Longtime magistrate judge Jacquelyn Austin has been nominated to replace Judge J. Michelle Childs on the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina.
Background
Born in 1966, Austin received a B.S. from the University of South Carolina School of Engineering in 1989 and her J.D. from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1996. Austin then clerked for Judge Matthew Perry on the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina and then joined Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, P.C. as an Associate. In 2006, Austin became a partner at the firm.
In 2011, Austin was appointed to be a U.S. Magistrate Judge for the District of South Carolina, where she currently serves.
History of the Seat
The seat Austin has been nominated for opened on August 2, 2022, with Judge J. Michelle Child’s elevation to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Austin was one of two candidates under consideration for the seat along with former federal prosecutor Beth Drake. See John Monk, Names of SC Judge, Lawyer Floated to Succeed Michelle Childs on Federal Bench, The State, Dec. 26, 2022, https://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/article270051712.html.
Legal Experience
Between her clerkship and her appointment to the bench, Austin worked at the firm of Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, P.C. A notable case that Austin worked on was a suit brought by several Greenville state court judges against the County, arguing that the County had illegally recorded telephone calls between their offices and the Detention Center. See Abraham v. City of Greenville, SC, 237 F.3d 386 (4th Cir. 2001). Austin was a part of the legal team for the County of Greenville, who argued that the recordings were permissible as they were conducted as part of ordinary law enforcement proceedings. See id. at 389-90. After a district court trial ended in a jury verdict for the plaintiffs, the Fourth Circuit affirmed. See id. at 388. Austin was also part of the legal team for pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca, facing a breach of contract claim against Albemarle Corp. See Albemarle Corp. v. AstraZeneca UK Ltd., 628 F.3d 643 (4th Cir. 2010).
Jurisprudence
Since 2011, Austin has served as a U.S. Magistrate Judge in South Carolina, in which capacity, Austin presides over pretrial release and discovery disputes, as well as over cases in which parties consent to her jurisdiction. As part of her pretrial release duties, Austin set a $30,000 secured bond for arms dealer Dustan Lawson, who was accused of providing guns to serial killer Todd Kohlhepp. See Elizabeth LaFleur and Nikie Mayo, Bond Conditions Set for Upstate Man Accused of Supplying Todd Kohlhepp With Guns, Greenville News, Oct. 23, 2017, https://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/2017/10/23/dustan-lawson-todd-kohlhepp-guns/789799001/. In doing so, Austin declined Lawson’s motion to reduce the bond to $17000. See id. Lawson ended up posting the bond, see Daniel J. Gross, Lawson Released on Bond in Kohlhepp Federal Firearm Case, GoUpstate, Oct. 23, 2017, https://www.goupstate.com/story/news/2017/10/23/lawson-released-on-bond-in-kohlhepp-federal-firearm-case/18118862007/, and eventually pleading guilty. See Jeffrey Collins, Man Who Bought 12 Guns for Serial Killer Pleads Guilty, Associated Press, May 24, 2018, https://apnews.com/article/2fece690bd3e43cca55c7b475b2934ad.
Notably, Austin presided over a civil rights suit brought by Stephon Hopkins, a Greenville man claiming that a police officer intentionally slammed his head in a car door during an arrest. See Hopkins v. Walters et al., 6:2021-cv-00553. Austin allowed the case to move forward to a jury, and after a week-long trial, the jury returned with a verdict for the defendant. See Dustin George, Verdict Reached in Lawsuit Over 2019 Arrest in Greenville County, WSPA.com, Apr. 21, 2023, https://www.wspa.com/news/local-news/verdict-reached-in-lawsuit-over-2019-arrest-in-greenville-county/.
Overall Assessment
Austin’s nomination is a culmination of a search process that has lasted well over a year, and likely reflects the support of her home-state senators. Given this, Austin is expected to have a relatively comfortable confirmation.
The Vetting Room 
I am pleased with Austin’s nomination. I think she was the better of the two recommended.
LikeLike
I expect Austin to be confirmed by a comfortable margin.
LikeLike
B+ nominee, pretty happy considering the seat’s location
LikeLike
Also recently the New York Court of appeals and the Wisconsin Supreme Court both heard redistricting cases this week or so.
So far it looks good for democrats However on a different note.
The Wisconsin Supreme court is probably the most partisan court in the nation.
The oral arguments today, were very hard to watch. The Justices were completely disrespectful to each other on both sides, it was uncollegial and the court lacked legitimacy in this whole process.
My concern is that with both sides having hyper partisan nominations to courts. That the federal courts will become like this. Seeing cracks in SCOTUS, 9th and the 5th.
I know Justice Roberts has tried to seke consensus but i doubt if this continues it will hold. Its pretty shocking.
With that I begin to question nominations such as Dale Ho for NY. Who have made the comments they have made. Also other republcian and democratic nominees all that further this issue
Perhaps partisan nominees can still achieve collegiality and legitimacy for the court but im beginning to have doubts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Collegiality is good if it’s on both sides. It’s currently not. The right has fire breathing conservatives in black robes at all levels. Until that changes, bring on as many Dale Ho’s as can be found. I care about votes & preserving our rights more than one side unilaterally disarming for the sake of being nice.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is exactly what I have been saying here going back years now, and I am glad to see others noticing the problem as well now. Nominees such as Dale Ho and many of the FedSoc hacks put up by Trump are incredibly damaging for the judiciary as judges increasingly ignore the rule of law in favor of their partisan agenda. When the courts become so ideological that all people associate with them is how many judges were appointed by the different parties, the courts lose their legitimacy completely, as has been felt more and more recently with SCOTUS. The way to return to more legitimate courts is to get back to appointing more judges who respect the rule of law, and while many here disagree with me on this, it happens by looking to return to circuit court blue slips and restoring the filibuster for all judicial nominees, not today but as soon as it is reasonably possible. This will force presidents to nominate fair nominees who are not ideological hacks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Completely agree these incidents mentioned are not a regular occurence.
I think soon we need to turn to blue slips for all courts. I think also having proper independent vetting of if they are qualified. Like the ABA
LikeLike
Agreed with Dequan that collegiality is impossible when the right is composed of nutjobs like the ones on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. I’ll go a step further – say Republican Party puppets like Alito (and that witch Bradley on the Wisconsins Supreme Court) do not deserve a modicum of respect, and same judges have an affirmative obligation to reject their BS. Bradley and her ilk tried to overturn the Wisconsin election results, and they are not owed any respect simply because they did so in a black robe rather than a MAGA hat.
The far-right majority on the US Supreme Court has shown no qualms about using its 6 votes to enact policy changes that the Republicans could never get passed through Congress, and liberal judges are the ones who have to respect the minority when they’re in the majority? Don’t be ridiculous.
Lastly, folks need to stop perpetuating the nonsense that Roberts “seeks consensus” or is a “moderate” by any reasonable definition of the word. He’s simply playing the long game because he knows SCOTUS is going to be conservative for a long time – it’s more helpful to Fed Soc long-term to spread out conservative victories over a decade than enact them all at once and generate a strong-enough backlash to actually lead to change. SCOTUS is nothing more than Mitch McConnell’s little lapdog that needs to be brought to heel, and the sooner Biden/the Dems recognize that point, the better.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There are 5 justices to Roberts’s right who are not moderate nor seek consensus. Even if Roberts continues trying to seek consensus, he will get outvoted by the 5 far-right justices.
Roberts is a conservative for sure but I wouldn’t consider him far-right.
LikeLike
@Frank, I actually completely agree with you. Over the past 10 years the Senate (working in accordance to the President of the same party) have made it a lot easier to place very partisan judges on the judiary, and I do think that this tears quite a bit on our courts’ integrity and legitimacy. I know that a lot of people disagree with us. But I wanted to say that I agree with you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Frank & @CJ
The problem isn’t your want for a fair & balanced judiciary, the problem is reality. The reality is Republicans have been cheating for decades. They started with the Fortus fillibuster to Chief Justice. Then they blocked Clinton’s nominees from a vote (Including two Latinos to the 5th circuit & Elana Kagan to the DC circuit). Then of course we all know not allowing Garland to get a hearing in an election year followed by ramming ACB in after votes had already been cast. And of course they ended blue slips for circuit court vacancies.
The only talk of going back to the way things use to be should happen when Republicans are in power, not Democrats. Going back while Democrats are in power would be the equivalent of a a bully using a baseball bat, broken glass bottle & a knife every day when he see’s a kid with his lunch money, but then one day when the kid brings his own weapons now all of a something the bully wants to play by the rules.
You don’t get to bend & break the rules then once you’re ahead all of a something want to follow the rules. That’s not how life works & it’s certainly not how the judiciary should work. We can talk about playing by the rules after about 20 years of us evening the playing field.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Exactly, Dequan. It is stunning to me after the rightward lurch the courts have been taking for decades that there are still people on this side of the fence who seem to think the problem will be fixed by playing nice. If we just capitulate and whine ineffectually about rules a little harder from the sidelines, then maybe the Republicans will start to care about them too. Yeah, right.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Oh look, more Republicans playing nice when it comes to Democrat judicial nominees. Now would be a GREAT time to bring back blue slips & the filibuster to give them even more ammunition to work with since they are being so nice… Haaaaaa
(https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/22/us/nc-roy-cooper-chamber-commerce-black-nominees-reaj/index.html)
LikeLike
Look I get that we need to make sure the scales dont tip even further to the right.
But partisan nominees such as Judge Ho in the 5th circuit and the progressive Judge Ho in NY, are the kind of apoointees im very skepitical about, especially for Appellate courts.
Also in Wisconsin, Justice Bradley and her attempting to overturn the election results was insane.
However they have a point in this case. That as much as I hope democrats win in redistricting.
That just because of a Change of membership in the courts doesnt mean you should be able to do just redo a decision everytime, right after its done. I didnt like it with Dobbs, i dont like it in Wisconsin and North Carolina with their Voter Id and redistricting rehearing, just because republicans took over their supreme court
I think all this is damaging to the rule of law and the Judiciary cannot continue this way or they will lose legitimacy and authority.
Collegiliality is also important but just also non toxic written opinions, the fair procedures, stare decisis.
The way courts are heading with appointees from both sides isnt healthy.
We can blame republicans and sure that they may have more to blame but still.
LikeLike
Also Id like to clarify, I still think this can be achieved with progressive judges or conservative Judges being appointed .
Judges like Bibas, Thapar and Judges such as Robinson etc.
do have a judicial ideology but its not overly political. So appointing Judges who wont force the Judiciariy to steep more into partisanship on both sides.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@EJ The point is, that the way the courts are heading. The judiciary cannot continue. So overly partisan it loses all legitimacy. The courts are getting there, but continuing on both sides, will be devastating.
None of us are saying you cant appoint progressive judges but theres a fine line between them and overly partisan judges.
And we cannot let the federal courts become like wisconsin
LikeLiked by 2 people
I do agree you can appoint conservative & liberal judges that are not partisan & intellectual. Bibas & Thapar are two great examples of conservative intellectuals. But we must remember at the end of the day the constitution gives 101 people the power to put federal judges on the bench. The one president that nominates them & the 100 senators that confirm them.
I think we are letting OURSELVES, the voters off the hook too much. We have the type of partisan judges we have now because we are electing partisan senators like Cruz, Hawley, Cotton, Blackburn & others. If the people stop electing bad senators, that likely will help solve the problems you all are mentioning for future judicial nominees. Until that happens, there’s really no system you could put in place to fix the problem. If you bring back the filibuster, nobody except for Jesus Christ himself would likely get 60 votes with the senate composition we have now & even Christ would still require a cloture & confirmation vote.
LikeLike
She had been on my radar for a whil., I’m just surprised it took as long as it did for her to be nominated.
LikeLike
Nominations hearing next Wed, ! (unless it gets cancelled)
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/committee-activity/hearings/11/29/2023/nominations
LikeLike
@Rick
SJC hearing followed by ticker-tate parade down Pennsylvania Ave. Durbin will be on the biggest float celebrating all the Republicans that turned in their blue slips. I’ll be on the sidewalk vomiting.
LikeLike
@Frank and @CJ: as many others have said here, it’s wrong to assume that this is a good starting point to bring about norms of civility and bipartisanship. GOP hasn’t been playing by these rules for a very long time.
If you don’t believe so, look up Ronnie White’s first nomination to EDMO in 1999-2000. Explain to me how the Republicans were playing by the rules of civility and bipartisanship by blocking the nomination of a MO Supreme Court Justice to the district court bench. White was in no way an ideologue, yet it took until Obama’s second term to get him on the Federal bench.
On the other side, there’s no way you can say that Justin Walker’s two nominations and confirmations are evidence that Republicans are nominating middle of the road candidates.
Please don’t try to rewrite or ignore history here. We’re at a point where two different views of the laws are most prominent, and each party nominates people who share one of those two views. Perhaps adding judges at all levels would change things, but that’s a better thing to advocate for than the fantasy that Republicans are going to nominate non-ideological candidates.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m not trying to rewrite history in any way. What we were just saying was not trying to deny the fact the GOP was doing dirty tricks on nominee, like what you said. What we were saying is that it’s become much easier to confirm ideologues to the courts over the years, because of those dirty tricks that the GOP used.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@CJ
Even though I personally am against any return to the past norms & actually advocate further elimination of them such as blue slips for district court seats, I do think there is a fair way to do what your advocating. That would be to putting a future date to return to them.
The date couldn’t be in the near future like next year because people like myself would say Trump got 4 years, why should Biden only get 3 years. A better date would be January 2026. That way we don’t know who will be president or the senate majority at that time. You would need to make it law so that a simple majority in the next congress can’t simply overturn it again. Other then something to that affect, it will be political & unlikely to pass.
LikeLike
Exactly. I’m not downplaying that nearly all of those changes were enacted by the Republicans, but it doesn’t change the fact that they have caused hurt to the judiciary in the long term. If on a future date something could be done to return to the safeguards for not having partisan ideologues (likely through the passage of legislation), that would be ideal.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@ Dequan
Yeah, assuming the Florida nominees are scheduled for next Wed, Durbin will be trying to hold back tears talking about how nice Senators Rubio and Scott were to come up with these nominees. Democrats continue to believe these are the Republicans of yesteryear and why can’t we have bipartianship everyday. Sen Durbin, this isn’t the 70’s & 80’s anymore when judicial nominations were confirmed voice vote in matter of weeks from their nomination announcement
Let’s fast forward to Dec 13th. That SHOULD be the day Nicole Berner has her hearing. There should be GOP fireworks that day, Cruz, Cotton, Hawley will be steaming mad that day!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I may have to take off work that day or at the very least come in late. That may make the Dale Ho hearing look like a Sunday school rehearsal. A Muslim & a Planned Parenthood/SEIU attorney whose wife represented Kavanaugh’s sexual assault accuser. EMS needs to be on standby for that hearing. We may actually see a Republican’s head explode.
It would be smart for Durbin to schedule both for that hearing & not split them. We don’t want Republicans to get 7 minutes for each. Let them split their 7 minutes by two for their fake outrage.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Dequan
This will be Senator Cruz’s opening remarks at the Nicole Berner hearing: paraphrasing
“Thank you Mr. Chairman. Ms. Berner, in an administration that has nominated far left loons after far left loons, your nomination has to be the most far radical, crazy even for this admin. You are the Demand Justice poster nominee and they are gushing with joy over your nomination”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Haaaaaaaa
@Rick
Why did I read that in Cruz voice… Lol
I’ve said it before here but seeing Ted Cruz bitch & moan about how liberal a nominee is may be my dirty little pleasure in life. Few other instances of another human being suffering make me so happy… Lmao
LikeLike
Someone is def gonna ask Mangi a question involving a Muslim bakery and a gay wedding cake.
LikeLike
I’d be surprised if Durbin didn’t pair the two nominees. IIRC every time you had multiple appeals court nominees eligible for a hearing, that hearing would include at least two appeals court nominees (Ramirez/de Alba and Kolar/Federico both had concurrent hearings this year, right? And the last two years I remember being on a nice roll with several hearings having a 2/3 appeals/district nominee split). Not only that, those nominees should take priority over district nominees. The only time I remember a solo appearance for an appeals court nominee was Delaney earlier in the year and then just recently, Aframe.
I remember expecting fireworks for Rikelman’s confirmation hearing, since congressional Republicans view the term “abortion” as a murder weapon, but she was largely pressed on her stances of how long should abortion be legal and I don’t remember her hearing being as hostile as some of the President’s other nominees (Ho, Kato, Kasubhai, etc).
I feel like Berner will draw far more fire than Mangi if they’re both at the same hearing. Mangi IMO will probably get questions tying him to Irsael/Palestine/Hamas more than anything.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is a weird scenario where the hearing goes well bc Mangii and Sen Kennedy bond over the fact that they both went to Oxford.
LikeLike
You are correct that recently Durbin has been pairing two circuit court nominees in Panel 1 but it hasn’t always worked out that way. When Biden nominated three for the 9th circuit at the same time, I remember Koh, Thomas & Sanchez each having three separate hearings. But I will assume Durbin knows to pair these two up to split the rapid fire that will come from the Republicans’, so I look to see both at the same hearing.
LikeLike
Absolutely agree! This will be a very funny SJC hearing. Love if we could have their blood pressure levels on the screen seeing it spike as they hear the progressive credentials
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wonder if Colleen Holland will finally be included
LikeLike
The late and not so great Scalia was a well known bully who attack others on SCOTUS that he disagreed with and Edith Jones, still in active service is well known for insulting and attacking anyone she disagrees with.
And that’s just the beginning.
What we saw at the Wisconsin Supreme Court isn’t new, folks are just paying attention now and also acknowledging in greater numbers that courts are in fact political.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sure, but those cases were largely few and far between. In the past decade (really since circuit court blue slips went away), things have gotten much worse.
LikeLike
I think there has being bullies and partisans for a long time. But from what I see Scalia still maintained good relationships with many on the court? (Ginsburg)
And theres a big difference between a few judges and the entire court system.
I think the issue of partisanship and bullying will be probably happen and do happen from Judges on both sides of the aisle
LikeLike
Almadani got her commission on the 21st, so everyone eligible for a commission so far now has one (again, only exception is Hall who can’t take the bench until after the New Year).
LikeLiked by 2 people
I remember Biden signing KBJ’s commission well before Breyer stepped down. I know another user (I believe @Gavi) mentioned a WHC memo stating a president can sign a commission any time after confirmation, even if the judge they are replacing hasn’t stepped down yet.
While I’m sure they can, I would rather they just wait until the judge officially steps down to avoid any possible future court challenges. Even if the president signs it early but dates it the day the judge is stepping down, that will work. Of course, if the president was no longer president or whatever reason before the judge stepped down (Death, resign, etc.), then the new president (Old VP) should rip the signed commission up & sign a new one themselves to really avoid any potential future court challenge to the judge’s confirmation.
LikeLike
WI-SC has been very partisan for years, really since the 2000s. One justice choked a different one more than a decade ago. This isn’t really new, just more obvious recently.
I also took a look at some older posts and the article about who was considered for the 3rd Circuit from New Jersey. The judge that the disgraced Bob Menendez wanted to add to consideration to that seat, Lisa Perez Friscia, seems to be a Republican. I guess that’s not terribly surprising. This is similar to the kind of judges that another now disgraced guy, Andrew Cuomo, put on the bench as well.
LikeLike
Senator Menendez disgraces himself more & more every day. Him getting defeated in the primary next year will be amongst the highlights of next years elections
LikeLike
Judge Patti Saris (Mass) is taking senior status.
https://masslawyersweekly.com/2023/11/22/usdc-judge-announces-transition-to-senior-status/
LikeLike
Richard Stearns (Mass) is now the last remaining Clinton judge in New England and the last remaining Dem appointed judge in New England eligible for senior status.
LikeLike
I’m hoping for either:
-Kevin Prussia, a Black man who is a Partner at Wilmer Hale and is also Chair of the ACLU of Massachusetts Foundation, and is pro bono representing plaintiffs in a suit against DHS.
-Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal. He is Latino and gay and he currently serves as Executive Director of Lawyers for Civil Rights. He is currently representing migrants who were brought to Martha’s Vineyard in a suit against Ron DeSantis.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As usual, great suggestions.
Saris and Stearns have always been a duo. They were nominated on the same day, confirmed on the same day, and both received their commissions on the same day. I’m a little shocked that Stearns also didn’t announce, but perhaps he’ll follow suit shortly and that way, there’s room for Kevin Prussia AND Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal.
LikeLike
Excellent choices, Ethan. I was actually hoping for Espinoza-Madrigal to get last year’s First Circuit nomination. Rikelman is also phenomenal, of course. With her credentials, maybe she could’ve gotten the D.C. Circuit nod over Florence Pan instead. Ah well.
LikeLike
Thank you Judge Patti Saris for your service. And thank you for giving us KBJ. I look forward to some good nominees, hopefully off of @Ethan’s list.
As for the SJC Meeting Thursday, as long as the last batch from the prior hearing was considered held over then all is well.
LikeLike
SJC Meeting officially posted next Thursday. We’ll see if any votes taken on the subpoena, but in addition to Lee and Kasubhai needing to be voted back out, it looks like the nominees from the 11/1 hearing were considered held over last week and should also be voted on as well. Biggest question mark on the meeting is if the nominees from last week’s hearing get listed and held over.
LikeLike
I hope there’s an amazing 5th name on the list the MA Sens put together for the previous vacancies. Would be good to get this one filled quickly.
LikeLike
Senators Warren and Markey tend to run a pretty fast and efficient process. Angel Kelley, Myong Joun, and Julia Kobick all were nominated in ~ 4-4.5 months. That includes, the candidate applying, interviewing with the selection panel, interviewing with the senators, interviewing with the White House, and a background check. The background check takes the most time. Guzman’s background check period was unusually long but I’ll assume that’s an outlier.
Given the fact that we’re in the holiday period, which is a tricky time to interview people, I’m guessing we’ll get a nom ~ April-ish.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Likely there will be a brand new process for this opening to give others the chance to apply for it. For that reason, I wouldn’t expect a replacement nominee until the spring or early summer next year.
LikeLike
Considering that the Massachusetts Senators are both quite progressive, and the nominees, including those they’ve recommended to both the District Court and 1st CCA, have been generally progressive, I have no reason not to believe that their recommendations and eventual nominee will be progressive too. This also makes me predict that under the GOP administration, many of the president’s policies will likely be filed to the District of Massachusetts, especially considering how much of a liberal stronghold the 1st CCA has became.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hope everyone is doing well on this Thanksgiving day.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m thankful for Harsh for keeping us all up to speed regarding the backgrounds of all the judicial nominees.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Happy Thanksgiving all. I am thankful every time my ringtone Rauw Alejandro – Cúrame plays on my phone, indicating a new post from this blog… Lol
LikeLike
Apparently, Senators Durbin and Duckworth sent their new list of NDIL recommendations to the White House last week.
Judge Durkin is slated to take senior status at the end of December. Judge Pallmeyer will prob take senior status in the near future since her term as Chief Judge will end next year.
Georgia Alexakis – Assistant U.S. Attorney and Chief of Appeals of the Criminal Division in the Northern District of Illinois
Karyn L. Bass Ehler – Assistant Chief Deputy Attorney General at the Office of the Illinois Attorney General
Judge Sunil Harjani – U.S. Magistrate Judge and Adjunct Professor at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law
Judge Heather McShain – U.S. Magistrate Judge and adjunct faculty member at Notre Dame Law School.
Amol Parikh – Partner at McDermott Will & Emery LLP. Looks like his practice is focused on IP Law.
Grayson Sang Walker – Senior Attorney Advisor in the Office of the Chair at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
https://www.durbin.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/durbin-duckworth-send-recommendations-to-be-federal-district-court-judge-in-the-northern-district-of-illinois-eastern-division-to-the-white-house
LikeLike
Oh wow, we missed that. Thanks for the list.
LikeLike
Of the ones not already on Ethan’s spreadsheet, Parikh appears to have been born around 1979, McShain around 1974, and Walker around 1985. Couldn’t immediately find Ehler’s graduation dates to guess at an age.
LikeLike
I’ve added them all. Here’s how I’d rank them in terms of preference.
1. Bass Ehler: I was able to find out that she was born c. 1977. Despite being older than Sang Walker, she has a longer track record and I even found an article that described her as a “civil rights hero” (it’s old as she’s clearly not 36 anymore since she finished law school in 2005): http://www.oychicago.com/double-chai/bio.aspx?id=23132. I also found out that she received an award from the American Constitution Society (https://cookcountybar.org/events/2023-acs-legal-legends-luncheon).
2. Sang Walker: Haven’t found any picture of him but he might be AAPI. Being young (c. 1985) and working at the EEOC are great resume points.
3. Georgia Alexakis: I give her the slight edge over Harjani since she briefly served as the Northern District of Illinois’s Civil Rights and Hate Crimes Coordinator. Doesn’t hurt that she clerked for liberal lion Marsha Berzon.
4. Sunil Harjani: I rank him slightly below Alexakis since he’s older and doesn’t have the civil rights prosecution background.
5. Amol Parikh: Nothing progressive on his resume. Also doesn’t help that he externed for G.W. Bush/ Trump appointee Amy St. Eve. He’d be an okay pick for the Federal Circuit though since it seems he specialized in IP law.
6. Heather McShain: Nothing progressive whatsoever. Also seems that both of the judges she clerked for were Reagan appointees and she worked at the notoriously conservative law firm Jones Day. She seems like another Jennifer Rearden that Trump would’ve agreed to.
*I know clerking for a Republican appointed judge and working for Jones Day does not inherently make one conservative. But it certainly downgrades them from my perspective.
LikeLike
@keystone
Thanks for the list.
I think that Amol Parikh has a good shot. There is only one judge of South Asian ancestry on the court (Manish Shaw) and he’s a Republican. Also, while Dick Durbin is willing to support bold nominees, he doesn’t make them a priority in his home state. Parikh’s legal practice is in an area that doesn’t fall along left/right lines.
LikeLike
I hope he’s not the pick. He’d be okay for the Federal Circuit though.
LikeLike
@Ethan’s post is saying awaiting moderator. I guess Word Press is acting up again. I’ll post what he wanted to write in the meantime…
Here it is: I’ve added them all. Here’s how I’d rank them in terms of preference.
1. Karyn Bass Ehler: I was able to find out that she was born c. 1977. Despite being older than Sang Walker, she has a longer track record and I even found an article that described her as a “civil rights hero” (it’s old as she’s clearly not 36 anymore since she finished law school in 2005): http://www.oychicago.com/double-chai/bio.aspx?id=23132. I also found out that she received an award from the American Constitution Society (https://cookcountybar.org/events/2023-acs-legal-legends-luncheon).
2. Grayson Sang Walker: Haven’t found any picture of him but he might be AAPI. Being young (c. 1985) and working at the EEOC are great resume points.
3. Georgia Alexakis: I give her the slight edge over Harjani since she briefly served as the Northern District of Illinois’s Civil Rights and Hate Crimes Coordinator. Doesn’t hurt that she clerked for liberal lion Marsha Berzon.
4. Sunil Harjani: I rank him slightly below Alexakis since he’s older and doesn’t have the civil rights prosecution background.
5. Amol Parikh: Nothing progressive on his resume. Also doesn’t help that he externed for G.W. Bush/ Trump appointee Amy St. Eve. He’d be an okay pick for the Federal Circuit though since it seems he specialized in IP law.
6. Heather McShain: Nothing progressive whatsoever. Also seems that both of the judges she clerked for were Reagan appointees and she worked at the notoriously conservative law firm Jones Day. She seems like another Jennifer Rearden that Trump would’ve agreed to.
*I know clerking for a Republican appointed judge and working for Jones Day does not inherently make one conservative. But it certainly downgrades them from my perspective.
LikeLike