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 no issue with the nominee, she is young and isnt a prosecutor and the judge she has been working for is an obama judge. Solid B rating.
Now let me get something off the chest i have been wanting to touch on in regards to the judicial nominations
One thing that really irks and annoys me, is the fact that texas and Louisiana can pass any type of crazy right wing bigoted law and they can be nearly certain 9 out of 10 times that law will be upheld by district courts in texas which are filled with hacks like kascmaryk or the fifth circus thanks to hacks like judge ho, oldham and edith jones.
Whereas take the opposite side, california laws and laws in other blue states, are regularly being struck down by district judges appointed by republicans .
In the california example district judges appointed by republicans (quite a lot) regularly strike down laws their voters favor, and the same thing is for the federalist society hacks on the ninth circuit who recently blocked a california law that prevented advertising about guns to underage children. There is a consistent running theme here, red states can pass whatever fascistic right wing laws and can bet that 9 out of 10 times it will go effect because of the ideologues on their district courts and in turn appeals court
and also because their senators have been surgical in recommending and confirming right wing far rigth ideologues like ho and oldham to the federal bench.
In the democrats case the nominate a 59 year old milquetoast centrist moderate who is a decades old magistrate judge to counter the silliness and craziness of the fifth circus, rather than a fire and brimstone liberal to fight tooth and nail against the crazies on that court. It genuinely pisses me off!
A drag show ban at texas AandM university was upheld as constitutional by trump hack judge kacsmaryk an obvious first amendment violation and now those students have their rights suppressed and infringed upon simply because they live under texas and fifth circuit rule and in turn biden nominates pathetic people like irma ramirez to continue to appease charlatans like ted cruz and coryn , part of the reason we are in this mess.
LikeLike
If this was the first two years under Biden I probably would assume Schumer did his homework & this nominee was progressive. But with the recent spat of nominees we have seen from New York, I don’t know.
The nominee is 39 which is great but I can’t find too much progressive background on her at all. The best I can give her now is a B-. I will be waddling her hearing & reading her SJC Q hoping I missed something
LikeLike
She wasn’t on my radar at all. But she’s young and from a blue state. No complaints.
LikeLike
Any one has any idea if bob menendez resigns the replacement appointed by phil murphy would have to be added by senate approval/resolution to the committees right? He is apart of the foreign relations and banking committee, if so would democrats be able to replace feinstein with another democratic senator in the judiciary committee in that same resolution?
or will GOP even agree to add a new democratic senator to the said committees and not just leave it as a tie?
There isnt anyway democrats can assign their members without republican buy in giving they likely dont have the votes to set aside that rule.
LikeLike
@Gavi is really spectacular when it comes to senate rules so hopefully he chimes in. But from my understanding, any change in committee composition has to be voted on just like when the Congress begun last year.
LikeLike
aangren, my understanding is that any change to any committee would require a new organizing resolution. So yes, the senate would need to affirm the change.
I’d like to think the GOP will be amenable to unanimous consent. It’s always been done that way in the past when there was a resignation, retirement, or death. But I certainly wouldn’t put it past them to play games.
LikeLike
*History of the Seat:
Created by 104 Stat. 1589 in 1990
History of the Vacancy:
(See “History of the Seat” section of the post)
Tentative A (see, I’m a fair grader)
You cannot beat her age! At first, I was disappointed because I assumed that she was just another Margaret Garnett recommended by Schumer. But the hopey bug bit me so I am looking forward to her confirmation hearing.
Besides her age, which makes up a huge chunk of her grade, her professional law clerk career is another big draw for me. I cannot tell you how much this pleases me. Frank loves to repeat that Biden doesn’t like to nominate law professors, but honestly, a longtime law clerk is the closest thing to that we’re going to get. They have more flexibility to explore and research the law without risking being branded one way or another, since their research and final product isn’t attributed to them. Think about the many experience and exposure to different judicial styles and ideologies she’s picked up.
If she turns out to be a liberal on the court, Dale Ho could have strong competition for a circuit seat if ever one becomes available.
@aagren
As Dequan and Joe said, the Senate as a hold needs to add the new member to the committee, whether by unanimous consent or a forced roll vote. And no, Dems can’t just slip in a replacement for Feinstein in with that resolution. It would be a separate vote. And even if it’s together, it runs the risk of Republicans blocking any change (if Dems don’t want to override with 51 vote, which I don’t see Manchin and/or Sinema agreeing to).
LikeLike
WOW… @Gavi giving a higher grade than me. That’s rare. She gets an A from you & a B- from me. I can’t remember the last time we had a disparity that wide with you being the higher grade. I will say I hope you turn out to be correct. As I’ve said, this nominee’s background is pretty bland so I’m going to be reading her SJC Q & watching her hearing very closely so I expect my grade for her to change at some point.
On New Jersey, 13 Democrat senators have now called on Menedez to resign including Booker now. Andrea Mitchell just relaxed Booker’s statement on MSNBC. Of course fake ass Gillibrand isn’t one of the 13 senators.
LikeLike
Haha. It’s her AGE! I am like Gollum! Her age is the shiny, glittering preciousssssss. But yes, I know that “all that glisters is not gold.”
I would be sooo ashamed and personally embarrassed if she’s anything less than a great liberal on the court.
I have a feeling that her recommendation is like that of Dale Ho’s. That her name was passed along to Schumer by someone influential. I don’t see how he would have had her on his radar for any vacancy. Hopefully we’ll find out, watch this space.
@Rick,
Maybe I am reading your comment wrong, but I do think it’s important for Dems to be out and in front in calling for Menendez to resign. This does have implications for the judiciary. As Dequan said, it’s ironic that Gillibrand isn’t one of them yet. Maybe she doesn’t want to be out in front of her home state Majority Leader.
As one of the most powerful constitutional governors, Murphy will get to name Menendez’s temporary replacement.
LikeLike
Haaaaaa… Ok @Gavi fair enough. And for the record I think after learning more I probably will be leaning closer to your grade for her then mine because as you said I doubt she will be much less then a reliable liberal vote on the court so her being 39 really puts her over the top. I was just in shock after seeing you give a higher grade than me… Lol
LikeLike
I wish Democrats were as concerned about filling judicial vacancies as they are worrying about the senate dress code and telling Sen Menendez to resign..
LikeLike
@Rick: you’re missing the point. When FedSoc judges repeal voting rights and civil rights protections, when birth control becomes harder to get or even illegal, and when any effort to alleviate climate change is deemed an unconstitutional invasion of the right of Big Oil to function agains the interests of all of humanity, we’ll be a better country because all the Senate is in business attire every day. /s
LikeLike
I wrote about a week & a half ago on this blog that President Biden should go walk the picket lines with striking workers. I’m watching on tv now him doing just that. Finally, somebody in the White House understands optics matters. It’s a beautiful day when I get to see A Democrat with a backbone. It is truly a beautiful thing to see Biden surrounded by striking workers. Democrats need to take note. For God’s sake we have the issues on our side, just have to get the optics to show it. This is a great day.
Back to New Jersey, Gillibrand just came out for Menedez to resign making her the 14th Democrat senator to call on him to resign.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I agree, Biden visiting the picket lines is good politics. I hope he does a lot more stuff like this during the next 13.5 months.
I know he has had lagging poll numbers but I have a feeling a lot of that is going to change once it sinks in for the general public that Trump is certainly going to be the GOP nominee.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That feeling when you know for a fact a GOP senator will be out tomorrow and the Senate Dems use that time to pass a budget to save the House GOP from itself instead of confirming judges.
LikeLike
@Mike
Haaaaaaa… I know right. We have Tim Scott’s debate schedule weeks in advance & are 0 for 2 so far with confirming judges on debate day…smh
LikeLike
That’s what I’m hoping for. The surprise for me is that I haven’t really seen anyone in the media comment on Feinstein’s missed vote, even a single missed vote from her would be catnip for the media. It’d be one of the easier stories for them to write if they want to get a click and outrage/panic from readers/viewers.
LikeLike
Turns out Tina Smith’s out this week with COVID anyway.
Feinstein didn’t vote today either. Still haven’t seen any reporting regarding her absences (missed several but not all votes last week IIRC), best case scenario is that they don’t feel the need to bring her in for votes where she’s not needed?
Hopefully at a minimum she’ll be at the SJC meeting Thursday, although maybe she won’t be in if her vote isn’t needed on Thursday? The only nominee who might be a party-line vote on Thursday is Lee (NDCA), the others no doubt will get out of committee easily.
LikeLike
At this point, they probably are just saving Feinstein for the SJC executive meetings & key floor votes. It is what it is. Hopefully Dems learn their lesson from this for future committee assignments.
LikeLike
The optimist in me says that Schumer might file cloture on de Alba or Ramirez to set up a potential cloture vote on Thursday afternoon. Schumer did a good bit of that earlier in the summer on these short weeks.
Don’t skewer me if I’m wrong, Gavi. Haha.
LikeLike
Hahaha! Today would be the best day to do it to ensure they ripen by Thursday. No action as of now, right?
As Dequan and others have been pointing out, it’s amazing that Schumer has a pocket NO vote in Tim Scott but he hasn’t been using it. The only thing I can think of is that Scott informed Schumer that he wants to vote on certain judicial nominees and so Schumer, by tradition (don’t shoot the messenger pleeeeease!), won’t put up those nominations for a vote in contravention of that request. This tradition is partly why Schumer doesn’t put up the military promotions for a vote when Tuberville is known to be away from DC.
LikeLike
Tradition… Uuuggghhh
What @Gavi is saying is correct, I’m just mad that he is correct. After McConnell said a SCOTUS justice couldn’t be confirmed in an election YEAR when a Democrat was president, then proceeded to confirm one after votes had already been cast when a Republican was president, I don’t think it would take much imagination for anybody to guess when Schumer should tell Tim Scott, Tuberville or any other Republican senator where they can shove their traditions at… Haaaaa
LikeLike
Even when Tuberville is out, other Senators, like Mike Lee, have objected in his place for the military promotions.
Also, the fact that no cloture motions were filed today was because the Senate will likely need to spend the entire week on the short-term CR. While cloture was invoked on Tuesday, Rand Paul and several other Senators objected to any expedited time agreement on the CR due to the Ukraine funding in the CR, so the entirety of Wednesday will be spent running out the postcloture clock (although there was technically unanimous consent for the clock to be allowed to run during the overnight when the Senate is out and during the party meetings/morning business/leader remarks). Although who knows when final passage will be, the single biggest threat you can make to a Senator isn’t assassination or harm to them or their families, but the threat of weekend work, you could probably get unanimous consent on AOC’s platform if you threatened weekend work.
It is frustrating that this month has to eat up a ton of floor time on this crap since House Republicans are barrelling towards a shutdown. At the same time it’s hilarious that a shutdown will likely happen not because Republicans are demanding anything from the White House or Senate Democrats, but the fact that McCarthy’s chickens are coming home to roost on managing his 222-seat majority where he had to mortgage his political career to the MTGs and the Geatz’s of House Republicans to become Speaker.
In comparison to McCarthy, Pelosi had 222 seats the past two years (the same McCarthy does now) and I never once questioned her ability to pass anything from the House (and she always had the risk of a moderate revolt or a squad revolt to boot).
LikeLike
Holland may turn out to be the ultimate progressive stealth nominee, if she is progressive. She has very little paper trail.
However, she’s never faced a confirmation hearing before. That’s what tripped up Kato Crews and Charnelle Bjelkengren.
LikeLike
For once we agree on the enticing possibilities of Holland.
But I can’t second your take on confirmation hearings. Most nominees have never had a hearing before they do and everyone’s gotta have a first hearing, right? They don’t all perform like Bjelkengren or Crew. Performance in hearing is determined by several factors: preparation, qualification, luck of the draw (fellow panelists), and how aggressive senators come at you, among others.
I really hope Holland and her DOJ sherpa are prepping really well. Holland’s the type of nominee that Kennedy will try really hard to go after. You can’t attack her on a controversy, so trip her up on bar exam questions.
LikeLike
I think we all know I have no problem bashing Republicans & calling them out on any number of issues. But I kind of have to defend Kennedy when it comes to his questioning of Bjelkengren & Crew.
I think he is at times over the top with his bar exam type line of questioning. In their cases however I think he was more than fair. I’ve never stepped foot inside of a law school & even I would have had a punchers chance at knowing what Articles 1 & 3 or what the Brady Motion was. And in both of their cases, they are sitting judges.
My guess is the WHC office was doing your basic, run of the mill preparation for the hearings for many nominees such as sitting judges that they felt should be able to breeze through the hearing. I’ve watched every Biden nominees SJC hearing & I can say post Bjelkengren & Crew, the nominees seem to be much much more prepared. Something tells me the “murder board” sessions for preparation are being taken more seriously now regardless of your resume. Now the line of tough questioning seems to be geared at getting nominees to give their personal opinions on hot button issues which is much easier to give a non answer-answer to.
LikeLike
Agree with both of these points. Holland comes from a pretty non-traditional background for a district court nominee, which is nice to see. I agree with Harsh that she’ll likely need to watch out for the “gotcha” questions the most, but so long as she is prepared I don’t forsee any issues.
LikeLike
Yeah, it’s really unfortunate that we’re wasting a week on what will likely be a futile effort because the House is so insane.
LikeLike
Don’t we need new nominees from the WH real soon so as to be able to have more than one hearing in Oct. (other than the current District Court nominees waiting)
LikeLike
Without new nominees this week we technically still wouldn’t miss another hearing slot. That’s because Durbin could have a hearing in a month with Park, Sherriff (Neither who have had their nominations sent to the senate) & throw in a couple of non judicial nominees. But theoretically yes, we need another batch to not miss another slot.
LikeLike
Right on cue, we have a nomination hearing set for next week Wednesday. We really need a new batch or we will either miss another hearing slot or have a hearing with only two judicial nominees.
(https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/committee-activity/hearings/09/27/2023/nominations)
LikeLike
FYI, SJC nominations hearing officially scheduled for next Wednesday.
LikeLike
Assuming every eligible nominee is included next week (there are six of them), then that indeed leaves only Park and Sherriff as potential nominees for a hypothetical 10/18 hearing.
I’ll be honest, I have no clue what SJC intends to do. I would hope they go ahead and have a hearing for all six on 10/4 just to get them out of the way rather than holding some back for 10/18. But there is very much a need for additional nominees.
LikeLike
I just counted. There are 16 announced blue state & DC vacancies without a nominee. 15 if you count Edward Keil’s impending nomination that for some reason wasn’t announced in the last batch. We could have two full hearings if we got nominees for even half those vacancies, along with Park & Sherriff.
There are five other potential hearing slots for the rest of the year if no more are missed. Even if just four nominees are in each hearing, that still is enough for 20 nominees.
LikeLike
Yes, I agree. No reason those can’t be fast tracked.
Also no reason the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 6th shouldn’t have nominees by the end of the year as well. The WH and Schumer would be well advised to have that backlog completely clear for any surprise retirements/vacancies on circuit courts in 2024.
LikeLiked by 1 person
For those interested, these are the potential SJC dates remaining (assuming of course SJC/WH wanted to maximize the number of slots, which is very much up in the air).
10/4
10/18
11/1
11/15
11/29
12/13
LikeLiked by 1 person
Park’s nomination has just been sent to the senate. She could theoretically be the fifth nominee at the hearing next Wednesday. No big rush since the seat she’s nominated for doesn’t become vacant for over a year but it would just be nice not to lose a hearing slot.
I guess the administration is waiting for de Alba to be confirmed to send Sherriff’e name to the senate. There’s no reason to wait & there’s precedent, even recent precedent not to wait. I’m not excited about his nomination at all but still would like to get it moving, especially for that court which is extremely overworked.
(https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2023/09/27/nominations-sent-to-the-senate-123/)
LikeLike
In Senate news, and judiciary-related news, it looks like two attorneys will be voted on directly (no cloture needed on either of them, probably slated for votes tomorrow?), Todd Gee (SDMS and Tara McGrath (SDCA). If you remember Vance has a hold on attorneys being voice voted in the Senate because the DOJ’s being too mean to Trump or something.
One compromise I’d make on military promotions is allow them to be voted on without cloture while the postcloture clock is running for the CR bills, at least give the Senate something to do. I know you won’t get agreements to waive cloture for judges in this day and age but I hate these kind of Senate days where the entire day has to be spent running a 30-hour clock.
LikeLike
@tsb1991
I saw that too. While I’m not happy when Democrats have to vote on nominees when they are in power but then voice vote 16 judges in one day when Trump is president, I think confirmation votes with no cloture time being spent is not too bad.
And I like your suggestion at the end. It would be nice if an agreement in that order could be reached.
LikeLike
And the CR the senate burned 2 days on is DOA with McCarthy…awesome, just freaking awesome. That’d could’ve been enough time to confirm 5 district judges.
LikeLike
Two days spent last week on military promotions & two days spent this week in a continuing resolution that isn’t going anywhere in the House. No wonder Trump was able to confirm 230 judges in 4 years while we are in route to missing a 4th SJC hearing this year alone…smh
LikeLike
And here I thought not having to worry about passing any major legislation after losing the house would mean more confirmations.
It’s wild, they might really confirm fewer people in this session than they did in the last and leave open blue state vacancies.
LikeLike
Democrats actually want to show voters that they are the governing party, which they should be commended for, not criticized.
LikeLike
At the start of todays SJC executive meeting, Durbin said Eumi Lee will be held over.
Durbin then begun his daily parade for 4 blue slips turned in for todays two circuit court nominees. Durbin then pointed out there are 44 district court vacancies with at least one Republican blue slip in play. He said if we are going to keep blue slips, we need other Republican senators to work in good faith
LikeLike
Yeah, I suspected Lee had a chance of being a party-line vote, so she couldn’t be voted out today with Feinstein out.
Federico was 13-8 (Graham and Tillis voted yes)
Kolar was 16-5 (Lee, Cruz, Hawley, Cotton, Blackburn voted No)
Lewis was 13-8 (Graham and Grassley voted yes)
LikeLike
Good to know the circuit nominees were advanced. I hope they are prioritized for confirmation votes soon, along with da Alba (personally I would prefer to hold Ramirez a bit longer until more effort is made on the part of Cruz and Cornyn).
LikeLike
An update on the Dianne Feinstein saga of the 118th Congress: While she missed this morning’s SJC meeting, she did show up and vote to advance the CR bill. She was the final Senator to vote, since the two remaining non-voters are Tina Smith (COVID) and Tim Scott (his presidential campaign). Did she sleep in? lol
If she’s around next week, would they have an SJC hearing just to vote out one district court nominee? Not sure what else would happen at a possible SJC hearing next week.
LikeLike
@tsb1991
Feinstein… uuuggghhh. I’ll be nice & keep my comments to myself about her today… Lol
As for your question at the end, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a SJC executive meeting held just for one district court nominee. There’s no rule against it, but if I had to guess I would say they will probably just wait for the next week when they hold over the nominees from the hearing Wednesday. I mean it’s not like Schumer would confirm her before Thanksgiving anyway. At the rate they are going, it’s more likely she will be confirmed before Christmas.
LikeLike
I suspect you’re right. It seems the trend is to cancel executive meetings and then agree to consider everyone held over at the next one.
I’d guess Lee doesn’t come back up for a vote until after Columbus Day break.
LikeLike
Feinstein voted in first senate floor roll call vote of today, but didn’t show up for SJC hearing when there was a nominee who will likely pass the committee 11-10
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1181/vote_118_1_00241.htm
LikeLiked by 1 person
There are so many nominees already on the Senate floor, it doesn’t really matter when Lee gets voted out of committee.
LikeLike
Sadly that’s very true @Frank.
Philip Hadji received his commission today. That just leaves Cummings, Oliver & Lin.
LikeLike
There’s something I’m confused about. I’ve watched the SJC votes many times before, and the senators very frequently use “proxy votes”, with Dubin or Grahm saying “aye/no by proxy”. Why can’t senator Durbin say “aye by proxy” for Feinstein, as he has done when the vote wasn’t 11-10 to advance a nominee by 11-10?
LikeLike
Who’s going to take this? haha
LikeLike
Haaaaaaa
I’m sure @Gavi could have answered the question more eloquent then me but I figured I would answer quicker… Lol
LikeLike
@CJ
I’ll be happy to answer that question for you. Let me just warn you the answer is completely dumb but I assure you it’s the rule so don’t kill the messenger… Lol
So to make long story short, SJC rules are if you want to vote NO you can do so by proxy. If you want to vote YES by proxy, your vote can’t be the deciding vote. That is why Feinstein was able to vote YES by proxy today on all the nominees that were voted to the floor. I assume Eumi Lee isn’t expected to get any Republican votes so Feinstein wouldn’t be able to vote by proxy since she would be the deciding vote.
So again the rule is dumb but that’s the rule… Lmao
LikeLiked by 1 person
IVE BEEN SAYING THIS FOREVER!!!!! Senate Democrats clearly did not think this through when they created the rules. I recently looked into Trump nominees SJC votes from 2017-18 and several of them were advanced 11-10 with 1 or even 2 Republicans voting by proxy.
LikeLike
A good example on this today is Federico’s vote, it was 13-8 (Graham and Tillis). Tillis and Feinstein were both proxy votes, but since Federico got 11 votes (a majority of the committee) from Senators voting in-person (the other 10 Democrats and Graham), those two proxy votes were fine, as they were not decisive votes. And while on the subject of Federico, that’s probably the lowest level of support for a Biden nominee where they got blue slips from both Republican Senators?
Relating to an earlier post, an SJC meeting was posted for next Thursday with only Lee on the agenda, I guess they’ll keep that slot open and then see what happens as we get closer to that Thursday in regards to if they’ll know Feinstein will be around? I know you brought up earlier that they may not hold a meeting for one nominee, but earlier in the year, I believe a meeting was held for a couple of minutes where the only thing that happened was that Brailsford (Idaho) was voice voted out, I think the Senators had to bolt out fast for another meeting (Appropriations probably?). In that meeting, only a couple of Senators from each side attended too.
LikeLike
You are correct that judge Brailsford Brailsford was the only nominee reported out of the SJC but five other nominees (Link below) were held over in that meeting. There are no other nominees to be held over next Thursday so that’s why I figure they will just skip her. But I would like to be wrong.
(https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2023-04-27%20-%20EBM%20-%20Results.pdf)
LikeLike
Proxy votes can’t break ties.
LikeLike
There’s a group floating Judge Esther Salas’ name as a possible candidate to replace Menendez.
https://newjerseyglobe.com/congress/latina-group-floats-judge-esther-salas-as-possible-senate-candidate/
LikeLike
OMG, the senate has recessed & will be in session tomorrow on a FRIDAY. They have teed up two votes for the US attorney’s for SDMS & SDCA for tomorrow. I love it.
LikeLike
I’m guessing it’s in the hope that they can keep the government open, and these votes are just a way to pass the time in the meanwhile. Still interesting to see though.
LikeLike
Yeah, Schumer hinted at the Senate voting for the CR on Saturday, so the Friday votes weren’t unexpected. Question is what does the Senate do after the CR passes? Will they just leave it on the table and taunt the House to take it up? Maybe the Senate entertains itself with nominations during the process? Any cloture motions filed tomorrow or Saturday could still be voted up on for Monday, right?
LikeLike
If Schumer were to send judicial cloture motions to the desk tomorrow, if the senate is in session Saturday, then they could vote for cloture on the nominees Monday. But he doesn’t seem to remember we have judges pending so I doubt we will get that tomorrow.
LikeLike
I’m reading reports that senator Feinstein has passed away. Neither CNN or MSNBC is reporting it yet but I’ve seen it on two other sources so not sure if it’s true or not.
LikeLike
I’m seeing it on CNN and NBC News so it seems true. Sad news.
LikeLike
MSNBC is now reporting it. May she rest in peace & condolences to her family.
LikeLike
Very sad. While her last few years were a struggle, her career was remarkable.
LikeLike
Most sad indeed.
May her memory be for a blessing. I’ve always thought it was gratuitous the way some monitored her every absence. We then got over that… until this week on this blog when this obsession on her missed votes reappeared.
I hope Newsome can find a decent placeholder from the CA legislature to pick as her temporary replacement (as I’ve said many many times before, there’s absolutely no chance it’ll be London Breed, as often mentioned on here). Whoever it is, I hope that person has an interest in the judiciary, as they will likely serve on the SJC.
SJC is a tough assignment, especially for someone who will only be there temporarily, but as we’ve seen, no other Dem senator not on the committee has any interest in joining it.
Now, let’s see how extremist the Republican Party has gotten. Will they allow for a vote to put someone new on SJC? If not, will Dems be weak? Or will Dems force a replacement with only a bare majority vote (no matter what that number is)?
We shall see…
LikeLike
And now that Cardin has replaced Menendez as Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, they’ll probably have someone else take Feinstein’s spot on the SJC. Besides Cardin, Schumer, (and Menendez), the following Democratic Senators are lawyers (or at least have law degrees) but are not on the SJC:
-Michael Bennet.
-Chris Murphy.
-Chris Van Hollen.
-Elizabeth Warren.
-Ed Markey.
-Gary Peters.
-Catherine Cortez Masto.
-Maggie Hassan.
-Cory Booker.
-Kirsten Gillibrand.
-Ron Wyden.
-Bob Casey.
-Jack Reed.
-Mark Warner.
-Tim Kaine.
-Tammy Baldwin.
And then Independents Kyrsten Sinema and Angus King.
LikeLike
All of whom already had an opportunity, some multiple, to join and decline in place of a newly elected senator, Welch.
If the replacement doesn’t get it, which I think is more likely for reasons I already mentioned (also, I think the odds are high that the identity politics-loving Dems would love to put a black woman back on SJC!), then I hope Cortez Masto gets it. She was a capable AG and not running for reelection next year.
Cardin absolutely should not get it. He should be punished not rewarded. If he does get it, he would one up Biden on the 4th vacancy since he’d have more leverage as an SJC member.
LikeLike
The senate is in session on a rare Friday, however with the passing of senator Feinstein, I would expect much of the day on the senate floor will be given to senators making testimonies of their memories of her, rightfully so. I certainly have had my harsh disagreements with her over the past three years, but that should not overshadow her otherwise great career of service & that should be remembered.
As to her replacement, Barbra Lee would be out since Newsom said he would appoint a Black woman caretaker & she’s running for the seat. I doubt San Francisco mayor London would want to give up her position for a year & a half in the US senate. My guess would be somebody who has worked closely with Newsom similar to his last SCOT-CA pick.
As for Feinstein’s replacement on the SJC, my first pick for Leahy’s replacement was Cortez Masto & she remains my favorite now. I’ll just assume she doesn’t want it since Ossoff, Padilla & Welch are less senior than her so she could have had it already. As for Cardin, HELL NO. He should be a non starter. He can’t retire soon enough, let alone being rewarded just based on his actions regarding the vacancy on the 4th alone.
LikeLike
I agree Gavi. CCM makes a great deal of sense, if she wants it.
She is already on Banking, Energy, Rules, Commerce, and Indian Affairs so she may not want to stretch herself too thin.
LikeLike
Prayers for the Feinstein family right now. A life well lived and she should commended for a lifetime of public service.
Regarding her replacement, it’s possible that Cardin will move to SJC. He was originally floated as a temporary replacement earlier this year. However, he is also the new Chair of Foreign Relations while Menendez is under charges so he may not want that responsibility right now. It is possible that Feinstein’s replacement will simply take her spot on Judiciary.
I do expect Newsom to move fairly quickly to name a replacement. He has promised a black woman and a placeholder nominee so that Californians can elect a permanent replacement in 2024. Does anyone know if he has a high ranking black, female member of his staff? That might be the easy answer.
LikeLike
Thoughts and prayers go out to Senator Feinstein’s family. May she rest in peace
LikeLike
While we mourn senator Feinstein & celebrate her legacy, I did want to shift gears a bit. @Ethan passed this on to me earlier this morning. I think it would be a brilliant pick if Menedez decided to do the right thing & also may me much more hopeful for the 3rd pick. She would be an excellent candidate & I would say the prohibitive front runner if she threw her name in the hat.
(https://newjerseyglobe.com/congress/latina-group-floats-judge-esther-salas-as-possible-senate-candidate/)
LikeLiked by 1 person
While I will forever maintain that tragedy, no matter how terrible, should not entitle anyone to any office, I would much prefer to see her in any office other than the vacant 3rd seat!
I also fear that more exposure like this might actually improve her standing in getting the nomination, alas.
LikeLike
Count me as skeptical on this i fully believe there will be no replacement on the judicary committee that isn’t acceptable to GOP senators, ie manchin or sinema barring that this will be a tie committee until next congress.
The default position should be to always assume the GOP senators are working in bad faith.
LikeLike
Thom Tillis (who is on the SJC) also indicated that the spot for Feinstein will be filled. Remember that the Republicans have old senators as well, and want to be able to fill their committee spots in the same situation as the Democrats are in now. Thus, it is actually to their benefit to allow a replacement on the SJC.
LikeLike
I would expect senate Rs to allow someone to fill that seat without too much incident. Not guaranteeing that some of them (looking at Tuberville, Lee, and Paul) won’t try some shenanigans to extract a win, but I think it’ll be relatively smooth.
LikeLike
For as bad as Sinema is, she is not a bad option on the Judiciary Committee. She has voted for every Biden nominee. I hope I don’t eat my words, but with how the Senate is strucutred right now, I would take Sinema on the committee , rather than be tied 10-10
LikeLike
It shouldn’t come to this, a minority party shouldn’t dictate to the majority party which of their senators gets which assignments. Sinema is a snake, she released a memo outlining her re election campaign by calling democrats extremists, im sure such a person will go along with whatever democrats want.
The funny thing about this all is this will not change biden mind about letting charlatans like ted cruz have any say over his court of appeals selections nor would it get durbin to ditch the blue slips
So from now till 2025 only judges the gop like or approve off will go the senate floor for a vote.
LikeLike
@Gavi: Can the new organizing resolution pass w/a majority vote or does it need 60?
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s a debatable motion, so it may require 60 votes if a senator objects to cutting off debate. As Joe said, these are usually agreed to by a unanimous consent.
LikeLike
Ray, my understanding is it needs 60 votes like any other bill. However, typically it is done via unanimous consent.
Graham and Tillis have come out in favor of normal procedure already. Presumably they are not alone either. So this should be fairly straightforward, I hope.
LikeLiked by 2 people
My guess is that Hawley or Cruz will object to unanimous consent, but there are more than 60 votes for the reorg.
LikeLike
Surprisingly, Cruz and Hawley did not sound like they’d put up a fight:
https://www.businessinsider.com/can-republicans-block-dianne-feinstein-judiciary-committee-replacement-2023-9
“I assume it will be handled the same way it has traditionally been handled,” said Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas.
More hilariously, Hawley:
“Democrats have a majority in the Senate. They won the election, so they are entitled to a majority on all the committees,” said Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, a Republican member of the Judiciary committee. “I don’t know on what grounds you would say, ‘well, not on Judiciary, though.'”
I didn’t have Hawley accepting the 2022 midterm results of a Democratic Senate majority on my bingo card, but ok…
LikeLike
@tsb1991
Haaaaaa… Yea Hawley pretty much busted my. I go card as well… Lol
Well happy to hear they finally aren’t breaking a norm.
On another note, the senate is back in session tomorrow on a Saturday. They have a full week next week then are off for a week.
LikeLike
Yes I could see it coming to that and passing something like 92-2. I am hopeful it’ll just end up UC though.
LikeLike
I feel like there will be more than 2 votes against. Very likely 60 votes in favor, but probably at least 5-10 votes against.
LikeLike
After being voted out of committee, they still need to be confirmed by the full Senate. So I would be ok with adding any non-Manchin Dem to replace Feinstein on SJC. Having Sinema on SJC would only matter to the extent of nominees that Manchin supports but Sinema opposes. Cardin’s age could be an issue. Ideally, we want a non-Manchin Dem who 1) has a good attendance record and 2) cares about the judiciary (1 is more important than 2)
LikeLike
Wow, I step away for a few hours and all of U.S. politics changes–Hawley and Cruz doing the right thing?
LikeLike
I actually expect more shenanigans from the Lee/Paul/Tuberville wing than the Cruz/Hawley wing. Those two are awful but usually not the hold up to unanimous consent agreements.
LikeLike
Didn’t realize that they were separate wings, I’ve just thought that different senators have different pet issues that they are willing to cause chaos on (Cruz/Hawley/Tuberville on overturning the 2020 election, Tuberville on military promotions, Lee/Paul on military spending in general, Vance on DOJ, etc.)
LikeLike
Any of the California candidates for senate in 2024 could say “If I’m elected, I’ll be on the judiciary committee” and they would probably be telling the truth.
LikeLike
On second thought, that might not be a viable statement because if Dems lose the majority in 2024 they will lose a seat on the committee.
LikeLike
Unless of course the Rs decide to expand the committee and make it 12-11 instead of 11-10. That wouldn’t surprise me given the desire of many Rs to be on the committee
LikeLike
Not that I expect it to happen, but one of the perks of working a Friday or even a Saturday is that Schumer in theory could file cloture on someone like Kolar or Federico, who were just voted out on Thursday (I think you can’t file cloture on a nominee the day they’re voted out since they’re not yet officially on the executive calendar, and don’t appear until the following day’s calendar).
If a circuit nominee is teed up, it’d either be them or Ramirez at this rate, obviously the de Albas and the Katos will need to wait until Feinstein’s successor is seated.
LikeLike
I would love to see that happen. I’ve always said circuit nominees should be treated as highest priorities and given floor votes as soon as is reasonably possible. Kolar and Federico should be no exception.
LikeLike
Democrats have a 49-49 tie in the senate next week (Per the link below) so I can see next week producing little on judges. Then the senate is out the following week but back in session the week after that pretty much through Thanksgiving. I suspect that time period we will see significant movement in judges.
(https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4229102-sen-stabenow-tests-positive-for-covid/)
LikeLike
House passed clean CR and it looks like it’ll pass senate today.
Can they finally confirm some judges next week now!?!
LikeLike
Really good news the House passed the CR, even if it is only for 45 days. Honestly if I were House Democrats, I would just tell McCarthy we would provide the votes to keep him as Speaker when Gatez & others try to remove him.
I would like to see some judges confirmed next week before they go on a one-week recess but with a 49-49 tie, I doubt we will see much.
LikeLike
Putting up one or more of the more bipartisan nominees is possible, but I agree with you.
LikeLike
Kolar in particular seems like he’s be an easy confirmation. Between the Indiana senators, Murkowski/Collins, and the other yes votes on SJC it seems like an easy one.
LikeLike
Cloture filed for Hurson and DeClercq.
LikeLike
Ok now we’re getting somewhere. I have Hurson & DeClercq an A+ & A. That’s awesome news
LikeLike