look I get it. Biden has veered to the right since the midterms on his judicial picks & we (Myself included) tend to assume the worst when we see a new batch come out. But I’ll repeat what I said the other day. We need to take a win when we get one. This is a stellar nominee if you are looking for the same thing I am in Biden circuit court nominees which is young attorneys with a progressive background.
And all he has done was in New Hampshire, which isn’t exactly the center of liberal America. Had New Hampshire voted for Gore, GW Bush wouldn’t have become President. I believe the state either is or is one of the top states per capita for its residents being White. So that makes me give Aframe even more credit then had he lived in California or New York. For anybody to say he isn’t a good nominee because he came out of his mothers womb with White skin is laughable to me & I’m a Black man that had advocated for more Black men on the circuit courts.
LikeLike
I am absolutely loving this internecine debate on identity politics by two of the biggest proponents of such racialized politics.
This is what you should always expect, because racial politics is always, always zero sum.
What’s the difference between aagren’s logic on a Aframe who happens to be a certain race and Dequan’s logic on Clarence Thomas who happens to be a certain race? Not a darn thing.
This is why the only standards that *should* matter are qualification and ideology.
But they will never be able to understand this. So they’ll only be able to agree on the Dale Hos but not on the Aframes.
You live by the quota; you die by the quota.
LikeLike
@Gavi
Haaaaaaa… Good one. But you’re missing one of my points when it comes to diversity. I said diversity matters & should be a factor overall. I never said it should be the determining factor as to if a nominee should be chosen at all nor have I certainly never said a highly qualified A+ nominee should be passed over because he’s a White male for a bad diversity pick.
So for me, Biden has made 41 circuit court nominations. Only six have been White men. Now had all 41 been White men the yes, I would have more of a problem with this nominee. But that isn’t anywhere near the case. So that’s where I disagree with you on my consideration on diversity. It’s not ONLY about diversity for each pick but overall is how I look at it.
LikeLike
@aangren
Yeah, the polls are concerning for me too but only the swing state polls. I don’t care if Trump wins Ohio and Florida by 15% each and Biden wins NY by 5%, conservatives love to remind us the popular vote doesn’t matter. We just need to win a 3-4 swing states.
I’m just having understanding all these swing states that 11 months ago beat Trump candidates like Kari Lake in AZ losing by 6k more votes than Trump did and Trumpsters in Wis, Mich, Penn losing by 3% to 20% to now polls saying Trumps neck and neck with Biden?
Something doesn’t really add up considering inflation was way worse last Nov at 8% than now at 4%. I get Bidens 200 years old but FFS America, Trumps only 3 years younger. I’ll be pretty shocked if a president presiding over a 3.8% unemployment rate loses reelection because people think the economy is bad.
Plus, the election is still a year out and polls had the GOP winning up to 4 seats in 2022 so I won’t lose all hope yet.
@Dequan, are you sure you’re not referring to the 10/4 Marquette poll that’s got Trump at 51 and Biden at 48?
LikeLike
Mike, I agree with you. These polls don’t really make sense to me.
I’m interested in seeing more high quality polling from swing states once it’s clear Trump is going to be the nominee.
LikeLike
@Mike
No this morning I was watching Morning Joe on MSNBC & they put the poll up. I took a screenshot of it actually to send to @Ethan.
LikeLike
Of course anything can happen but I am much less worried about Biden than I am the US senate.
These national polls don’t tell a lot because 1) They’re 13 months out and 2) they are polling nationally. To get a real glimpse we should only be looking at the swing states.
To win re-election, Biden needs to win Pennsylvania, Michigan, and then one of Wisconsin, Georgia, or Arizona. That’s it. Of course there are multiple other computations and possible outcomes to victory, but by far the most likely tipping point is going to be one of those 5 states.
Trump is more popular than ever in red states (including my own unfortunately). But that popularity doesn’t really matter if it doesn’t transfer over into swing states. Biden’s support tends to be softer because people have concerns over age or because they don’t think Trump will really be the nominee, but that is going to change in the next few months once the campaign begins in earnest.
LikeLike
Vetting Room changed to Horserace Polling Room.
Quick! Someone! Say something judicial to stop our further descent into election politics. Isn’t that what DailyKos is for?
LikeLike
Haaaaaa
@Gavi I know right. Ok here is something judicial related. But I must warn you, make sure you’re not operating any heavy machinery or eating anything with chicken bones in it before reading.
The other day Durbin was on the senate floor trying to get UA consent for the pending US Attorney’s & Vance objected. Durbin took the floor again & guess what he said…
To paraphrase, he said senate rules shouldn’t allow for one senator to hold up US Attorney’s getting a vote. Man I was eating Chinese food at the time & almost chocked on my veggie roll when I heard him say that. The same man that is allowing blue slips to allow one senator to block judicial nominees… Haaaa
LikeLike
Hahaha.
And it can be argued that a blue slip is worse than a hold. The entire senate can override a hold. The blue slip blocked all actions before a nominee even gets to the floor.
Durbin is trying to have it both ways. Steadfastly sticking to his blue slip policy while feigning outrage to make like he’s standing up to the Republicans.
LikeLike
Blue slips id definitely worse. I swear if I was s senator on the SJC I would wait for the next hearing. Then when it was my 5 minutes, I would tell the nominees relax, I want to use my time to talk about blue slips. Then I would say Mr. chairman I would like to enter a statement into the record regarding blue slips. Then I would play Durbin’s comments & say just substitute U.S. Attorney for judicial nominees & enter it into the record please… Haaaa
LikeLike
Biden Judicial Appointment Status Report – Topping Trump Seems Impossible by Brookings Institution:
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/biden-judicial-appointment-status-report-topping-trump-seems-impossible/
LikeLike
What bothers me about the current state of the judicial confirmations is having 2 dozen future lifetime judges just sitting there for months or years when all that needs to be done to confirm them is 4 hours of senate time, that’s it, 4 hours and you have a judge for the next 20 years and they’re dragging their feet.
What worries me about the current state of the judicial confirmations is having Chuck and Dick acting like they weren’t there when McConnell basically told Obama to shove it for his last 2 years of judicial appointments and not confirming every blue state vacancy with urgency as they’re extremely likely to lose the senate.
LikeLike
I’m hoping now that we have Butler, Schumer can officially count to 51. Prior to her we really only had 50 & 1/2. Throw in Manchin & Schumer probably just didn’t feel confident bringing up the judges I would give an A or A+ to unless he had a commitment from the VP that she will be available for a tie breaking vote. I know seeing Jennifer Hall teed up first after the recess week off next week is a disappointment but we have to understand a nominee from the president’s home state will usually get priority over others. Gregory Williams was confirmed in about 3 months as well to reference another example.
When the senate returns they are in session for about 5 weeks straight. And they aren’t even taking as many Monday’s off the rest of the year. If Schumer dedicates even just 2 weeks of they 5 weeks before Thanksgiving, that should go a long way to fleet the backlog.
LikeLike
Regarding Hall jumping the line, I know Delaware it the president’s home state but I remember Coons, an SJC member (I can’t attest to whether this is true or not) mentioning how the Delaware District Court is slammed year-round so any vacancy would be a serious problem (this is probably a court that needs its number of seats expanded for non-ideological reasons, no?). That was my thinking of why Hall may have been prioritized but I forgot the vacancy for this set doesn’t open up until the end of the year, so we’d be confirming a judge who won’t be seated until after the New Year at the earliest? Again, the only two district courts I’d have any knowledge of the specialty of their caseloads are probably SDNY (financial cases) and NDCA (Big Tech cases), so feel free to correct me.
LikeLike
It is true that both the Delaware district has a heavy workload & is the president’s home state. But that doesn’t change the fact that she will be confirmed in October for a seat that doesn’t open up until New Year’s going ahead of other nominees they have been waiting longer for seats that are open now. I just don’t understand the logic other than a nominee from the president’s home state will be confirmed at all cost & as soon as possible regardless of if it makes the most sense.
I remember Gregory Williams got a SJC hearing ahead of other nominees that was announced earlier & confirmed in about 3 months. I guess that’s the perk of being from the home state of the leader of free world.
LikeLike
I agree that having Butler should help improve attendance issues. One less thing we need to hold our breath on.
I do worry about Manchin and Sinema the closer we get to November 2024, which is why we need to prioritize any nominees that are remotely controversial now before campaigns seriously ramp up
LikeLike
Brendan Hurson received his commission yesterday
LikeLike
With the war in Israel, I wonder if the Senate will stop everything to pass a military aid bill.
LikeLike
Military aid for Israel should be non controversial. I think the bigger question will be why would some Republicans support aid in that case but not for Ukraine. The debate may take up floor time.
LikeLike
I think that they would try to package Israel funding, Ukraine funding, and government funding all into one minibus
LikeLike
There are many people who are not too fond of Netanyahu and the direction that Israeli government are heading.
LikeLike
Beverly O’Connell died exactly 6 years ago, vacating her Central District of California seat. Her vacancy is the longest in the nation & the nominee for her seat, Kenly Kato is the Biden nominee that has been pending the longest. Chuck Schumer will hopefully end both of those the first couple of weeks the senate returns from this week’s recess.
LikeLike
I’m predicting Ana de Alba and Kenly Kato will likely have their clotures in invoked by Schumer on the same day when Democratic attendance is good, probably sometime in late October or November.
LikeLike
With Butler sworn in there really isn’t too many excuses left except for COVID (Which Republicans either don’t test or don’t report). Honestly my biggest concern is Tuberville’s military hold more than Democrat attendance with Butler replacing Feinstein. If that situation isn’t resolved, Schumer will give in & use more floor time to confirm the military personnel.
LikeLike
And with Scott leaving for the debate on November 8th, there’s no reason to not confirm Kato and De Alba by then, at the latest
LikeLike
Was just thinking, while there is a possibility of a hearing on 10/18 next week, will the SJC really hold a hearing for just two eligible nominees? I’m thinking the more likely outcome is Holland and Manglona will be rolled into the 11/1 hearing with the batch from this past week.
LikeLike
Well, if De Alba is not confirmed by 10/18, they can still hold a hearing on Holland, Manglona, and Fonzone, and then if De Alba is confirmed by 11/1, they can hold a hearing on Sherriff, Aframe, Kiel, Russell, and Dellinger on 11/1. There’s 3 eligible nominees for 10/18 no matter what.
LikeLike
More than likely. Since the administration seemed to have forgotten you don’t have to wait for a nominee to be confirmed to send their replacement nominee to the senate, Kirk E. Sherriff still doesn’t have his nomination sent to the senate. de Alba should have been confirmed before the recess so they could have sent his name to the senate & the4y could have had a hearing with him, Holland and Manglona on 10/18 along with a non-judicial nominee.
LikeLike
Well, if De Alba is not confirmed by 10/18, they can still hold a hearing on Holland, Manglona, and Fonzone, and then if De Alba is confirmed by 11/1, they can hold a hearing on Sherriff, Aframe, Kiel, Russell, and Dellinger on 11/1. There’s 3 eligible nominees for 10/18 no matter what.
LikeLike
The WH could send Sherriff’s name to the senate and include him as well, if they wanted to.
It’s very possible that all 3 are simply moved to 11/1 and combined with the 3 from last week, though.
LikeLike
This WH has for some reasons not sent nominations to the senate if they were nominated for a current district court judge who was nominated for a circuit court judgeship. The best example was the first batch.
Biden nominated 11 nominees. 10 of the 11 were sent to the senate the same time. The 11th was Florence Pan who was nominated for KBJ’s DC district court seat. Pan’s nomination wasn’t sent until KBJ was confirmed to the DC circuit.
The WH doesn’t need to wait. Using the same example, there’s no reason they couldn’t send Pan’s nomination with the other 10. If for some reason KBJ was not confirmed to the DC circuit, then you withdraw Pan’s nomination. But Pan should have had her hearing & been pending a confirmation vote once KBJ was confirmed.
Same with Sherriff. No reason he needs to wait for de Alba to be fo firmed to have his hearing. The EDCA is one of (If not THE) busiest district court per judge in the country. The lapse in time between the time de Alba is confirmed & Sherriff is confirmed will only add to the workload of each judge.
LikeLike
Well, if De Alba is not confirmed by 10/18, they can still hold a hearing on Holland, Manglona, and Fonzone, and then if De Alba is confirmed by 11/1, they can hold a hearing on Sherriff, Aframe, Kiel, Russell, and Dellinger on 11/1. There’s 3 eligible nominees for 10/18 no matter what.
LikeLike
I agree. It’s strange. Most likely the WH will indeed wait to send Sherriff’s nomination to the senate. I was only pointing out that they don’t necessarily have to.
LikeLike
@Joe
Oh yea definitely. I wasn’t blaming what you said. I’m just frustrated that this is their strategy. You were merely pointing it out. There’s so many obstacles to confirmation, it’s just plain dumb to add an unnecessary obstacle like this. I was hoping the new WHC office would change this strategy but apparently not.
LikeLike
It is done in that way because the vacancy is conditional on De Alba actually being confirmed to the 9th Circuit. Completely understandable to keep their options open, and there’s no rush here.
LikeLike
It shows the difference between Democrats & Republicans. When Republicans have power, they don’t give SCOTUS nominees a hearing if they were nominated by a Democrat, they confirm SCOTUS justices after votes for the next presidential election has been cast & they end blue slips for circuit court nominees. Democrats can’t even send a name to the senate to begin consideration until the replacement nominee has been confirmed.
Republicans always have an urgency & never make statements like there’s no rush. Plus the EDCA district has one of the highest caseloads per judge in the nation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I receive my weekly Demand Justice balls & strikes newsletter via email today. They are doing what some of us hope Harsh does with this blog some day. Here’s a copy/paste from todays newsletter…
“A quick programming note: In the next week or so, the Balls & Strikes newsletter will move over from Mailchimp to Substack. This is for two principal reasons: First, the process of building and publishing a newsletter each week is faster and simpler on Substack’s platform. Second, Mailchimp is expensive and Substack is free.“
LikeLike
I think the number of seats on the Eastern District of California should by increased considering how busy and the amount of workload it gets. I know that congress increases or decreases the seats of courts, but is that majory senate vote or supermajority senate vote?
LikeLike
What Joe said.
Some additional comments.
Obama was the first president in a long time to not have newly created or shifted seats to fill. This hasn’t happened since then. Judicial vacancy has gotten to be too much of a zero-sum game. The thinking is, why would I increase the number of seats my political opponents can add more radicals to?
Notwithstanding, with the blue slip holding firm, I think there’s absolutely a deal to be had on creating new *district court* seats across the country (remember, I am the proud pessimist in here). I could see ideologically diverse senators from Idaho, California, Texas, etc. signing off on an agreement to increase the size of district courts within their states to address the caseload strain there.
However, as I implied, blue slips would be key. What do Idaho senators care about Dems senators/WH agreeing on how to fill seats in liberal states? As long as the Idaho seats are filled with their blue slip-enforced participation.
This becomes way less likely if blue slips are trashed. No matter who overworked the Texas courts are, Cruz/Cornyn can think of nothing more odorous than the mere *prospect* of a Dem president filling those seats over their objection.
@Dequan,
It’s nonsense like that that makes me really wish that Frank was an influential Republican. That is the sound strategy I wish he could advocate for directly to them when they are in power.
LikeLike
*odious
LikeLike
@Gavi
While it doesn’t affect the senate & therefore doesn’t affect judges, I have a suggestion. Since House Republicans can’t agree on a Speaker, I nominate @Frank. Maybe his go along to get along attitude will seep through the senate walls down the street & we can finally see the Republicans Kumbaya movement that we keep reading about on this blog… Haaaaa
LikeLike
Ha! That’s not without risk, being number 2 in line to the presidency.
Frank’s general opinions vis-a-vis ours fit the usual pattern: Old folks tend to be backward looking to the days of yore, which they are convinced was much better than the present; while youth look to the future and to a better world than we have. Every now and again, this paradigm is broken (82 YO Bernie Sanders and 38 YO Vivek Ramaswamy).
It’s one thing to debate these differences in society, it’s another thing when these differences are embodied on courts populated with folks from another lifetime.
LikeLike
CJ, it’s usually passed like any other bill.
In this polarized environment, it’s hard to see any court getting drastically expanded. But perhaps something could be worked out around the margins as long as it was even between red and blue states.
LikeLike
Checking in once again since I’m still not getting new comments in my e-mail despite selecting the “Email me new comments” option. I did get the most recent new post, which is this one, in my e-mail. But it’s been a while since there’s been a new post.
Considering how many pending nominees (Sherriff, Kazen, Smith, Kasubhai, Semper, Park, Kiel, Russell, and Aframe) have not gotten a post yet, I really hope that means @Harsh is in the process of moving the blog over to Substack. Either that or he’s just really busy at work.
LikeLike
Yea I was thinking the same thing. We have numerous nominees waiting to get a post here on the blog. Perhaps Harsh is going to follow the lead of Demand Justice Balls & Strikes who is moving to Substack this month. Either that or he is taking a well-deserved vacation… Lol
LikeLike
I’m not complaining. I’ve been begging him to reduce the frequency of new posts. Though I meant around once a week.
But, yeah, if Dale Ho can take a 2+ month vacation between jobs, Harsh can take his time between posts (signed by a Dale Ho Groupie).
LikeLike
Haaaaa
I second that @Gavi. Enjoy the vacation Harsh & your Dale Ho groupies will be here waiting when you get back. But if an unexpected vacancy opens up on the 2nd circuit before your vacation is up, we are going to need you to cancel the rest & return ASAP… LMAO
LikeLiked by 1 person
In the Oct 11 NYT editorial page, Erwin Chemerinsky writes an article about how Democrats need to pick up pace on confirming judges. Preaching to the choir here.
I think NYT is paywalled but here is article
LikeLike
Indeed. Ros Feingold wrote a similar piece yesterday. Schumer’s going to confirm two judicial nominees and claim that the senate is laser focus on confirming judges.
I keep having to remind people that a 50-50 senate wasn’t the problem. Feinstein wasn’t the problem. Fetterman wasn’t the problem. Random absences wasn’t the problem. Western senators weren’t the problem. It’s Schumer.
It was plain silly naivete to think that Bulter was going to change this simple fact.
LikeLike
Eh, there were several hurdles to confirming judges when we had a 50-50 Senate IMO. The biggest one I think was the fact that we had a Democratic House as well, so the Senate spent a lot more time on legislation that could get passed with a Democratic House and President. Not a whole lot of judges were confirmed in the summer of 2022, largely because of COVID absences (if I remember there was always at least a Democrat or two down every week that summer), and the summer was spent legislating (I believe CHIPs, the burn pits health care law, and the IRA were all passed in July leading up to the August recess). It wasn’t until the Senate got back in September that they had the whole month dedicated to confirming appeals court judges. Even after that, the lame duck was largely legislation-focused (Respect for Marriage Act and that massive omnibus), since at that point we knew there’d be an incoming Republican House, so not as many judges could have been confirmed then.
LikeLike
Opposite of what you may have intended, your argument is making my point. In the 117th Congress, Dems confirmed more judges with a 50-50 senate and a greater focus on legislation than Dems have with an outright majority and a Republican House in the current congress.
Add the fact that new nominations and senate processing of nominees largely stopped during the KBJ nomination, and the feat of the evenly divided senate becomes even starker.
LikeLike
@Gavi
Any way you can send the link for Feingold‘s article yesterday? The NYT article is paywalled so I can’t read it but Feingold‘s articles usually aren’t.
In regards to Butler not helping with confirmations, to be fair the sample size is very small. The senate has only been in session a day & a half since she’s been sworn in & by the time it gets to day four, we will have two judges confirmed.
But overall point well taken about Schumer needing to pick up the pace. I suspect the five straight weeks (Including all five Mondays) starting next week will see significant movement on confirmations.
Honestly at this point I’m more concerned about the pace of new batches than confirmations. We have five circuit court nominees that Schumer could do my suggested Thursday cloture vote/Monday confirmation vote & all five could be knocked out by Thanksgiving with no affect on the Tuesday & Wednesday full day senate schedule. And we all know dedicating a full week to district court judges would knock most of the pending nominees out, not to mention any that could be confirmed via voice vote. We need new nominees by the end of next week to avoid missing another hearing.
LikeLike
Sure, I didn’t initially share it because I thought he was saying everything we’ve already been saying in here:
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4246510-time-for-senate-democrats-to-step-on-the-gas-to-confirm-judges/
I can copy/paste/share the NYT article when I get home and, in my NYT account, (feel free to ask me whenever anyone wants to surmount that paywall, my folks pay good money for that subscription hahaha).
Fair point on Butler, but we’ll definitely see in a few weeks. I see no reason to be hopeful but will always appreciate being wrong and pleasantly surprised.
LikeLike
@Gavi
Thank you for the article. And yes I would appreciate the copy/paste whenever you get home. Sharing is caring… Lol
And I certainly hope Butler brings us a change in speed of confirmations. You are spot on with your 50/50 & Democrat House versus 51/49 & Republican House comparison. I think the next five weeks will go a long way in telling us if that will finally change. The next five weeks should go a long way clearing the judicial backlog & we need at least two new batches (Or one large batch) over that span.
LikeLiked by 1 person
With all due respect, I’ve never heard of this person, and seriously doubt he has any influence with the Biden Administration. Another irrelevant person yelling into the abyss about judges to a party that doesn’t really care about them much more now than when Rahm Emanuel was the chief of staff.
LikeLike
Yes, new batches will be needed by 10/18 and 11/1 in order to miss the next two potential SJC hearings
LikeLike
For those interested in keeping track of Trump’s malevolent impact on the 9th Circuit:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/laughably-absurd-judge-slams-appeals-court-for-giving-california-blank-check-to-restrict-firearms/ar-AA1i35AP?ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=5057c1ee52c2404e9fae66f388fad669&ei=70
MAGA-judges came up short this time, but keep expecting fewer of these dissents and more opinion of the court.
Biden’s election staunch the wound, but it will fester for years to come.
LikeLike
@Gavi & everybody,
Who do all of you think will be the most conservative out of Trump’s ten 9th circuit court judges? I know it’s still early but if I had to guess, I think Patrick Bumatay will end up being number one. I’ve seen him talk in panel discussions on the judiciary & I just feel he will be the worst of the ten.
LikeLike
Personally, I think VanDyke is the most conservative judge, not just nominated by Trump, but on the entire 9th Circuit. This is because his rulings read less like a judge’s ruling (liberal or conservative) and more like a Republican politician, and he has even taken shots at his liberal colleagues. Read this article: https://newrepublic.com/article/165169/lawrence-vandyke-judge-ninth-circuit-appeals-trump-bonkers-opinions
LikeLike
Daniel Collins is pretty awful, he just might be the worst… But most of Trump’s 9th Circuit appointments were a who’s who of Federalist Society crackpots. Probably Mark Bennett was the best of the worst if that means anything, as he’s still a rather conservative judge
LikeLike
I think Collins, Bumatay, & VanDyke are all contenders. Collins refused to admit the legitimacy of Brown v. Board, VanDyke is known to be homophobic. I’d probably say VanDyke because Collins & Bumatay occasionally cast unexpected liberal votes (similar to how Scalia sometimes sided with the liberals in 4th amendment cases)
LikeLike
Jeffrey Cummings received his commission for the NDIL yesterday. Only waiting for Vernon Oliver & Susan DeClercq to receive theirs.
LikeLike
The damage done to the 9th under Trump was bad due to three flips of Democratic appointees (Richard Tallman doesn’t count) but after the W years, the 9th Circuit was no longer as liberal as people remember it.
Bumatay replaced a very conservative George W judge so there was no flip there.
As to the worst judge, as bad as Bumatay is, Lawrence VanDyke IMO is going to be the worst of the ten judges put on the bench under Trump and IMO, one who could be elevated to SCOTUS down the line.
As conservative as Patrick Bumatay is, him being gay is going to be a non-starter to conservatives when it comes to SCOTUS.
LikeLike
I really hope that VanDyke isn’t put on the SCOTUS. As hyper-conservative as Thomas and Alito are, at least they don’t take shots at their liberal colleagues and aren’t ill-tempered like VanDyke is.
LikeLike
You should read some of Alito’s opinions and think again. Alito writes angry opinions and has taken many shots at his liberal colleagues, particularly in the uncommon case that he is dissenting.
LikeLike
@Dequan, others
I disagree with you but only on the margins. I agree with others about VanDyke. Not only is he conservative, he’s nasty and is getting a poor reputation, even among his fellow conservatives.
***However, I think Patrick Bumatay is much more likely to be a more viable SCOTUS candidate, if not the nominee, over VanDyke.
Unlike Zack Jones, I think Bumatay’s gay, minority, and immigrant parents background will make it very attractive to a future Republican president. Unfortunately nowadays, liberals aren’t the only ones to play the identity card. Republicans would looooove to say that they put a gay minority on SCOTUS, just like they loved to remind us that they put the first woman on SCOTUS and the longest serving black man on SCOTUS.
(I had a severely conservative uncle, may his memory be a blessing, who used to love saying to me that I would be very political/professionally successful if I were a Republican, because I would check all the identity boxes AND be a conservative. And he truly believed it hahaha.)
Also, as I already said, VanDyke’s off-putting personality among his own people will slightly work against him.
So, in terms of more conservative, it’s VanDyke, but only by a marginal degree.
In terms of more dangerous, I’d argue Bumatay.
LikeLike
I agree here. Republicans hate identity politics only until it helps themselves push forward their policies. Pretty much every SCOTUS nomination from now on (not just for the Democrats) will be in part based upon what identity “first” will be achieved, or at least to have identity “balance” on the court, no matter if that nominee is actually the most qualified or not for the seat.
LikeLike
Not to mention that certain identities help to diffuse certain criticisms. “I can’t be homophobic because I’m gay.” “I can’t be racist, I’m a POC.” “I can’t be zenophobic, my parents are immigrants.” Etc.
The opposite is true, senators can claim to be not a [insert bigotry here] because of their support for a nominee of that identity: “I’m not racist, I support the first Asian SCOTUS nominee.” Etc. Look how closely Strom Thurmond embraced and supported Thomas.
This is precisely why I think identity politics is BS, because ultimately what matters is ideology:
Thurmond can overlook Thomas’s blackness because of their shared ideology.
Kamala Harris could not support a follow Asian-American (and gay!) in Bumatay because he’s conservative!
But some will never understand this (not looking at you, Dequan haha).
LikeLike
Haaaaaaa
But the thing is we fully agree on your example when it comes to race being considered in judicial nominations. I would support a Richard Frederico or Seth Afrome over a Clarence Thomas every day of the week & twice on Sunday.
Our disagreement when it comes to race is if the choice is between Richard Frederico & Andre Mathis. Or Seth Afrome & Brad Garcia. That’s when I think it’s perfectly fine to consider any number of items outside of qualifications such as race, gender, sexual orientation or handicap.
In my view, your Clarence Thomas example isn’t valid because I don’t care if he’s Black, purple or poka-dot, he’s not what I want in a judicial nominee. You have to use an example in which I would consider both sides (Such as the ones I mentioned above) to even begin a conversation with me if I think race or anything else should be considered.
LikeLike
Yeah, we’ll forever disagree on this topic hahaha
Here’s the article:
Democrats Need to Move Fast to Appoint Judges, Now More Than Ever
With the outcome of the 2024 elections for the president and control of the Senate very much up in the air, Democrats must make a concerted effort to fill federal judicial vacancies before next November.
Republicans did this very effectively before the end of the Trump presidency, leaving few vacancies for President Biden to fill when he took office. Now the Democrats must emulate that approach. And they must do so now.
At the moment, there are two vacancies without nominees on appeals courts and 37 on district courts. Because the evaluation process of nominees takes time, it is imperative that the Biden administration quickly name nominees to those and future vacancies. The Senate then must work expeditiously to confirm those deemed suitable for the lifetime appointments.
Mr. Biden has nominated 186 people to Article III judgeships, which include the Supreme Court and the federal appeals and district courts, according to the White House. At this point in their tenures, George W. Bush had nominated 211, followed by Mr. Trump’s 206, according to the Heritage Foundation’s Judicial Appointment Tracker. There have been inexplicable and troubling delays in this process. For example, two years ago, Judge Diana Motz of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va., announced that she would take senior status, a form of semiretirement, when a successor was confirmed. She took senior status last year, though no replacement had been named at that time. And still no one has been nominated for this important judgeship.
Time may be running out for the Biden administration.
It is critical for federal judges who would like to be replaced by a Democratic president to take senior status so that Mr. Biden can appoint their successors with sufficient time to allow them to be confirmed by the current Senate. A federal judge or justice may take senior status after meeting the age and service requirements of the “Rule of 80” — the judge must be at least 65 years old, and the judge’s age and years of service must add up to 80. A total of 121 federal judges are now eligible for senior status but have not announced their plans, according to the group Balls and Strikes, which tracks that information. Of those, 44 were appointed by Democratic presidents. By Jan. 20, 2025, the date of the next presidential inauguration, that number could rise to 69.
There is little reason for judges not to take senior status. They can continue to hear cases, even carry a full load of cases. And taking senior status allows the president to fill that seat on the bench. The judge can condition taking senior status on the confirmation of a successor. A senior judge typically is not allowed to participate in en banc decisions, where all (or a significant number) of the judges on the court review a matter that is particularly significant or complex. But that is the main restriction on what a senior judge may do.
We are long past the time when it could be said that judges appointed by Republican and by Democratic presidents were indistinguishable. This was made clear in an analysis of Supreme Court rulings published in July 2022 by the data-driven news site FiveThirtyEight, which found the partisan divide among the current justices “is deeper than it’s been in the modern era.”
And this partisan divide is not confined to the Supreme Court. There are often huge differences between how judges in the lower courts who were appointed by Democratic and by Republican presidents decide cases. For example, a federal appeals court recently upheld Tennessee and Kentucky laws prohibiting gender-affirming care for transgender minors, with the two Republican-appointed judges siding with the states and a judge initially nominated by President Bill Clinton dissenting. Whether it is reproductive rights or gun rights or employee rights, or in countless other areas, the outcome often depends on which president appointed the judge or judges hearing the case.
For that reason, I wrote an opinion article in The Los Angeles Times in March 2014 urging Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, then 81, to retire so that President Barack Obama could replace her while there was a Democratic Senate and someone with progressive values would take her seat. She took offense at the suggestion, also raised by others, and remained on the bench until she died in September 2020, when President Trump replaced her with the conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Ginsburg gambled, and America lost.
Likewise, I think of the liberal federal court of appeals judges who did not take senior status, though they were eligible during the Obama presidency. For example, Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the Ninth Circuit declined to take senior status; when he died at age 87 in 2017 President Trump replaced him with a conservative judge. By the time another liberal Ninth Circuit judge, Harry Pregerson, decided to take senior status in late 2015, he was 92, and though Mr. Obama quickly nominated a replacement, it was late in his term and got caught up in politics and President Trump ended up appointing another conservative to the seat.
Creating vacancies will matter only if Mr. Biden quickly names replacements and the Senate confirms the nominees. If the president is not re-elected, the Republican president will fill any vacancies that exist upon taking office. And regardless of the outcome of the presidential election, if the Republicans take control of the Senate, the confirmation of judicial candidates nominated by a Democratic president will be far more difficult. That is why immediate action is imperative.
A president’s most long-lasting legacy is arguably the judges he appoints. Many will serve for decades after the president leaves office. Republicans have tended to recognize this much more than Democrats. That needs to change, and quickly.
LikeLike
@Gavi
Thank you very much for the article. Good to see a lot of what we discuss on this blog is getting to mainstream media.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for sharing Gavi. I’m glad to see the 4th circuit vacancy in particular get highlighted. I’d love to see pressure continue to ramp up there so we get a nominee soon.
LikeLike
As the article states, it usually takes time to get a judge confirmed even if the Blue Slip doesn’t come into play. The vetting process can be complicated. It can take a year. Also, even in states with two Democratic Senators, you can have multiple high quality candidates and it can be difficult to choose between them.
The rare cases of quick confirmation are when the White House already has someone in mind and the Senators signed off on it before the vacancy took place. Kentaji Brown Jackson of the D.C. Circuit and Holly Thomas of the Ninth Circuit are the most obvious examples. Dequan and I have spoken of this here before.
With the Maryland vacancy, my opinion is that the Biden Administration had someone in mind. But that someone did not have Maryland roots and the Biden Administration did not clear it with the Senators ahead of time. Ben Cardin comes from a generation that places great importance on local roots and ties in judicial nominees, and now they’ve reached an impasse.
LikeLike
@Mitch
I very much believe your right about the 4th vacancy. If the administration had SG Elizabeth Prelogar or another DC attorney in mind, I could see Cardin relenting against it despite DC just being across the river.
I wouldn’t care if Cardin wanted a solid Maryland pick such as Ajmel Quereshi, Erek Barron or somebody in that mold. My fear is that Cardin’s recommendation is some bland, run of the mill corporate attorney or lower court judge with no proven progressive background. In that case, Biden should fight for the DC attorney. Cardin is digging in because he knows this is his last shot at naming whoever it is he’s pushing before he retires. The administration also could have been hoping judge Paul V. Niemeyer left the bench for whatever reason so they could nominate both Cardin & their picks.
On another note, it looks like the hits keep on coming for Menendez. He really needs to resign.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democratic-sen-bob-menendez-facing-additional-charges-following-sweeping-indictment/ar-AA1i6Wvr?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=476098c9e37a4dfd9dcf7dd9a4206919&ei=7
LikeLike
I do worry that Menedez’s legal struggle will derail a potential 3rd circuit pick. It’s been 9 months already, a nominee is desperately needed.
At this point a 6th Circuit pick may come before either the 3rd or 4th.
LikeLike
Scary to think we could get a nominee for the 6th before either the 3rd or 4th but you may end up being right. Particularly if the pick is Camille McMullin or one of the two sitting Us attorneys. All three should be fairly quick vetting since McMullin was the runner up for Andre Mathis seat & both US Attorneys were confirmed by the senate in the past couple of years. Even if the pick is Travis R. McDonough the vetting shouldn’t take too long.
LikeLike
There is an Oklahoma District judge who’s coming under scrutiny. She was caught texting on the bench during a trial concerning the murder of a child.
Her remarks during the trial included speculation about whether one juror wore a wig and another having dentures. She was very taken by a young police officer, saying “I could look at him all day.”
Regardless of ideology and party affiliation, a judicial nominee needs to be professional and take his or her duties seriously.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/oklahoma-judge-traci-soderstrom-texts-murder-trial-messages-mocking-prosecutor-witness/
LikeLike
Would be more helpful to specify that this is a state judge on a county district court.
Not that this story is exactly pertinent, how do you connect the actions of a sitting local judge with the professionalism of a judicial nominee?
LikeLike
@Gavi
This proves that careful vetting is central and it’s more important to get the right nominee than to get someone nominated quickly.
There have been some Federal judges who’ve behaved badly and embarrassed their supporters also.
LikeLike
@Mitch
This judge was elected. So she would have no comparison to the federal judges we normally talk about on this post that needs vetting. Believe is a copy/paste from the article you sent…
“While campaigning to be a judge, her website stated: “Compassion is at the forefront of Traci’s work with the clients of her legal practice because she understands it’s sometimes what they need most.””
LikeLike
Judge Bredar is going senior in April
https://thedailyrecord.com/2023/10/12/bredar-to-move-to-senior-status-russell-to-become-chief-federal-judge-in-maryland/
LikeLike
Several new district court vacancies announced.
Ronnie White, MO, retiring July 2024.
Kimberly Mueller, ED CA, senior Sept 2024.
Two others not on official courts site yet, but John Collins shared news stories:
Eldon Fallon, ED LA, senior by Jan.
James Bredar, MD, senior next April.
LikeLike
Very very good news @Ben. Thanks for sharing
LikeLike
Yeah, MD and CA we should hopefully get nominees without too much fuss given the previous nominations. Maybe LA if Kennedy and Cassidy continue as they have.
MO of course much tougher, but seeing as the ED MO will be about half empty, maybe that will convince those senators to work to allow at least one blue slip compromise candidate through.
LikeLike
Everyone knows my feelings on the blue slip already i think it should be abolished because the next gop president with a republican senate wouldn’t hesitate to pack blue states oregon or california district courts with far right federalist society members.
On another point as someone who tries to keep in touch with the ninth circuit court, i try to regularly check the opinions panel for biden judges opinions and dissent.
Biden judges to the ninth circuit have all be excellent literally no one i have an issue with, from desai to johnstone(his first oral argument is next week on the 16th).
One sleeper pick biden judge i have really grown on is judge lucy koh who was a district judge under obama, i have watched tons of panels of her on youtube and her opinions are so thoughtful and she is very fiery and tough, very strong questioner in oral arguments. I would love to see someone like her on the supreme court if another vacancy opens up, she is very combative but knows her stuff and she appears even way more liberal than i expected, she is always with the liberal members on the ninth on dissent during en banc or other panels. At 55 she would still be young enough as well. Casey pitts her replacement on the district court is excellent as well, he is gay and only 43 and was a labor lawyer, so he too is primed for elevation in a biden second tenure
LikeLiked by 1 person
@aangren
Despite our stark difference last week on Seth Afrome, I agree today with most of your analysis. I don’t follow the 9th circuit cases as closely as you do but I do remember reading Jennifer Sung dissent from the liberals on a big case last year or so. I don’t remember the particulars off hand but it was the only case that comes to mind, otherwise I agree all of Biden’s picks have been really good so far with de Alba giving me any indication that is going to change anytime soon.
As for Lucy Koh, I’m pleasantly surprised to read what you wrote about her. I admittedly wasn’t too happy when she was the nominee over younger & more progressive AAPI possibilities such as Cecelia Wang or Bryant Yang. I gave her a C+ when she was nominated but happy to hear she’s exceeding expectations. I know Obama nominated her & she never got a hearing so I get it that Biden wanted to nominate her again. I agree 55 isn’t too old for SCOTUS consideration but for me around 53 is the oldest I would want to see a Democrat appointee & even that is pushing it.
LikeLike
Lucy Koh should be allowed to do great things on the circuit court. Not everyone needs to be elevated and no way would I be for a 55 year old SCOTUS nominee. Even 53 is too old for me. Nothing over 50.
Why must Republican presidents be the only ones to care about appointing 40-somethings to SCOTUS?
—
As I’ve said and will continue to say every time I see a vacancy in MO: Ha! If you think Hawley cares one bit about how overworked a court in his state is, and think that will make him work with Biden to fill those vacancies, you truly will believe in anything. Unrelatedly, I have some unicorns to sell you, send me some money!
LikeLike
@Gavi
Haaaaa… Yea I giggled earlier this year when I saw Hawley say he was having talks with the WH about the MO vacancies. I’m sure the talks begun & ended with Chad Meredith’s siblings that live in the state. And yea I’m with you on let Lucy Koh & others in their 50’s do great work on the circuit courts. I’m all in for only Democrat SCOTUS nominees not over 50. I put 53 as my max only for the extreme case somebody absolutely phenomenal that I would still give an A+ to even in their low 50’s such as Goodwin Lui. But trust me that list is short, very short.
LikeLike
Dequan, I agree, in extraordinary circumstances I’d be happy with a 50+ Goodwin Liu! But as you said, that’s a very very short list.
LikeLike
And when I say the list is short, I mean shorter than the chances of Josh Hawley & Eric Schmitt happily turning in their blue slips for anybody I would give a C or higher grade to… Lol
LikeLike
@aangren, When I ranked the 9th Circuit judges from liberal to conservative (more liberal the higher rank), I put Koh at #4, and I feel like you gave exactly what I would’ve said to explain why I put her there. As for Johnstone, even though he hasn’t had any oral arguments yet, I’m having a hard time believing that the former general solicitor of a conservative state like Montana, even under a Democratic AG, would be very liberal. That’s why I put Johnstone at #13 on that list (Note that for Desai and Johnstone, I was making predictions for how liberal I they’ll be).
LikeLike
Koh has definetely been the stand out so far, and Sung/Mendoza/Desai have all surpass my expectations.
Need more cases, but Judge Holly Thomas has been a little disappointing. She has only publicly sided with the liberal dissent once in en banc denial orders, while Koh/Sung/Mendoza/Sanchez/Desai almost always do
LikeLike
Good news on those new vacancies. ED Ca and D Md should be easy to fill. There is probably 50/50 odds that the Louisiana seat will get a nominee as well, particularly given that there is another vacancy currently that they could pair a nominee with.
LikeLike
I hope with the additional vacancy for Maryland, Ajmel Quereshi is the nominee if he’s not the nominee for the 4th (Which would be my first choice for that seat). With two straight magistrate judges picked for the district court, three’s a charm if he’s the pick.
LikeLike
Schumer should try to get the 2 Louisiana nominees confirmed by voice vote … Save time .. Confirm red state nominees by voice vote if GOP home stare senators suggested them
LikeLike
(Tried to post this before. 2nd time’s the charm?)
I wish a happy, healthy, and long retirement to Judge Ronnie White. He put up with a lot of racist nonsense from John Ashcroft when he was first nominated by Clinton in the late ’90s and ended up waiting 15 years to get on EDMO. His was probably the first lower-court nomination that I paid any attention to, although I didn’t really stick with it until the late Bush 43 era. I remember thinking that I couldn’t believe that, 30 years after the Civil Rights Act, there was a U.S. Senator acting as racist as Ashcroft. (I know, I know). This was also during the era when Paez in the 9th Circuit got held up for a long time. White’s situation was repeated when Brian Davis (another soon-to-be-retiree) of MDFL was nominated in Obama’s 2nd term, and had his nomination held up by Grassley for pointing out that there’s racial bias in the justice system.
All of which led me to believe that–sorry, @Gavi–diversity of life experience is a necessary consideration in appointments to the bench. Really hope the WHC gets their act together and gives us a big batch next week.
LikeLike
@raylodato
Yea I was thinking the same thing. White deserves his retirement. He has definitely earned it. I have no aspirations to see all four vacancies filled but I’m hoping at least two can get filled with nominees I could give at least a C grade to. Maybe a magistrate judge, somebody that works in the US Attorney’s office or local attorneys like the two that was recommended for Wisconsin.
LikeLike
He deserves it but I wish he would stay in office until either he dies or until a liberal president can nominate someone without having to get approval from Hawley or Schmitt (meaning either blue slips end or Hawley/Schmitt are out of the Senate)
LikeLike
BTW, 2 questions for the group: does the lack of a Speaker (i.e., no legislation coming out of the House) mean the Senate’s agenda can be freed up for judge votes this week (after Munley and Hall)?
Also, wasn’t there supposed to be a nominations hearing in SJC on 10/18?
LikeLike
@raylodato
1. I would still think the senate needs to pass any legislation it was scheduled to so that when the House finally gets its act together, the senate has completed its half of the deal.
2. SJC hearings are usually posted a week in advance. I didn’t see anything on their site in the past two days, so I don’t believe a hearing was ever scheduled for next week.
LikeLike
The Senate hinted that after Hall and Munley are confirmed, that they were going to try to get that minibus they were working on September passed.
Also, there could be a hearing next week, which I don’t think there will be since the hearing would only be held for two nominees, Holland and Manglona. Most likely those two nominees will be rolled into the 11/1 hearing, where the recent batch of nominees (Aframe, Russell, Kiel) will likely have their hearing set.
LikeLike
I think apart from the 2 nominees already planned for votes this week, we probably won’t get anymore. There seems to be a push among democrats to approve ambassadors and some of the military nominations that Tuberville has stalled in regards to the situation in the Middle East. Senators Murphy and Kelly have both tweeted out lists of position’s they wanted confirmed this week.
LikeLike
Schumer is leading a delegation to Israel this weekend. Senator Graham said on Meet the Press this morning he will be joining a delegation of senators later this week. Tomorrow starts five straight weeks the senate is suppose to be in session including all five Mondays. I think there will be a cancellation or more before the five weeks are up. I hope not but as we know it doesn’t take much for the senate to cancel a day of work in normal times, let alone with everything going on now.
LikeLike
Also newly appointed senator Butler has covid in California and Sen Durbin had surgery on his knee last week so I’m assuming they are both out for the week. I hate to be pessimistic but I feel like we are going to lost another week of not confirming judges.
LikeLike
Luckily Hall & Munley should be able to get confirmed even down two Democrats.
LikeLike
There’s also a good number of judges in the backlog that should be able to get through with crossover support :
Maddox, Edwards, Long, Garnett, McMillion, Bryan
Also, the Appeals nominees (aside from de Alba) and the 2 International Trade noms.
LikeLike
It doesn’t seem as though we will be getting a nominee for the 3rd vacancy in the near future according to Booker’s comments here…
(https://newjerseyglobe.com/judiciary/booker-has-no-concerns-about-menendez-indictments-impact-on-judicial-nominations/)
LikeLike
That is unfortunate. You would think with all of the district judges they’ve nominated and had confirmed they would at the very least have names in mind and be ready to roll. But it’s been 10 months!
LikeLike
Pingback: Judge Meredith Vacca – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York | The Vetting Room