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 
Cloture filed on DeClerq and Hurson, in addition to a State Department nominee. Looks like the tradeoff for working today is that they’re out Monday, so the votes won’t start until Tuesday.
We should get some cloture filings on Tuesday to setup for Thursday, no?
LikeLike
Hard to say. Hopefully yes, but they may use it for a Ukraine package vote as well.
LikeLike
Sen Smith had COVID early in week but she was there for the budget bill vote last night..
LikeLike
Fascinating chapter in Franklin Foer’s book on Biden on 46’s process to appointing KBJ to SCOTUS. I had thought (hoped?) that Kruger was the runner-up, w/Childs third, but nope. Kruger had “impressed in her presidential interview,” but Childs was almost the choice.
Part of the reason Biden went with KBJ was that Cedric Richmond met w/him and recommended against Childs.
LikeLike
Haaaaaaa… I clearly remember me & others on this blog saying Childs was almost the choice & @shawnee68 saying that was ridiculous & she was never credibly considered. He told us she only got a courtesy interview. Where is @shawnee68 at now to defend what he said before after this revelation? Lol
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello @ Dequan I am here. Incidentally, I have read the book by Foer.
I admit the that Child’s was more fully considered than the information that I had read at that point led me to believe.
Having said that, there is nothing in Foer’s book that states that Biden was going to select Child’s.
The vetting process for Breyer’s replacement was centered on KBJ. Biden was concerned if Manchin would vote for KBJ but was sure he could get a few republican votes.
We know that KBJ had a meeting with Manchin and he was satisfied with her.
I always try to read as much as I can about what is going on and that informs me. Even though I was slightly off my contention that KBJ was going to be the eventual nominee was correct.
LikeLike
@shawnee68
Hello. I was worried about you when I saw the book come out & didn’t hear a peep from you… Haaaaa
Thank you for admitting you were wrong but that isn’t my concern. We all make predictions & have opinions that end up being wrong. My concern is you were so sure you were right about something nobody else on this blog had any idea where you were getting your information from. Nobody credibly believed that Biden wasn’t seriously considering Childs for the SCOTUS. Especially considering who was pushing hard for her. That’s the issue at hand. Where in the Hell were you getting info from that led you to believe that & why it took you a year & a half to realize how wrong that info was is what is concerning to us… Lmao
LikeLiked by 1 person
I read the whole book the chapter on Supreme Court vacancy is at the end and is relatively small chapter.
The job was KBJ’s to lose. She had the votes so what’s the point on suggesting that Child’s could get the nod?
It’s pointless speculation and at the time you were suggesting that interest groups were the reason why Child’s wasn’t the nominee. That conclusion isn’t mentioned at all in Foer’s book.
LikeLike
“ what’s the point on suggesting that Child’s could get the nod?”
Uuummm, how about because SHE CAME IN SECOND… Haaaaaaa
LikeLike
According to Foer, Biden did not believe he just consider just one person even if he knew who he wanted.
There was no “runner up” as the votes for Kruger were never whipped because the job was KBJ’s if she wanted it.
Had she not accepted it is plausible that Biden could have sought the prospects of votes for Kruger.
It was Kamala Harris who had one of 3 votes to confirm Kruger to California Supreme Court.
LikeLike
That’s where you are wrong. There was a “runner up”, that was Childs. Because if something happened & KBJ wasn’t confirmed Biden wasn’t just gonna leave the seat vacant, he was going to pick somebody else. That somebody else was Childs.
And before you say that couldn’t, out of the past seven presidents, there have been four Supreme Court nominees that were not confirmed. So somebody being a “runner up” very much so could end up being the next justice. You told us there was no chance of that happening with Childs but the facts show you were wrong. She was one KBJ screw up or health issue away… Lol
LikeLike
In the real world if you apply for a job and get an interview but don’t get the job how is there a consolation in that?
I suppose it’s a generational thing. I don’t the Philadelphia Eagles were satisfied with a “runner up” trophy if there ever was one.
I don’t think a future vacancy will be filled from DC. There are far too many justices from the east coast already on the court.
LikeLike
But again to use your analogy, had something happened to Patrick Mahomes the night before the Super Bowl & he couldn’t play, The Philadelphia Eagles would have won the Super Bowl. You were telling us that Philadelphia had no chance winning the Super Bowl even in that scenario using your Child’s analogy. That’s what we are saying you are wrong on.
LikeLike
lol
LikeLike
Childs was absolutely a serious nominee. She was very nearly the choice. Both her and KBJ had a lot of backing from within the Democratic Party
LikeLike
@Joe
Exactly. But we have one blogger here named @shawnee68 who amongst other things, made the ridiculous that she was only given a courtesy interview. Of course we all knew that was crap when he wrote it here. Just good to finally prove him wrong AGAIN… Haaaaa
LikeLiked by 1 person
@raylodato @Dequan
As much as I never feel the need to countenance anything that person says with a response, so nonsensical is his opinions, I absolutely remember when he made that ridiculous assertion about Childs.
But Shawnee didn’t start being wrong today, so what’s new?
I also remember back in those heady days of Biden’s deliberations, that some (not necessarily on here) thought it was just useless bellyaching to worry about a Childs nomination to SCOTUS! We were so close to that disaster!
Most people who are actually familiar with these things didn’t think that Kruger was considered as seriously as the other two. As I wrote back then, I was especially fearful that Childs would be the nominee because I always considered it to be between her and KBJ, since I thought Kruger’s refusal to join the Biden WH would doom her candidacy. One rule of politics is never say no to the president when he asks you to do a job (not talking about voting a certain way). If the president of the free world asks you to take on a job and you say no, don’t expect a more plum future offer. Of course, this isn’t always the case, but I would expect it to be with a president in office for as long as old school Joe.
LikeLike
Very good points on all accounts @Gavi. I wonder if Justice Kruger regretted her decision not to take the SG position. I would love to know the back story behind the offer & decision.
I am just going to purely speculate here (Unlike @shawnee68 that says something ridiculous & claims it as fact… Lol). My guess would be the offer was made to Kruger before the Georgia runoffs. At the time the offer was made, she probably thought no SCOTUS nominee this side of Chad Meredith would be confirmed by a 52-48 or 51-49 Republican majority so no need to give up her (Virtually) life time seat on the SCOT-CA.
I think that’s more likely than somebody who had aspirations of being the first Black woman on the SCOTUS, telling the leader of the free world No to the only other position outside of a circuit court judge that reasonably could be appointed to the highest court. But once again that’s purely my opinion & speculation.
LikeLike
That’s a good take. She made a big bet and lost, unfortunately for her.
I don’t even know if I regret her not being the choice. She was younger than KBJ but not necessarily more liberal. the California court is quite liberal and she’s *relatively* more moderate than her colleagues. Whereas KBJ is more liberal than Breyer, I think Kruger would have probably been much closer in ideology to Breyer and would have been less of a swing.
There’s no doubt, however, about Kruger being the more judicially talented of the two.
LikeLike
Yea I’m happier KBJ was the nominee as well. I’m not even sure Kruger would have been my top choice at the time even if she was SG, but obviously any choice would have been better than Childs. KBJ was truly the front runner from the beginning & gave no reason not to be the nominee.
Had Breyer known Democrats were going to expand the majority & retired next year instead of last year, there would have been 11 other Black woman Biden put on the circuit courts besides KBJ & Childs. I still think KBJ would have been the nominee next year, but certainly Abudu, Freeman & Holly Thomas would have been given credible consideration. I’m sure Clyburn would have gotten DeAndrea Benjamin serious consideration too, maybe even more so than Childs by next year with 2 years under her belt on the 4th. I’m just happy it looked like Democrats weee going to lose the majority & Bryer stepped down when he did.
LikeLike
Breaking news. We have a junior senator elect from the great state of California & the US senate will once again have a Black woman. Congratulations senator elect & thank you governor Newsom for not taking long to make this appointment.
(https://www.yahoo.com/news/california-governor-name-laphonza-butler-030601207.html)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hope we get nominations this week. There are six nominees pending a hearing, I’d doubt all six get a hearing this week. The Senate is out next week for Columbus Day, so the remaining nominees should get a hearing the week they get back, on the 18th. After that the next possible hearing would be 11/1, so I believe this coming Wednesday would be the deadline for nominees for that hearing slot.
LikeLike
We definitely need a new batch this week. Without it, we would go at least 5 weeks without a hearing. At least with a new batch this week we would get a hearing in a month with the new nominees, Sherriff & any of the other pending nominees not in this Wednesdays hearing (Hopefully none).
Looking at the low hanging fruit, 2 nominees from any combination of the 1st, 3rd or finally 4th circuit vacancies would be ideal. Edward Keil should be in the next batch for New Jersey. Then at least one nominee from either Connecticut , Michigan, Pennsylvania or New York should be ready.
We really need to get some movement red states by now. I’m hoping Tim Scott isn’t blocking both of the two 60 year old woman recommended for South Carolina since he’s running for president. I’m not sure if the 3 rumored names for the SDFL are on hold while they negotiate a Black woman for the fourth vacancy there. Cornyn mentioned a couple recommendations have been made to the WH so I assume we could get a second Texas nominee soon. Hopefully the WH moved quickly on picking one of the two men recommended for the vacancy in Wisconsin so that nominee might be finished vetting by now.
Senator Kennedy mentioned he was surprised the remaining WDLA nominee wasn’t named months ago so perhaps that has been cleared up & ready to go I believe the two remaining Indiana vacancies should get nominees as well so hopefully sooner rather than later.
LikeLike
Good news on Butler. I’m glad Newsom moved quickly on this.
And I agree, new nominees are badly needed this week. Hoping for some circuit nominees and red state nominees.
LikeLike
Butler may go down as one of the greatest recess appointments to the senate, certainly in my lifetime. It’s a shame she didn’t decide to run for the open senate race in Maryland (Where the article states she currently resides). As long as Alsobrooks can defeat the wine magnet (Who would basically be an even swap for Cardin), I’ll be happy.
I wish California didn’t fill as many judicial vacancies as they have so far. I can imagine the rock star judges we will get out of Padilla & Butler but now there’s only a couple vacancies left without a nominee. There are about two handful of California judges that are eligible for senior status right now so I’m hoping for a few more to announce in the next 5 – 6 months. The main thing is for the two senators to move quickly to fill any remains vacancies that may pop up because of the. Okinawa are as good as I hope, they will likely require extra time to get confirmed.
LikeLike
The biggest thing for me here is that they establish a join recommendation committee. I will not take it for granted that she’ll be better on judges.
I think the odds are now even greater that Bulter will join SJC.
I really dislike talking about non-judiciary politics on here, because I think that’s what makes this blog special, but let me say, I would hate for California to go on from a 44-year-old to a nearly 80-year-old senator, especially when the state just went through the health drama of its 90-year-old senator. But old elected politicians aren’t the same thing as old judicial nominee. It would probably be too much of a betrayal for Butler to turn around and run for the seat after Newsome intended her to be a caretaker, but she’d probably be a great long-term senator for California, anyone but the elderly Barbara Lee.
LikeLike
@Gavi
Butler would be a phenomenal senator in my opinion going off her resume. But I agree with you it would be too much of a betrayal for her to run for the seat now despite (Like you) me much rather having a senator that could serve for decades.
Trust me, I love Barbra Lee. She’s probably the most courageous member of Congress after being the only vote against the war in Afghanistan (Even though I personally agreed with the war authorization) plus her life long progressive advocacy. But as you said she’s 80. I would have much rather had her day she wasn’t going to run & have Newsom appoint her for a year & a half then have Butler run for the full seat. But it is what it is.
And I 1,000% agree with you about Padilla & Butler/New senator in 2025 forming a joint recommendation committee. The amount of time it’s taking to get nominees out of bright bright blue California is ridiculous. Having two young (hopefully depending on who wins next year) & progressive senators should give us the best possible recommendations for judicial vacancies for the foreseeable future.
LikeLike
I do not have any strong feelings about the CA primary. I think any of Lee, Schiff, Porter, or Butler would be just fine. Would lean towards Butler if someone made me pick one, mainly because she is young and clearly quite progressive.
My biggest fear of course is too much money getting sunk into this race when all four are going to vote virtually the same on the senate floor. Those fundraising efforts would probably be better spent supporting and CA House Dems or other key senate races (AZ, MT, OH).
LikeLike
https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2023-09-29/austins-sole-federal-district-judge-may-be-the-most-overburdened-in-america/
Pretty in depth article about the judicial vacancies in Texas, with some details on how their screening committee functions.
LikeLike
Thank you for sharing Ben, that was a good article.
I agree with the overall premise. We badly need to get these red state vacancies filled. Not only to prevent future Fed Society cronies from filling them but also to provide speedy access to justice in those jurisdictions.
Sounds to me like McAllen and El Paso have some nominees waiting on Cornyn/Cruz to sign off on. Possible that those have already been sent to the WH. Really hope it’s the latter and that at least a handful of them are good.
LikeLike
@Ben
Thanks for sharing this great articles. Hopefully the part of the article that states “Cornyn and Cruz decided to fill El Paso and McAllen seats, due to “emphasis on the border,” Prichard said.” means we will get two more nominees in shirt order.
Of course everybody knows my opinion on blue slips. That’s mostly why we only have two Texas nominees for nine vacancies. I think it was dumb to nominate Ramirez without a package deal for at least half the district court vacancies but that ship has sailed already sadly.
LikeLike
Retired judge Lee Yeakel is concerned that there aren’t enough judgeships, and yet he retired without waiting for the confirmation of a successor. He could’ve at least continued to hear some cases in senior status until his successor is confirmed.
LikeLike
@Ben
Good article. I still think that Chari Kelly is in the running for the Austin seat.
LikeLike
So technically, there should be no barrier to Kato’s confirmation once Butler is sworn in, right? Or has Manchin signaled a No vote and they need Stabenow?
LikeLike
There has never been a barrier for Kati’s confirmation even if Manchin signaled he was a no unless either another Democrat senator has signaled they too (Which is unlikely) or there was attendance issues. My guess is with Butler replacing Feinstein, you will see Schumer worry less about attendance issues.
There are five nominees pending since before this year so I hope after the recess week, those five & the four circuit court nominees are prioritized. I also hope Democrat senators take whatever Covid medicine Republican senators seem to be taking (AKA stop testing or reporting… Lol).
LikeLike
Right, but that’s exactly where we are if Manchin is a No (which I don’t know for sure). Stabenow is out, so if Schumer calls the vote on Kato and Manchin is No, we’d need the VP.
But if Manchin is a Yes, then once Butler is sworn in, Stabenow’s absence is not determinative, providing no one else is out.
LikeLike
Right now, it’s 50-49 D, so we would need Manchin’s vote even if Stabenow was present.
LikeLike
I’m hearing that the Senate will be out Thursday for Feinstein’s funeral, so Wednesday should be the last voting day until after Columbus Day week. Cornyn tweeted how short this work week is, not mentioning why the Senate is out Thursday.
One of my requests going forward with the Senate is that if you’re not going to work on a Monday, at least get the voting structure setup for two Tuesday votes and not one (confirming a nominee whose cloture was invoked the previous Thursday and then cloture on the next nominee), that way you have something rolling into the week.
LikeLike
Uuuggghhh. I was hoping her funeral would be any day other then Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday of this week. They are off all next week. So basically after working last week Friday & Saturday, they took off this week Monday & Thursday so it’s all a wash…smh
LikeLike
Alright, I’m officially off the train, Schumer has no idea how to walk nominees through the senate confirmation process.
Pretty clear someone was in charge of that last session and isn’t there anymore.
LikeLike
Yeah, Thurs SJC meeting was listed as canceled
LikeLike
No surprise I wrote last week I highly doubt the SJC meeting Thursday is still on with Feinstein passing. Particularly with just one nominee to advance & it being somebody that all Republicans likely will vote against.
LikeLike
Or maybe I’m just pissed off that Reagan’s 36 year old circuit court appointee Edith Jones and Trumps mini-me authoritarian James Ho blocked Louisiana’s redistricting to give the state a 2nd black majority seat.
https://www.npr.org/2023/09/28/1201969253/louisiana-congressional-districts
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t think the Supreme Court will let this slide. The Supreme Court has the mindset of “Do not question the power of the Supreme Court”. They recently ruled against Alabama when the state came to SCOTUS asking for emergency relief against re-drawing their districts (no justices publicly dissented)
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Mike
Wait a minute, are you saying there are still Reagan appointees in the bench? That can’t be true. People on this very blog such as @shawnee68 has chastised me for pushing & advocating for young progressive judges from Biden. He has assured me age doesn’t matter & that a qualified 60 year old nominee is just as good, if not better than one in their 30’s & 40’s.
He loves to point out the 5 or 6 judges that have resigned early while of course overlooking the hundreds that take senior status, retire or die while in office after they reach the age of 65. So I find it hard to believe that a judge appointed by Reagan who himself has been dead for almost two decades, could still be on the bench. That would mean opinions like age doesn’t matter in judicial nominees would be dead wrong but that can’t be true since we know @shawnee68’s nearly flawless record on this blog (Sarcastic voice)… Haaaaaa
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course Jones was unqualified when she was picked and is a complete hack. That doesn’t mean the Democrats should pick unqualified hacks as well. Ho is actually qualified, as much as I disagree with much of his judicial philosophy.
LikeLike
Feinstein’s death is giving me flashbacks to when Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away 3 years ago. Both Ginsburg & Feinstein were near retirement, Ginsburg could’ve retired as soon as Biden took office (4 months after her death) while Feinstein was just 15 months away from retirement. Sadly, neither Ginsburg nor Feinstein got to retire.
I went on Quora and typed in “Would Ginsburg have retired under Biden had she lived?” I haven’t yet found that question but I did find a comment that claimed that Ginsburg could have “handpicked her successor” under Obama.
I swear I’ve asked you all this question before: if Ginsburg offered to retire under Obama under the condition she gets to handpick her successor, would you support giving RBG her handpicked successor? (for this hypothetical, assume her handpicked successor is 30ish years younger than her and ideologically similar to her, and also assume you know that she will die under a Trump presidency). With the stakes as high as they are, I think I would support such a deal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Ryan J
I’m not a fan of judges picking their replacements publicly. But if it’s done behind the scenes in private & the replacement is more than acceptable as I suspect RBG’s pick would have been to Obama (And as judge King’s pick was in West Virginia), I’m all for it. There’s no precedent being set if it’s done in private.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Considering what happened with Rawlinson (9th CCA), King (4th CCA), and Kanne (7th CCA) all not getting who they named their preferred replacements, has there been any recent judges (within the past 10 years) who had named they’re preferred successors, and said preferred successor was nominated?
LikeLike
None that are publicly known, but as Dequan said, it’s possible that something could have happened behind the scenes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
To be honest with you, this question brings about an internal conflict. One part of my logic tells me to take the deal and ruuuuun as to preserve a 5-4 SCOTUS in 2014 or earlier. But the other part of me knows that I would raise hell and be unhappy if any of the FedSoc members on the SCOTUS did that. I was close to saying that a backroom deal like that probably happened in 2018 to get Kennedy to retire early, but that would be sheer speculation and conjecture on my part.
With that said, with SCOTUS being the *whole* legal ballgame, I don’t see why Obama/Reid couldn’t have at least offered someone as liberal and close to her as they could to gently nudge her out. This whole conversation goes for naught because she was stubborn and determined to be replaced by the first woman president and her selfish calculations cost ordinary Americans a lot and set women’s rights back to hell in the damn 70’s. She let her celebrity status among female law clerks cloud her judgement (Notorious RBG, *eyeroll*) and as a result, she missed her opportunity to retire while in decent health.
Pure hubris and narcissism went into her decision, and if my memory is correct, isn’t there a quote from her during Obama’s meeting with her in 2014 that was along the lines of “Who else would do a better job than me?”. (feel free to check that, I just remember reading that quote and needing a shower after because of how self-absorbed that quote was). It offers a window into her decision making, the fact that she felt as if she alone had to carry on the women’s rights movement and that no one else was fit to replace her until she was ready to step down. Contrast that mindset with FedSoc and the myriad of conservative legal groups that drill into law clerks and college kids in pre-law that they are merely serving as placeholders for the conservative legal movement. They are not special and when it’s time to pass the baton, do so with little fanfare. Scalia almost ruined their plans, but luckily, they had a true bulldozer in the Senate in Mitch McConnell who would make sure decades of work wasn’t washed away by the old bastard’s heart deciding to not pump anymore crude oil.
For the naysayers and the ones READY to jump to her defense and to object to anything I said… allow me to make your point for you and to refute it. “HinDsiGhT iS 20/20, nO oNe coUlD’vE kNowN TruMp iN 2016 woUlD WiN aNd DeMs wOulD LoSe thE sEnaTe mAjOrIty iN 2014” You are absolutely correct by saying it is easy to blame someone for a missed opportunity after the fact. With that agreed upon, she was already a cancer survivor and had already been experiencing health issues that happen/come with old age. Coupled with the fact that she was having problems getting around and her physical appearance was diminishing. Not to mention the fact that there is data that shows the 6th year of a 2-term president’s tenure is often when his party gets a shellacking in the midterm elections (The 6th year itch). So, put it all together, and the picture is quite clear with NO Lasik surgery required that it was either well past her time or that time was running out.
As often as the term “an independent judiciary” is repeated, it’s garbage and will continue to be as long as a heavily partisan Senate is involved with providing advice and consent. Over the past few decades, federal judges have been *mysteriously* retiring/taking senior status under the same political party’s white house control that appointed them. It’s almost like…. their replacements matter in terms of keeping their legacy intact. I may have my opinion on this, and I may be alone with my fellow judiciary-minded commenters on this blog, but I still think that Judge Patricia Millett would’ve been an absolute rockstar nominee. Not only would she replace a trailblazing woman SCOTUS Justice, but she also shares her ideology (and could be a little more left than Ginsburg), and more importantly, she would’ve happily continued the legacy that Ginsburg fought so hard for.
With my passionate diatribe out of the way, to finally answer your question: I would be okay with Ginsburg choosing her replacement because keeping SCOTUS close (and hopefully obtaining a majority in my lifetime) is the most important thing that the president can do to affect the legal industry. And as the other side has shown us, they will stop at nothing to obtain and wield power. I would most likely bitch and moan about a conservative appeals court judge, from a red state, openly broadcasting to a GOP administration candidates that they would retire in exchange for them appointing. There is no low that the GOP would sink to in order to achieve their long-term goal and neutering the federal government with hostile federal judge appointees, so I don’t see why the Dems can’t show a little backbone in maintaining the status quo.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Absolutely, I’d make that deal to RBG in a heartbeat.
If I was Biden I’d do the same to Sotomayor next spring as well for that matter.
LikeLike
I know some people have suggested Kagan should step down before next year. That makes no sense as she isn’t even eligible for senior status. On the other hand it makes perfect sense for Sotomayor. She can retire & there are multiple Hispanic circuit court judges appointed by Biden that can replace her. Myrna Perez & Brad Garcia would be great replacements for her. I truly hope she considered it.
LikeLike
I would hope so.
It’ll probably be fine if she decides to wait but she will be 70 in 2024. It might be 2, 4, 6, or 8 more years (or longer) until there’s another Dem WH + Senate. Does she want to wait until she’s 80 to retire? I don’t know. There’s a lot of calculus involved there.
LikeLike
Schumer has set up votes to confirm both judicial nominees tomorrow but didn’t file cloture for anyone else for next week…I’m getting angrier by the week with these moves.
LikeLike
Hopefully Schumer sends cloture motions to the desk tomorrow to set up votes for October 16th when they return. On another note, the SJC still had not released the nominees for tomorrow’s hearing. It starts in about 14 hours…smh
LikeLike
Mike, all that matters is that he files after tomorrows votes. They’d still be able to vote on any nominees filed tomorrow on Monday the 16th.
Hopefully we will get another batch of nominees tomorrow to set up a November 1st SJC hearing.
LikeLike
Don’t they need two in session days to pass for clotures?
LikeLike
Who do you think that he files cloture on? If I had to guess, I think that he gets some of the bipartisan nominees out of the way first like Edwards Jr. and Long.
LikeLike
No. Schumer often files cloture at the end of the day Thursday to set up votes the following Monday/Tuesday.
LikeLike
It’s way way past time for WH to send nominees to the senate. After tomorrows hearing, there probably won’t be one again until, (any guesses ?)
LikeLike
It’s way way past time for WH to send nominees to the senate. After tomorrows hearing, there probably won’t be one again until, (any guesses ?)
LikeLike
After tomorrow, the next possible hearing window would be the 18th. Only one nominee right now would be eligible for it, unless there are other DOJ nominees awaiting a hearing. After the 18th, the next possible hearing would be November 1, so yes, we would need nominees by tomorrow to be able to use that 11/1 hearing slot.
Also, since the Senate is out Thursday, look for possible cloture motions tomorrow for when the Senate get back after next week.
LikeLike
Five nominees appearing tomorrow: Smith, Semper, Park, Hazen, and Kasubhai.
Colleen Holland and Kirk Sherriff will have to wait presumably until a 10/18 hearing. Not sure if it’ll just be those two or if there are other judicial nominees awaiting hearings as well.
https://x.com/prof_jpc/status/1709370302902223338?s=46&t=7oD_USTyD9yA73KCweMjqw
LikeLike
I’m surprised Park is in tomorrow & not Colleen Holland. Park’s seat doesn’t become vacant for another year & Holland is a recommendation from the majority leader. I surely thought she would be prioritized. But you’re right, without no new batch this week, Holland & Sherriff may have to wait until close to Thanksgiving for their hearing. And of course the dumb policy of Biden waiting to send Sherriff’s nomination to the senate until after de Alba is confirmed only further delays his hearing. The EDCA is probably one of the top over worked district courts in the country so I was hoping he would at least break that dumb policy here. All in all good to see five nominees tomorrow.
LikeLike
Mazie Hirono’s on the SJC so I imagine she is pushing to get her state’s nominees through quickly.
LikeLike
The seat Park is nominated for doesn’t become vacant for another year & five days. That might be a new record. I can’t remember ever seeing a nominee get a hearing more than a year before the seat’s announced vacancy date.
I had this conversation with @Ethan off line the other day about we may need to name Hawaii’s senators as the best over the past two administrations. During Trump we got the best of his 54 circuit court nominees in my opinion with judge Bennett being born in 1953 & not right wing. Then for the district court we got a reasonable judge. And now under Biden we have gotten to stellar nominees. Smith was my first pick, i give him an A+ & Park has a solid background with 20 years as a public defender. I give her an A only because she’s in her 50’s.
Right now I would rank Hawaii up there with Georgia & New Mexico for states we have gotten the best Biden judges from on the average. It’s a shame out if all three states, none are likely to get more than three vacancies each during Biden’s first term. Meanwhile New Jersey gets ten vacancies with their crappy senator picks…uuuggghhh
LikeLike
I agree. Good to see five.
If Dems play their cards strategically (always questionable), they could be able to have 2 nominees on 10/18 and full hearings on 11/1, 11/15, 11/29, and 12/14. Of course, to do that we will need more nominees tomorrow. There are lots of rumored potential nominees floating around out there, but we shall see.
LikeLike
So do you think that we get a hearing on 10/18 where Sherriff, Holland, and Fonzone appear, or do you think that the committee will wait to hold the hearing until new nominations are announced? I mean, it looks like the WH is waiting for De Alba to get confirmed to send Sherriff’s nomination to the Senate, and that might not happen by the 18th.
LikeLike
So do you think that we get a hearing on 10/18 where Sherriff, Holland, and Fonzone appear, or do you think that the committee will wait to hold the hearing until new nominations are announced? I mean, it looks like the WH is waiting for De Alba to get confirmed to send Sherriff’s nomination to the Senate, and that might not happen by the 18th. Is it worth holding a hearing on just 2 nominations?
LikeLike
In other news, looks like D.C. Attorney General is going after Leonard Leo, the chairmen of the Federalist Society for tax issues.
I remember reading about how he got his billionaire conservatives daddies to donate huge sums ($100Ms) to help FedSoc to advocate for judicial confirmations including ads for all 3 supreme court nominees.
I never know if my comments with links actually post so if you just google his name a bunch of articles about it pop up.
LikeLike
Good to see justice possibly finally coming for Leonard Leo. Long overdue.
LikeLike
There’s been a surprise, no advanced notice, senior status on Oct 1. Patricia Gaughan, Clinton appointee, Northern District of Ohio. Surely will be harder to get cooperation from Vance than with Portman.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, I would guess that one is unlikely to be filled before November 2024. Damn shame too. Maybe Vance will surprise us but given his stance on DOJ nominees I’m not holding my breath.
LikeLike
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2023/10/04/president-biden-names-thirty-ninth-round-of-judicial-nominees/
Three new nominees. Seth Aframe for 1st Circuit, plus NJ and CT.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey Ben, how are you always able to break these news stories in here? Do you just refresh your browser on judicial-related websites?
Whatever is it that you do, I thank you. I usually see it first from you.
LikeLike
Ha, I just have a crippling addiction to the site formerly known as Twitter. Glad to share.
Sarah Russell sounds excellent. Aframe and Kiel seem more middle of the road.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Holy shiiiiiiit… I wake up to watch the SJC hearing & instead I get a new batch of nominees. While it’s only three, what a three it is. This may be the best batch post midterm yet. Below is my recap of each;
Seth R. Aframe (c. 1974) – A+… Let me say that again, A+. OMG, here I was worried who would get it between Pamela Phelan or Sarah Mattson Dustin but WOW, what a pleasant surprise. This is the second sitting law professor Biden has nominated to the circuit courts, a background I have desperately been pleading for. He specializes in election day complaints of voting rights concerns & is the District’s Elections Coordinator and Civil Rights Coordinator. My God this is a rock start pick. Did I mention he’s an A+. If not let me say it again… A+
Edward S. Kiel (c. 1966) – I have spoken about him in length already so won’t rehash everything. He is progressive which is great for a New Jersey pick. The only issue I have with him is his age but it’s a big issue sadly. Still I give him a B+
Sarah F. Russell (c. 1976) – I was not previously familiar with her. Looking at her bio, she’s a former law professor & public defender. With her being young, she seems like a good pick to me… A
Very good batch today
LikeLike
Dequan, could you clarify where you’ve found this info on Aframe? All I can find via google is that he’s an assistant US attorney, civil division.
LikeLike
Ben,
Here you go
“Assistant U.S. Attorney Aframe has served the U.S. Department of Justice since 2007 in the District of New Hampshire’s criminal and civil divisions, most recently serving as the Deputy Criminal Division Chief. Over the course of his esteemed career, Mr. Aframe prosecuted a variety of federal violations, including fraud, drug, firearm, and child exploitation crimes. He also litigated over 100 appeals before the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Mr. Aframe has served as the District’s Elections Coordinator and Civil Rights Coordinator since 2018.
Mr. Aframe is a respected member of his community. He is an Adjunct Professor at the University of New Hampshire Law School, and previously served as a School Board Member in Hopkinton. Mr. Aframe is a graduate of Georgetown University Law Center. ”
https://www.justice.gov/usao-nh/pr/united-states-attorney-jane-e-young-announces-new-criminal-division-leadership
LikeLike
Thanks @Joe. I was just sending @Ben a couple links but you seemed to find one link that shows it all… Lol
I’ve heard of Seth Aframe before but honestly didn’t think he had a snowball’s chance in Hell of being nominated to dog commissioner, let alone a circuit court judge by the bland New Hampshire senators. My God am I happy I was wrong. This is one of the finest of Biden’s 41 circuit court nominees to date. A young, voting rights, civil rights & election day specialist & a current law professor. He is straight out of central casting for what I have been advocating for Biden to nominate as a circuit court judge. Phenomenal choice. I’m not even going to complain about only three nominees today because of how happy I am about this nomination.
LikeLike
No Samantha Elliot!
Sorry, just had to get that one in haha. Let me dive into them!
LikeLike
Lol, yeah I’m guilty of assuming Elliot would get the nod. It made sense. At least now we will not have to backfill though.
Looking forward to learning about Aframe. Hopefully he’s a solid choice.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Haha, several are guilty of the same thing. For the heck of it, I always commit to memory anyone who is seen as a shoo-in for a vacancy.
I’ll repeat what I’ve noticed: The longer it takes for a “shoo-in” to be named the official nominee, the more unlikely it is that that person will get the nomination. Sam Elliot was always known to the WH and NH senators, yet we still had a Delaney nomination and months of no nominee. Always a bad omen for a front runner.
LikeLike
Good point. Yes, I realized you were likely correct when she didn’t get the nomination shortly after Delaney withdrew.
LikeLike
My current best guess about the next two SJC hearings:
10/18:
Colleen Holland (WDNY)
Kirk Sherriff (ED CA)
Ramona Villagomez Manglona (N Mariana Islands)
11/1
Seth Aframe (1st Circuit)
Edward Kiel (D NJ)
Sarah Russell (D Conn)
Both of those groups seem a little thin. Would have liked 1-2 more nominees for each, but at least we aren’t missing hearings entirely. Perhaps there are some other DOJ nominees that will appear as well.
The 11/1 hearing is probably the last group that will realistically have a chance to be confirmed prior to the end of the year. I’d expect those nominees to get voted out the Thursday after Thanksgiving (11/30).
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wonder what happened with the WI noms that Baldwin and Johnson sent over in the summer. Weird that we haven’t heard anything yet.
LikeLike
Just double-checking the Senate calendar, the only weeks the Senate has off between now and the rest of the year are holiday weeks (Columbus Day next week, Thanksgiving, and then the end of December and into the new year). Not only that, but when the Senate gets back after next week, they will be in session every Monday for the rest of the year!
Super relieved that we got nominees for today. I know it’s a light batch but the 11/1 hearing slot won’t go to waste now, and will include an appeals court nominee, so more weight is at least put onto that hearing. The next possible hearing would be 11/15, I believe the White House has until the 18th for nominees for that hearing slot.
LikeLike
Correct. We will need more nominees soon.
Hopefully there are many potential nominees either ready or in the vetting process.
LikeLike
Had not heard of Aframe or Russell. Both great picks. Inexcusable that the 4th circuit is taking as long as it is for a nominee to be named. F’in Cardin.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I completely agree @Ethan. It has been over a year since the 4th seat has been vacant. Totally inexcusable & Cardin should be ashamed of himself.
Looking forward, the First Circuit will be a progressives wet dream once Seth Aframe is confirmed. 2 of the 6 judges on the court would be A+ in my opinion with a couple of A’s right behind them. Phenomenal job by Obama & Biden & I’m thankful Trump wasn’t able to fill the Puerto Rico seat.
With only three nominees, hopefully we get another batch in the next two weeks so we don’t miss a hearing in six weeks.
LikeLike
The icing on the cake for the First Circuit would be if Kayatta were to go senior, I believe he’s eligible next month, that’d give Biden five of the six appointments on the court.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great Point, Dequan.
In one fell swoop this appointment frustrates two of @Frank’s favorite talking points: that you shouldn’t expect decent progressive nominees from the centrist NH senators & Biden doesn’t like law professor nominees.
The 1st Circuit is turning out to be a triumph! I second tsb1991 on Kayatta. He should go senior to allow for the vacancy. If Kayatta really loves being a judge, he can maintain his workload, or as close to it, as his chief allows.
LikeLike
Definitely, Kayatta should seriously consider going senior. Plus with Collins being the senator she is, no way Biden would nominate anybody she won’t turn a blue slip in for. So he doesn’t have to worry about some fire breathing liberal taking his place. The first circuit reminds me of how the courts looked after 3 terms of FDR. A Biden re-election & senate miracle hold for the Democrats next year could put us on the path towered that for other courts.
Back to the phenomenal pick of Seth Aframe. He goes against a third talking point against oriole like @frank & more so @shawnee68. And that’s we should just sit down, shut up & take what we are given. Had we done that, we have have a crappy Mike Delaney judge in that seat right now. This is such an upgrade, I may even put it up there with an actual Trump to Biden flip. He also prosecuted Bitcoin executives so that should give Republicans something to be happy about with him.
The only issue I have with Aframe‘s nomination is one of the other three circuit court vacancies wasn’t also announced today. That means at his SJC hearing, Republicans will have a full 7 minutes each to grill him versus if there were two nominees in panel A, forcing them to split their questioning to an extent.
LikeLike
Collins is an A+ for me. While she only worked as a federal public defender for a few years, she directs the Legal Clinic at Quinnipiac Law, which represents low income clients. And when she was at Yale Law, she taught in the Criminal Defense and Prison Legal Services Clinics. So she basically continued her public defense work as a law professor. Just under a different name.
LikeLike
Thanks for that additional bio @Ethan. I saw she was only a pub defender for two years which is why I only get her an A. But with that additional background I agree, she bumps up to an A+ to me as well with her being in her 40’s. Truly the best batch since the midterms despite only three nominees.
LikeLike
Great point here. As a CT resident, I am stoked to see her as the nominee for this seat, especially after the longish wait.
LikeLike
Great job finding all that extra info Dequan, going by the white house announcement I thought Aframe was just another federal prosecutor.
Been a while since I’ve seen you give such high marks to a batch.
LikeLike
@Mike
Your welcome. And yea, I criticize when warranted but give credit when credit is due. It’s definitely due today. I will sleep a little better tonight about this new WH Counsel’s office after today.
LikeLike
Nominations already sent. Love it
(https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2023/10/04/nominations-sent-to-the-senate-125/)
LikeLike
The talk on seth aframe sounds like pure cope, since when are we supposed to get excited about white men career prosecutors the exact type of judges biden was suppose to stray from and in case put civil rights layers and public defenders.
There were tons of qualified lawyers who weren’t white men and haven’t worked decades in a US attorney office locking people up. He also doesnt seem that young either as well. Not even delaney for all his faults was a decades long career prosecutor. D rating.
I wont ever partake in the coping mechanism of giving white men who have been prosecutors for decades A Grade, absolute joke
LikeLike
@aangren
What are you talking about? According to his graduation dates he should be in his 40’s. How much younger do you expect a circuit court nominee to be? And yes he’s a White man but according to everything I’ve seen, much more of what I want on the bench by Biden then say Childs or Ramirez even though they are Black & Hispanic.
And civil rights & public defender lawyers aren’t the only areas we need judges from. Aframe has years of experience in handling of election day complaints of voting rights concerns, threats of violence to election officials or staff. Plus he’s a law professor.
I would suggest a little more research on him. Your synopsis is way off & we usually agree for the most part. If you’re taking off some because he’s a White man, that’s your right. But the rest of what you said isn’t an accurate portrayal of his full bio respectfully.
LikeLike
You’ll never be happy with anything Biden does so I’ll go by the options other people give on this nominee versus yours, all of whom are happy with this pick.
LikeLike
Couple of additional notes:
There was a vacancy on the Northern District of Ohio that opened up on the 1st, judge Patricia Anne Gaughan (Clinton appointee) took senior status. Hard to imagine this vacancy getting filled since I’m sure Vance will be far more difficult on blue slips than Portman was (wasn’t that why Schumer rushed to get Hopkins confirmed to the SDOH at the end of last year before Portman retired?).
All 51 Democrats were in attendance today, not that they needed full attendance today, but I was surprised to see Stabenow back so quickly given her COVID diagnosis.
Hurson was just confirmed, just the standard three Republicans and that was it.
LikeLike
He is a career decades prosecutor dequan, what more is there to know? am i wrong to say he has been working for the US attorney office for over 10 years? Surely there are people who want to be federal judges without that
LikeLike
Saying a job somebody has done isn’t wrong. But completely leaving out the progressive work they have done when talking about if a judicial nominee is progressive or not isn’t really doing the nominee justice.
9th circuit court judge Lawrence VanDyke did pro bono work for the ACLU. When you just throw out a bio without adding context to it, you would assume he’s a better nominee than Aframe.
So yes I would argue looking more in depth to a nominee is better then just seeing where he worked then giving them a grade. I want young nominees with a progressive background from Biden. Additional add ins such as being a current law professor is icing on the cake. Of course I too push for diversity but there are going to be some White men out of 41 nominees. That’s just the reality. This White man is much more of what I’m looking for than many of the other 40 nominees, most of whom weren’t White men.
LikeLike
I have greatly appreciated Biden’s push for diversity on the courts, particularly the appellate courts. So far just 6 of 41 appellate nominees have been (non Hispanic) white men, which is historically pretty unprecedented.
Considering that along with New Hampshire’s demographics it’s hard to hold the lack of diversity here against Biden or the NH senators in any way.
Given his election law and civil rights experience, Aframe seems like a fine nominee to me. I’d give him an A or A+ rating, although I’m interested to see how his hearing goes.
LikeLike
@Joe
Exactly. I’m a Black man who has been unabashed about pushing for more diversity on the courts, especially the circuit courts. But they all can’t be non White men. And for God’s sakes let’s take a win when given to us.
Aframe is in his 40’s, has a background in election & voter protection & even as a prosecutor, has prosecuted Bitcoin executives. I don’t care if he was yellow, green or poka-dot, that’s a win. Particularly when you look at who we almost got instead 9 months ago.
LikeLike
Truth be told, with the last name “Aframe”, I really thought it was an African American nominee or at least someone with some non-american familial lineage. Reading some of your posts and finding out that he’s a white man doesn’t move the needle for me at all. The upper northeast of the U.S is like *REALLY* white, so it makes sense that he picked someone with a progressive background whom the NH senators are ok with. I vaguely remember looking at the gender and racial breakdowns of all Senate Democrats staff, and of course Sens. Ossoff & Warnock have two of the most diverse staff. If my memory is correct, I think Sens. Hassan and Shaheen have among the least diverse staff of their senate colleagues. Go figure.
Would I have liked a POC to be the nominee? Absolutely, but only if that person truly had a diverse background and didn’t take the traditional route of being a prosecutor/big law firm partner prior to joining the bench.
Brief tangent: Newly appointed Sen. Butler from California led one of the largest nurse’s unions in California then sold out to go lobby and provide Uber and other ride-sharing services information on how to screw over their workers. She’s a POC and that is fantastic, but I would argue that judicial nominee Aframe would enact better legal outcomes than Ms. Butler if they were both judges.
With that said, I usually don’t want to participate in grading nominees because I don’t have the wide breadth of knowledge as you guys do here, but he seems to be an amazing nominee and I see no reason to give him anything lower than a B-.
LikeLike
I found a picture of Seth Aframe.
https://www.unionleader.com/news/politics/national/biden-nominates-n-h-fed-prosecutor-to-appeals-court-judgeship/article_4a43760b-742f-52ed-8c14-f102f5fa8041.html
LikeLike
I’ll be honest, I did think the A+ rating for this circuit seat was reserved only for Gilles Bissonnette.
LikeLike
Gilles Bissonnette would have probably been my number one choice. He’s about 7 years younger than Seth R. Aframe.
But Aframe is a rock star pick. To date, out of the other 40 circuit court nominees I think only Myrna Perez, Nancy Abudu, Roopali Desai & Rachel Bloomekatz had extensive election law experience. And of course only Anthony Johnstone was a sitting law professor. He truly checks just about every box I have with the exception of diversity. As I mentioned earlier, not every nominee can be a non a white man. Biden has gone lengths to diversify the bench so I won’t take anything off this pick.
LikeLike
Two more judges confirmed today but just like last time, it just doesn’t hit the same way. I need to see a week or most of a weeks senate focus be on confirming nominees to get excited about Biden racking up confirmations.
If you confirm less than 5 judges a week when you have 25 waiting, I’m just not gonna be happy.
LikeLike
Wholeheartedly agree.
I know that the GOP doesn’t believe in governing (besides corporate tax cuts and the massive NDAA every year), so they’re happy to tee up votes for judicial nominees all day and weeklong, but damnnnn, can Schumer at least walk and chew gum at the same time? I have no problem with holding floor time for debates and letting the committees do their thing, but can we at least try to confirm 3 judges per week? There are multiple districts in the country that are judicial emergencies and due to politics, people in those districts are receiving less than stellar help from the judicial system.
200 seems so far away at this pace.
LikeLike
Oh, we’re almost certainly not hitting 200 judges.
If McConnell was senate leader I’d believe he could easily confirm everyone in the pipeline plus another 20-25 nominees next year but my optimism for Senate Democrats accomplishing something they said would be their top 2 or 3 priority has gone right out the window.
I would be shocked if Democrats were able to confirm 57 judges in the next 14 months.
In the last 6 months they have confirmed 28 judges.
LikeLike
Only 28 in the past 6 months?!? That is absolutely pathetic. With the way they seemed to put an emphasis on the judiciary upon Pres. Biden’s transition into office, I thought they had their sights set on Trump’s 4-year record and then some. In fairness, they did do a good job of it with getting 100 in such a short time, but then they just took their eye off the ball or their inner neoliberal instincts kicked in. They were so excited to churn out more judicial nominees after they reached 100, that reaching 200 seemed to be a foregone conclusion. What. In. The. Hell. Happened?!?
Did the big bad Blue Slips monster bite? Did endless ranting during committee time by GOP senators scare them? I genuinely don’t understand. Governing is hard, I’m not trying to say that it’s easy or that anyone can do it, but FFS, show that it’s a priority. There hasn’t been a reconciliation bill from the House since 2022 which requires burning through floor time for debates and amendments and whatnot. I’m just not understanding the rationale for putting judicial nominations on the back burner.
I’m well aware that Trump’s record was due to political shenanigans from McConnell during Obama’s last 2 years, but there is no excuse for trying their hardest to fill only blue-state vacancies. Creating and further exacerbating the two-tiered court system in this country. By which blue states are kept in check by conservative federal judges in their states and red states can basically do whatever they want. Need to do better. But I don’t see Durbin and Schumer doing any better. I think that I said earlier that Senate Dems seem to embody the “eh, we tried mentality” which leads to an average of 4.6 judges confirmed per month. Pathetic. And the pace needs to be picked up.
I was confident that they would at least fill every blue state vacancy, but Cardin and the vacancy in the 4th circuit has me rethinking that. It was never going to be easy, but I almost don’t think it’s a top 5 priority in the Senate Dem caucus anymore. They’d much rather spend time giving speeches on the senate floor about an obstructionist senator unilaterally blocking nominees than actually doing anything to fix it. There’s always something in the way, there always is. *sigh*
LikeLike
Schumer doing the final wrap before the recess. Three cloture motions sent…
Jennifer Hall
Julia Munley
Karla Gillbridge (Equal Employment Commission)
LikeLike
Glad to see Gilbride. She’s been waiting a long time.
But I’m unclear on why Hall. Judge Andrews doesn’t go senior until 12/31, unless he’s signaled he wants to go sooner.
LikeLike
Don’t get me wrong, I get it. Jennifer Hall is from the home state of the president so she gets priority. But it’s a little ridiculous to confirm her in October for a seat that does not open up until New Years. It made sense to do it with KBJ because you don’t mess around with a SCOTUS vacancy plus they had a 50/50 senate at the time. But Hall could get confirmed even in a Republican majority. No reason whatsoever to have her jump the line of so many others that have been waiting much loner than July 11, 2023, plus who is nominated for a seat that is vacant NOW.
LikeLike
According to Schumer after filing the cloture motions, it sounds like the rest of the week when they get back after those nominees are confirmed will be dedicated to the minibus.
On a final note, Rita Lin (NDCA) received her commission today.
LikeLike
I’m really excited about Karla Gillbridge. I wish she was nominated for a federal judgeship instead of Clarence Thomas’s old stomping grounds. Shes young, very progressive & with her being blind, she could have been Biden’s third nominee with a disclosed disability.
I’m happy about Munley only because as I’ve said in the past Schumer should be confirming judges that have multiple nominees on the same court in order off age to maximize the possibility of Democrat chief justices. Munley is older than Karoline Mehalchick so that’s good.
I’m not excited at all about Jennifer Hall jumping the line. We still have five nominees pending who were nominated before this year. The good news is now that Butler has been sworn in, I think after the first week back, Schumer can clear a lot of the backlog the following four weeks if he dedicates two of the four to confirmations. Attendance issues should be at a minimal now plus we always have Tim Scott missing days in our back pocket.
LikeLike
What other names do you wish had been nominated for a federal judgeship besides Karla Gillbride?
LikeLike
As far as getting to 200, the WH/Senate are at 145 right now (1 SCOTUS, 36 appellate, 108 district).
If they just confirm all current nominees, minus Colom, then that would be an additional 33 (5 appellate, 28 district). That puts them at 178. When you throw in the 20 or so blue state vacancies plus any red state deals that might get worked out then 200 should definitely be achievable and honestly 210-220 should be the bare minimum.
Obviously, I hope many more red state packages can be worked out and future vacancies open up, but those are more difficult to predict.
LikeLike
Someone made an excellent point earlier (my apologies if I didn’t credit you or give you specific props) but the point was that if/when Mr. Aframe is confirmed, it would further strengthen the all-dem 1st circuit and that it would look like what the courts looked like after FDR left office. With that said, it’s hypothetical time *evil grin*
What would the circuit courts look like after a Biden 2nd term with a Dem majority in the senate? Does the 3rd circuit flip? Do the 8th and 5th circuits look very different? Is there a chance the 6th and 7th circuits can be brought to an even split?
It doesn’t have to be out in fantasy land (like achieving a majority on the 5th circuit after 4 more Biden years), just realistic circuit court outlooks after at least 2 years of senate control and Biden’s reelection.
District courts are harder to predict with the intransigence of Durbin to do away with or modify blue slips, but still.
LikeLike
@dawsont825
Yes that was me talking about how the 1st now mirror the courts at the time FDR died. As for your hypothetical end of a second Biden term with a senate miracle for the democrats giving them a majority all 8 years, here would be my guess;
1st – Obviously all Dem.
2nd – I honestly only see one Republican leaving the bench by 2028 so not much change their.
3rd – I could see two Republicans leaving by 2028 but more realistically just one.
4th – This would be solidly Democrat by 2028 in your scenario with the age of the judges on the court.
5th – I’m sorry but this court would still be conservative. I say that because after Ramirez is confirmed, the court will be more conservative by the end of this year then it was at the start of Biden’s presidency & that’s with two Biden judges put on it. This will take an FDR three straight terms of Democrats type of a run to get back into Democrats hands.
6th – This court reminds me of how the 4th circuit use to be. It use to be heavily conservative but, in your scenario, by 2028 I think it would resemble the 4th when Obama left office.
7th – There would likely be two Republican flips in your scenario so it would be pretty close to even.
8th – There are five judges on this court right now, which is the only one of the 13 circuits not to have a vacancy yet under Biden. I could see 3 or them leaving the bench by 2028, so Biden could closes the gap but just like the 5th it would still be conservative.
9th – There would likely be three Republican flips by 2028.
10th – This would be pretty heavily Democrat by 2028 with another Republican flip or maybe even two.
11th – Not much hope here for a Republican flip with six Trump judges put on the court.
DC – I don’t think Henderson would last until 2028 so likely one Republican flip.
Federal – This would be the court I could see the most Republican to Biden flips on.
LikeLike
I actually made a prediction for the same situation as well. I’m not quite as confident that Biden will flip as many seats by 2028. Here’s my prediction:
1st CCA: 6 – 0 Democrat Nominated
2nd CCA: 8 – 5 Democrat Nominated (There’s a chance Debra Ann Livington, the last Bush nominee, assumes senior status by 2028, but the rest of the republican nominatees were nominated by Trump)
3rd CCA: 8 – 6 Democrat Nominated (The only GOP nominee I see going senior by 2028 is Judge Jordan, because he’s the oldest)
4th CCA: I don’t have a clear prediction for this one, Because all the GOP nominees that weren’t nominated by Trump are pretty old, So there is the potential for 4 flips, but I’m not sure if that would happen.
5th CCA: 10 – 7 Republican Nominated is the best case scenario for Biden, with Judges Smith and Southwick going senior or retiring.
6th CCA: 8 – 8 split (The only GOP nominee I see going senior by 2028 is Judge Griffin)
7th CCA: 6 – 5 Republican Nominated (I seriously doubt Easterbrook or Skyes go senior by 2028 under Biden, but I do think Judge Rovner will go senior by then.
8th CCA: 8 – 3 Republican Nominated (There’s a good chance Judge Loken will go senior, and maybe Judge Benton too)
9th CCA: 17 – 12 (The only seat I see flipping is Judge M. Smith, as he is 80 years old, but I don’t think the other other 2 Bush nominees will go senior)
10th CCA: 8 – 4 Democrat Nominated (Good chance of Judge Hartz going senior)
11th CCA: 7 – 5 Republican Nominated (I don’t think Biden will flip a single seat because 6 were nominated by Trump, and the only Bush Judge left is not very old and and very conservative)
DC CCA: 8 – 3 Democrat Nominated (I 100% gree with your prediction)
Federal CCA: 10 – 2 Democrat Nominated (Judges Newman and Laurie’s seats will definitely flip)
LikeLike
I could see Judge Richman of the 5th circuit going senior as early as October 2024 when her term as chief judge ends. Judge Bennett of the 9th circuit might go senior in 2028.
LikeLike
I think the 4th and 6th would likely see the most movement Dems way. There are a lot of older judges from both parties on those circuits. In fact, I hope both circuits have some movement the next 15 months.
The Federal Circuit also has 3 judges well into their 80s so there may be movement there as well.
LikeLike
Optimism is a fine attribute. But realism is often eclipsed here in favor of wishful thinking.
A second term of Trump and/or the loss of the senate majority are also a possible scenario.
Speculations how the judiciary would look then are surely not that attractive.
Generally we have already said, that these, who wished to be replaced by a Democratic President, have already quit. That should not significantly change between 2024 and 2028, no matter, who will be POTUS then.
Some others will become eligible and leave at the earliest possible date.
Age is the most likely cause to leave in the one way or the other.
LikeLike
I’m usually the only one who rails against the mass wishful thinking of many on here.
After all we’ve seen, I cannot believe the delusion of Biden getting 200 or more still has some in its grip. Where do people see the wave of retirements/deaths/impeachments coming from?
We can always dream up fantastic scenarios, but the idea that Dems could hold the senate for all 8 potential years of a Biden presidency is more of a strain on the imagination than playing quidditch by flying on a broom while being chased in the sky by soul sucking Dementors.
Maybe 4.5 confirmations a month is really all we can expect. That better not drop to 4.25 or I’ll be tempted to fly my Nimbus 2000 to DC to ask Schumer about his lousy scheduling strategy!
LikeLike
Delusion of 200? What? As Joe pointed out we’re currently at 145 confirmations and have another 33 (non-Colom) nominees named, and in fact 35 if you include all article III judges. That already brings us to 180. By my count, we also have about 15 current and future vacancies without a nominee that don’t require Republican blue slips which brings us up to 195. Even if we get only 5 more blue/circuit vacancies that still adds up to 200, no “wave” of retirements needed. And yes, not all of those will necessarily be filled, but it’s unlikely that as little as only 5 vacancies open up or that absolutely no red state senators cooperate considering some already have.
Even if the Senate continues its snails pace of 26 confirmations in 6 months, that still is on pace to go over 200 this term. In fact, they would have to slow down all the way to like 20 in 6 months to not reach that milestone.
LikeLike
Now, as far as having an additional four years of senate control, I agree, that is much murkier and no one can really say with any degree of certainty.
LikeLike
I think 200 will be very straightforward to get to.
If we simply confirm all current nominees that is 178 right there. Additionally there are the following vacancies which do not require blue slips:
3rd CCA
4th CCA
6th CCA
SD New York
ED Pennsylvania
ED Michigan
SD California
CD California
D Rhode Island
D Vermont
D New Jersey
WD Virginia
ND Illinois
D Arizona
D Arizona
D Oregon
D DC
That gets us to 195. And that’s not counting red state nominees (we can reasonably expect at least a couple more from IN, Maine, Louisiana, Possibly TX/FL/SC) or additional blue state/circuit vacancies, which seem to open up at the rate of at least 1-2 a month.
Obviously we are 15 months out, but I really see no reason why 200 doesn’t happen by January 2025. Getting above the 210-220 range will be difficult though, unless the senate shifts a laser focus towards judges.
LikeLike
What about that WI seat? Didn’t the senators send noms in early summer? Shouldn’t that an announcement be coming up soon?
LikeLike