Judge Melissa Damian – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida

After being considered by both the Obama and Trump Administrations for a judicial vacancy, Judge Melissa Damian has been tapped by President Biden for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Background

Melissa Damian received a B.A. from Princeton University in 1990 and a J.D. from the University of Miami School of Law in 1995. After graduation, Damian clerked for Judge Ursula Ungaro on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida and then joined Kenny Nachwalter P.A. as an associate. In 1999, Damian became a federal prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida.

In 2010, Damian joined The Ferraro Law Firm as appellate counsel and then moved to Damian & Valori as Of Counsel in 2013. In 2021, Damian was selected to be a U.S. Magistrate Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, where she currently serves.

Damian has applied and been interviewed for a seat on the Southern District of Florida both in 2014, under the Obama Administration and in 2017 under the Trump Administration, but was not selected in either case.

History of the Seat

Damian has been nominated for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to replace Damian’s old boss, Judge Ursula Ungaro, who took senior status on May 2, 2021.

Legal Career

While Damian started her career as a clerk for Judge Ungaro and then at Kenny Nachwalter P.A., her first extended job was at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida, where she spent eleven years. Notably, during this tenure, Damian prosecuted George Freeman, a Washington D.C. high school teacher convicted of importing cocaine from Barbados. See United States v. Freeman, 139 F. Supp. 2d 1364 (S.D. Fla. 2001). After a guilty verdict in Freeman’s second trial, Judge Adalberto Jordan nonetheless found that Freeman’s continuous denial of any knowledge of the contents of the suitcase was truthful, notwithstanding the jury verdict, and that he should be entitled to avoid a mandatory minimum sentence. See id. at 1374.

Between 2010 and 2021, Damian worked in private practice in South Florida. During this time, Damian handled a variety of civil actions, including a personal injury lawsuit brought against Disneyworld by a plaintiff allegedly injured on a roller-coaster. See Randall v. Walt Disney World Co., 140 So. 3d 1118 (Fla. App. 5th 2014). Damian also sued attorneys representing a company founded by “financier-turned-fraudster” Aubrey Lee Price in seeking to recoup losses suffered by investors from the fraud. See Damian v. Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, 317 F. Supp. 3d 1228 (N.D. Ga. 2017). Damian has also represented plaintiffs in products liability actions. See, e.g., Rouviere v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., 560 F. Supp. 3d 774 (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Notably, Damian represented Ariel Quiros, who was sued for securities fraud by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). See S.E.C. v. Quiros, 966 F.3d 1195 (11th Cir. 2020).

Jurisprudence

Damian has served as a U.S. Magistrate Judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida since 2022. In this role, Damian presides over matters where parties consent to her jurisdiction, writes reports and recommendations for district judges to review, and handles discovery disputes, release matters, and pretrial motions. For example, Damian denied a motion by Royal Caribbean to disqualify a plaintiff’s expert witness in a maritime negligence case in which a passenger was injured by slipping on a gangway. See Jay v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., 608 F. Supp. 3d 1249 (S.D. Fla. 2022).

Among the notable cases where the parties consented to her jurisdiction, Damian partially granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings from the Oriental Republic of Uruguay, which filed suit seeking to enforce an arbitration award against the Italba Corporation. See Oriental Republic of Uruguay v. Italba Corp., 606 F. Supp. 3d 1250 (S.D. Fla. 2022). Specifically, Damian denied the portion of Uruguay’s request for prejudgment interest on the award, finding that the arbitration panel already denied Uruguay’s request for prejudgment interest. See id. at 1261.

Political Activity

Damian has a history of donating to candidates from both political parties, having given to Democratic Gubernatorial candidates Bill McBride and Charlie Crist, as well as Republican U.S. Senator Rick Scott and Attorney General Ashley Moody.

Overall Assessment

Having extensive legal experience with both civil and criminal law, as well as close connections in the South Florida legal community, Damian should be a relatively uncontroversial nominee. Given the Southern District’s need for additional judge, Damian’s confirmation will likely be a welcome relief for the judges on the bench.

158 Comments

  4. Rick's avatar

    I saw VP Harris will be attending the climate summit in Dubai. It’s 2 weeks long, I highly doubt she’ll be there for the entire summit. But her vote may be needed on some of the more controversial nominees remaining, assuming Manchin is a NO on several.

    Like

  5. raylodato's avatar

    So strange that Manchin feels like he has to vote No on Dem nominees when he’s not running for another term.

    On the flip side, same with Romney–why bother? No need to cozy up to the Right when you’re not going to be on the ballot.

    Like

  6. Mike's avatar

    Looks like two more district confirmations today, cloture for a 3rd that’ll be confirmed tomorrow morning followed by a cloture on Irma Carrillo Ramirez so she can be confirmed Monday. Not a bad week.

    I’m actually surprised they put up Ramirez, after how long it’s taken I thought Biden was holding her off to ensure Cruz follows through on agreeing to some more TX district nominees but no, somehow Ted “snitched on a college dorm poker game to avoid pay his losses” Cruz hoodwinked the Biden admin better than any other Republican I’ve seen.

    Like

    • dequanhargrove's avatar

      There’s no chance Biden would pull his nomination of the first Latina to ever sit on the 5th. The problem was the nomination in the first place. With 51 senators, they could have just held off on announcing her until they got at least half of the 8 district court vacancies if Cornyn & Cruz demanded their first choice be picked in exchange for returning blue slips for the district court vacancies.

      Now that Biden made a bad deal by nominating a 59 year old barely left of center nominee, he will have to live with it at this point. We will have to just hope Cornyn & Cruz holds up their end of the bargain now that there is no incentive for them too. I’m not very hopeful

      Like

  7. dequanhargrove's avatar

    Here’s my SJC hearing recap;

    Durbin immediately started off talking about how him & senator Duckworth worked with the Trump administration to fill every Illinois vacancy. He then started talking about his support about blue slips. He mentioned there are 35 more vacancies where Republicans have blue slips & urged Republicans to work with the White House to fill the vacancies.

    Senator Graham then started talking about keeping blue slips saying he wants to have a say in who will be a lifetime judge in his state. He then praised the White House Counsel’s office. He said elections matters. He then introduced judge Austin & joked she has an engineering degree & that he went to law school to avoid math & happy he doesn’t need it in the senate. Senator Padilla then joked he is still trying to figure out the math that 60 votes are needed in the senate instead of a majority of 51.

    Senator Butler spoke for the first time I can remember at a hearing introducing Kirk Sherriff. She was wearing a very nice leather jacket by the way. She mentioned how the EDCA has 803 filings for each judge which is the 6th highest in the nation.

    As a surprise, senator Durbin then introduced the Florida nominees. Senators Rubio or Scott wasn’t present.

    All three SDFL nominees spoke about their backgrounds (Cuban, Italian & Jewish) with Leibowitz giving a particularly very passionate recap of his.

    Senator Graham asked Sherriff why he joined the ACLU in 2019.

    Senator Hirono asked judge Sneed about past comments she made regarding the need for diversity on the bench. She asked judge Damian about her past work for Educate Tomorrow.

    Senator Lee then grilled Leibowitz about past comments he had written regarding the Commerce Clause & the violence against woman act.

    Judge Becerra answered a question from senator Padilla by saying one of the few regrets she has in her law career was never clerking for a judge.

    Senator Kennedy then asked Sherriff about if race should be a factor in choosing clerks. He then asked all of the candidates to raise their hands if they are dues paying members of the ABA. 2 of the 6 raised their hands. He then grilled judge Beccerra as to why she isn’t a member. He then turned to Sherriff & GRILLED him about his past membership of the ACLU. He then asked chairman Durbin for more time after his time ran out so he can turn to Leibowitz, asking him about what points of views are protected by free speech including if somebody says they want to kill Jews. He then asked Durbin for more time a second time so he can ask him if the Biden administration can withhold federal funds from universities because of their speech.

    Senator Whitehouse then spoke about his last warning regarding getting rid of blue slips for circuit court vacancies. He said he now hears regrets from some of his fellow Republican senators.

    Senator Blackburn then asked judge Beccerra about her past membership with the American Constitution Society. She then asked her about past defense of comments from Justice Sotomayor saying a wise Latina would come to a better judgment than a White man. She then asked her about sentencing guidelines. She brought up Seth Aframe’s saying he should be disqualified for his sentencing guidelines & it’s disqualifying for her.

    Senator Coons then spoke to judge Austin about her membership with the Patent Bar.

    Senator Butler then took over as chairwoman & passed the next questions to senator Hawley who turned to grilling Sherriff about his past membership with the ACLU. He asked him about past police forces working to patrol slaves. He then asked him about his contributions to Ask Blue who according to senator Hawley said has made comments stating all cops are bastards.

    Senator Butler then gave Sherriff time to clarify past accusations made.

    Senator Welsh then spoke about closing Guantanamo Bay with Leibowitz who said he couldn’t answer his question because of classified information he has reviewed.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. star0garnet's avatar

    Apart from potential exceptions among the six nominees awaiting a hearing, the newest nominee we’ve seen from the WH counsel’s office is Sara Hill, who interviewed with them on August 10. Here’s hoping there’s 15 if not 20+ nominees ready to be announced come January 2.

    Like

  12. Mike's avatar

    So I’m looking at a state and it’s mind boggling if true.

    In Obamas first term he confirmed 30 Circuit judges, today there are 13 left.

    16 of Bushes first term 35 judges are presiding and 16 of Bushes second term judges are still working as well.

    Hell 8 of Clintons second term (which ended in 2000!) are still going too.

    Oh freaking old were Obama’s nominees!?

    Liked by 1 person

    • dequanhargrove's avatar

      Yup, I was upset at some of Obama’s circuit court judges being so old. But at least I could say blue slips still existed for them back then. And the filibuster also for most of his 8 years as president. No excuse for Biden with the handful of old & bad judges we got.

      Like

    • Ryan J's avatar

      Had Trump won a 2nd term (and not found a way to fire of all the Obama judges) there would be a lot more Obama judges still in office right now.

      Out of the 17 Obama 1st-term judges who have left, 12 have been replaced by Biden judges, 3 by Trump judges, 1 by another Obama judge, and 1 vacant.

      Like

    • Hank's avatar

      Yeah so what if Obama’s judges have retired? So long as they’re being replaced by Biden appointees, that’s good – I don’t get why anybody would want barely center-left prosecutors/big law layers (aka most of the Obama appointees) around for decades when Biden could replace them with actually progressive judges.

      What’s more telling about your comparison is the fact that 8 Clinton judges are still refusing to go senior and risking their seats flipping under the next Republican. It’s like they’ve learned nothing from the RBG>Barrett fiasco – no single judge is so important that they need to be around for decades, especially if a bad successor would undo all of their work anyways.

      Liked by 1 person

  14. star0garnet's avatar

    Meh. The ages during Obama’s first term were in line with the ages of those appointed from Harding to Nixon, his second term they were in line with Ford to GW, and Biden’s are in line with Trump’s, meaning only the small sample of Teddy Roosevelt’s first term were younger.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. dequanhargrove's avatar

    @Michael John Schaeffer

    I know you asked me the question on the last post so I’m just getting around to answering it now. Here is a paste of my letter to The White House after Bidenreleased his first batch of nominees with my suggestions for judicial nominees;

    Hello President Biden,

    My name is Dequan Hargrove and I would first like to congratulate you on ascending to the presidency. I have had the pleasure of voting for you on three occasions in 2008, 2012 & this past November in addition to making numerous phone calls, knocking on doors and having countless conversations with friends, coworkers and people in general explaining why I thought you would make a great vice president and now president of our great country. In each occasion you were successful and in each occasion you have made me proud of my decision and vote. I thank you for keeping your promises.

    I know how extremely busy you are, so I do not want to take too much of your time but in the event you read my letter, the intent of my letter is to give you some suggestions on my number one issue to discuss when it comes to politics. My number one issue is the federal judiciary. While I know you probably do not often hear many progressives or Democrat’s list this as their number one issue, it has been mine for over two decades. My passion for the federal judiciary started when I first voted in November 2000 in Miami, Florida while as a student at Florida International University and I know my vote most likely did not count as I had “Pregnant Chads” on my ballot but was assured by the poll worker it did not matter because they can tell who I voted for. Of course, we all know what subsequently happened after that. Seeing the Supreme Court’s final decision allow the election of a president made me wonder how you get on the Supreme Court in the first place. I have been doing research on the judicial branch ever since & despite me myself not being an attorney or lawyer, it’s a subject I’m extremely interested in.

    So now that I have seen your first batch of 11 judicial nominees, I am extremely excited to see your commitment to correcting some of the damage that has been done by the appointments of your predecessor over the previous four years. So, I wanted to give you some names of young, bright, progressive minded attorneys I have researched & would think be great options for you and your team to look into for various federal judicial vacancies across the country. For the record, I do not know any of the names I am mentioning so I am only going by research I have done on my own time.

    Danielle Holley-Walker
    Justin Hansford
    Maite Oronoz Rodríguez
    Darin Johnson
    Margarita Mercado Echegeray
    Lucius T Outlaw
    Melissa Murray
    Anibal Rosario Lebron
    Valerie Schneider
    Matthrew Bruckner
    Nicole Berner
    Dale Ho
    Elise Boddie
    Gerald A Griggs
    Fatima Goss Graves
    James Forman Jr
    Catherine Lhamon
    Hector Gonzalez (New York)
    Janai Nelson
    Deepak Gupta
    Nina Perales
    Shannon Minter
    Christina Swarns
    Thomas A Saenz
    Cecilia Wang
    Timothy Wu
    Jenny Yang

    I am sure your team is filled with dedicated individuals that probably already have some of the names I mentioned on your list but I just wanted to pass on my suggestions while simultaneously congratulating you on your historic victory. I look forward to your continued success. God speed to you, your family and your administration.

    Dequan Hargrove

    Like

  18. Zack's avatar

    Should be noted of the three Obama judges that left to be replaced by Trump judges, that one of them was a George Sr judge who was part of a package deal with GA’s two Republican senators so they would also lift a hold on a more liberal nominee that Obama wanted confirmed.
    As to the rest of the nominees, yes it bit us in the butt a couple of times but as others have said, most of the Obama judges have been replaced by Biden judges and sans Gregg Costa’s replacement, I’ve been happy with most of them.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. dequanhargrove's avatar

    The SJC executive meeting is especially heated right now. It started off with Graham talking about subpoenas. Then Durbin started calling for the roll call vote for the Oregon & California nominees & each of the Republicans started saying they wanted to speak on the nominees.

    Durbin said the Republicans have had two weeks prior to talk about the nominees. The Republicans continued talking over the clerks calling each senate’s name to vote. It’s getting UGLY

    Like

    • tsb1991's avatar

      I won’t be able to tune in for a while since I have a couple of calls this morning, but I figured it’d be a lengthy meeting due to having to revote on Kasubhai and then more debate on the subpoena. I’ve seen some things on Twitter, apparently Cornyn is suggesting denying a quorum? I thought that’s no longer possible since Democrats have an outright majority on the committee this Congress (during the 50-50 Senate when the committees were evenly divided, Republicans on other committees would prevent some nominees from being voted on by denying a quorum, I know this happened to some of Biden’s Federal Reserve nominees and an SBA nominee who did get confirmed this Congress).

      I know Russell (Connecticut) is up for a vote today, so on top of Kasubhai, Lee, and the subpoena, should we be on the lookout for at least one heart attack from Republican rage today?

      Like

      • dequanhargrove's avatar

        Correct, the subject of denying a quorum was brought up by Republicans. Senator Durbin said it was the first time ever a committee member voted by proxy then later showed up & requested to change their vote to in person. He said due to the senators schedules, this has always been done. Senator Cotton then said it wasn’t because of a small mishap, it was because of Durbin’s incompetence that led to the nominees being sent back to the SJC. Then Senator Kennedy went on a long tirade followed by Senator Graham. Now they are firing on Russell. Lee is speaking now in her nomination.

        Like

      • Gavi's avatar

        @Dequan
        What? Durbin couldn’t have said that. That’s just plain wrong. Isn’t not uncommon for senators to vote by proxy then, WITH UC, change to an in-person vote. It’s just the first time that a UC was not granted.

        Also, denial of quorum would not have worked. Just like for the Barrett SCOTUS nomination. Committee rule does require (I think) 2 members of the minority, but that requirement can be changed by a simple majority, something they could not do with an even split membership during the 50-50 days of the senate. Now Dems can.

        Like

      • dequanhargrove's avatar

        Yea I was paraphrasing but you are correct & Durbin did mention it’s the first time Unanimous Consent wasn’t granted for changing the proxy vote to in person.

        We are going on 25 minutes of debate on the Russell nomination. Kennedy just said “Just because you’ve seen My Cousin Vinny doesn’t mean you should be a federal judge”. This may be the most entertaining SJC Executive Meeting of all time.

        Liked by 1 person

    • tsb1991's avatar

      I looked up the quorum rules, I guess two members of the minority need to be there, not a majority of the entire committee.

      I have a call in a couple of minutes, but I saw Aframe and Kiel both voted on party lines, and I’m assuming the same for Russell. Surprised both Aframe and Kiel were party-line votes, is this just Republicans venting their anger?

      Have the Oklahoma nominees also been voted on?

      Like

  23. Gavi's avatar

    Tuning in late…

    Cotton just called Durbin incompetent to his face.
    Durbin responded by trying to explain committee precedence. What a joke Durbin is!
    Only Republicans get to be Mullin and Cotton.
    Dems gets to be meek doormats. (Frank, this is not an invitation for you to repeat your chorus about Americans not wanting Dems to be like Republicans.)

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ryan J's avatar

      I thought for a moment and then I remembered the stupid senate rule that lets no-by-proxy votes count but effectively defeats the purpose of aye-by-proxy votes. And then I remembered that Durbin allowed this stupid Senate rule to make Judiciary Dems’ task a lot more difficult than it should be, and so I agree it’s Durbin’s incompetence.

      Like

  24. star0garnet's avatar

    Pallmeyer’s the final senior-eligible Illinois district judge, and she’ll be leaving a month before her chiefship ends, so good timing. Just leaves eight Clinton district appointees that would certainly be good to see go senior in the next year.

    Liked by 1 person

    • dequanhargrove's avatar

      OMG I thinking just had an orgasm & I’m fully clothed. Seeing senator Cruz go through judge by judge, liberal judge after liberal judge, give a special shoutout to Dale Ho, make a communist Russia remark & then watch every single Democrat vote to advance the liberal judge to the floor is the most fun I’ve had wearing clothes this year… Lmao

      Liked by 1 person

  26. Gavi's avatar

    OMG OMG OMG! The feed just randomly ended, just when things were getting extra spicy!
    This is likely due to the 2-hour rule. I never thought the SJC communication office could be so efficient. Or is it just me?

    Like

  27. tsb1991's avatar

    I forgot the Oklahoma nominees were held over this week, my bad. But every nominee today was a party-line vote for those that are curious.

    One thing caught my attention in the Cruz speech where he’s still bitter over Dale Ho when he talked about how the Senate is moving forward with Bjelkengren. Not that I’d expect Cruz to have knowledge of what Schumer has in the pipeline, but is he alluding to maybe cloture being filed on her soon?

    Schumer should send out cloture motions today, but in all likelihood there will be a cloture motion for the Israel/Ukraine aid bill, maaaybe a nomination or two, depends if the Senate starts working on legislation as soon as Ramirez is confirmed Monday.

    Durbin did look visibly pissed near the end of the meeting, didn’t know he had that in him either.

    Liked by 2 people

  29. star0garnet's avatar

    Shanlyn Park is confirmed 53-45, and now, unless there’s something the rest of us don’t know, gets to wait 314 days before Kobayashi qualifies for senior status. At least they won’t have any qualms about filling that RI vacancy that opens on 1/1/2025.

    Liked by 1 person

    • dequanhargrove's avatar

      @Mike

      Pretty easy ain’t it. Especially when they ain’t including positions like Director of Trash Cans…

      @CJ

      I can’t EVER remember an Executive Meeting being this contentious. This rivaled some nomination hearings. I’d venture to say this was as contentious as some SCOTUS hearings.

      @tsb1991

      The cloture votes definitely flew under the radar today. I am a little disappointed too that AliKhan got a cloture vote before Edelman because I like it when they go in order of age, plus he was nominated long before she was.

      Like

      • tsb1991's avatar

        My biggest guess for AliKhan leapfrogging Edelman would be that she might be a bit easier to confirm. Edelman could be a pure party-line vote (with Manchin’s vote in question), while maybe AliKhan gets Collins or Murkowski? If that’s the case Democrats wouldn’t need perfect attendance to confirm her. Both were party-line SJC votes but there have been nominees (Rikelman, Kobick) who have gotten Collins/Murkowski while being SJC party-line votes.

        Also, this is something you’ve been keeping track of while the Senate wraps up the year, but with the district court nominees confirmed this week, all of the pending district court nominees (including the ones voted out today) are either red state nominees or the more contentious/party-line nominees. As you’ve said, hopefully the red state nominees get a voice vote before the holidays, leaving just the contentious votes that will be dependent on Democratic attendance.

        Liked by 1 person

  31. tsb1991's avatar

    The cloture vote on Ramirez started at 1:30, caught me off-guard since I thought it was scheduled for 1:45.

    This news flew under the radar given the SJC meeting today, but two cloture motions were just sent out. One for AliKhan, and the other for some counterterrorism coordinator nominee. Surprised we only got two cloture motions, typically if the Senate is going to focus on legislation next week, we’d see movement on that today.

    Also surprising that AliKhan got cloture before Edelman, given that Edelman has been waiting longer to get to the DC District Court. While both were party-line votes in the SJC, maybe AliKhan will get a Collins or Murkowski (or Manchin) which would relieve pressure for Democratic attendance, while Edelman may be a party line vote minus Manchin?

    Like

  33. dequanhargrove's avatar

    I can’t believe we got a 59-year-old barely left of center nominee for the 5th circuit with only one district court nominee for 8 vacancies & she still got 17 no votes against ending cloture…smh

    Like

      • dequanhargrove's avatar

        Yea but that furthers my point. To hear Cruz & the rest of them bitch about left wing radical nominees, yet 17 of them vote no on the best possible outcome for a circuit court nominee they could get, just goes to show you Biden mine as well nominate young progressives for all these seats (Save the 1st – Maine because of Collins working in good faith & the 6th – Tennessee because the Republican appointee could withdraw her senior status for 14 months if the nominee is too liberal).

        Like

      • Jill's avatar

        No, Republicans didn’t get a sweet deal, because this is bi-partisanship working at its finest! Many of you on this site wanted an Hispanic woman to replace Costa on the 5th Circuit, so you should be celebrating the fact that not only are you getting your wish but you’re getting an experienced well-qualified jurist & not some unqualified political hack! I look forward to Judge Ramirez’s confirmation by the widest margin we’ve not seen in a very long time!

        Like

      • Ryan J's avatar

        Even with Ramirez, I still think it’s good that blue slips are gone. I think there’s a significant chance that if Cornyn and Cruz still had blue slip power, they would not even ok Ramirez and would hold the seat open for the next GOP administration. They ok’d Ramirez because they knew she was the best they would get with this administration and no blue slips.

        Like

      • dequanhargrove's avatar

        @Jill

        Haaaaaaa… Yea, we wanted a Latina for the 5th but didn’t think we needed to stress one not older than the judge theya er replacing. Hell one of the GW Bush judges is younger than her. And at least if she’s gonna be old, be progressive like Beth Robinson & Nicole Berner.

        This is a sweetheart deal for Republicans the same way Mark Bennett was a sweetheart deal for Democrats when Trump appointed him to the 9th circuit. Actually this is more of a good deal because I don’t believe blue slips had been scrapped by the time Bennett was nominated.

        Like

  35. Zack's avatar

    Did some more research about the district of Hawaii and some of you were on the money about the caseload they have.
    It’s moderate enough to the point one of the senior judges is sitting elsewhere on assignment so I don’t get the rush on confirming two nominees there.
    I guess Hawaii’s senators just didn’t want to take any chances the vacancies wouldn’t get filled.

    Liked by 1 person

  41. Ryan J's avatar

    Initially wrote this as a reply but I think it deserves to be a standalone comment.

    Even with Ramirez, I still think it’s good that blue slips are gone. I think there’s a significant chance that if Cornyn and Cruz still had blue slip power, they would not even ok Ramirez and would hold the seat open for the next GOP administration. They ok’d Ramirez because they knew she was the best they would get with this administration and no blue slips.

    Like

  42. CJ's avatar

    The way I look at Ramirez is actually a little bit more positive for liberals. She would be filling a seat that would be kept from a conservative under the next GOP president. Even through she’s moderate, she’s likely not going to agree with most of the conservative majority on the 5th CCA, especially considering how many fire-brands sit on that bench. I try to compare her 5th CCA Senior Judge Carolyn King, a judicial moderate who nominated by Carter. King, while moderate, has helped give some of the few liberal victories in the 5th CCA, such as stricking down a Mississippi voting law being struck down just this year. King also retired under Democratic president, Obama, in 2013, however Texas’ GOP senators left the seat open for Trump.

    Liked by 1 person

  43. Zack's avatar

    Arkansas is like TN now in that you can run a Democrat but he or she is going to lose by double digits.
    Quite a contrast from 2008 when Mark Pryor didn’t even have a Republican opponent.
    But then a Black man was elected as President and that was that when it came to Arkansas Democrats.

    Like

    • dequanhargrove's avatar

      Uuummm, these people are nominees for lifetime appointments to 1/3 of our government. There not nominees to be contestants on The Masked Singer. When a bad pick is made, we don’t just “Get over it”. They are making rulings that affect our lives daily. This is a blog about the judiciary. We talk about the judiciary, AKA judges on here. Good, bad or indifferent.

      Like

  48. Rick's avatar

    So with about 15 nominees awaiting final floor vote, is there any chance all these nominees get confirmed in next 2 weeks, or will they have to wait until early 2024 to be confirmed?

    Like

    • Joe's avatar

      Rick, to be honest after Alikhan next week I expect the rest of next week to be spent on Israel/Ukraine/Border bill.

      The last week of the session may be more judges but I’m not expecting anything crazy. I think it’s realistic to expect the oldest nominees up until about John Kazen to all be confirmed in that final week. Perhaps they squeeze Kolar and Federico in too. But any more than that would be unusual. We may even get voice votes on the International Trade nominees as well as the judge from NMI for good measure.

      That would put us at around 170 confirmed judges through year 3, which would really be quite good, all things considered. I hope we continue confirming the backlog in 2024 and get more vacancies to boot.

      Liked by 1 person

      • dawsont825's avatar

        It would a good idea for Schumer to demand voice votes for every nominee waiting for a floor vote in exchange for adjourning the senate for the holiday break… but Dems don’t play hardball or own a spine lololol. Schumer would never hurt the feelings of his wonderful GOP colleagues, and Durbin would rather abolish blue slips and pack SCOTUS before he ever applied pressure to confirm nominees.

        We’ll see how many Dems confirm by New Years Day, and then we’ll see who Biden nominates in the beginning of the new senate year. Hopefully we’ll get that EDWI nominee, a few WDLA nominees, and a surprise red-state nominee (my money is on a few from Missouri)

        Liked by 1 person

  50. dawsont825's avatar

    My biggest fear with Irma Ramirez is that she pulls a Julie Carnes a few years into the next GOP president’s administration. I know she hasn’t been confirmed yet so this is all moot, but she could give this seat right back to the GOP and FedSoc hacks alike.

    All I want for Christmas is for a vacancy on the 5th circuit based in Mississippi to open up so I can start planning to listen to future circuit judge Scott Colom go to battle with the FedSoc hacks on the 5th. Give me coal for Christmas for the rest of my young adult life if need be lol.

    I have no doubt she would sit on 3-judge panels and respectfully dissent and not go along with the complete hackery coming from Ho and others, but it’s not good enough. That seat should’ve gone to a young ACLU and immigration lawyer in Texas. You know, like the hacks Trump put on the 2nd and 9th circuits. Payback is supposed to be a bitch and the GOP will never pay for ruining the 9th circuit.

    Liked by 1 person

      • dequanhargrove's avatar

        If Graves were to go senior, the ink shouldn’t be dry on the letter to The White House before Biden pulls Colom’s district court nomination & renominates him to the 5th. If it’s Leslie Southwick, I would hope he doesn’t do what Gibbons did & make it upon the confirmation of his successor. Hopefully he gives a solid date. If so & that date is before July, I would wait for the day after & then nominate Colom immediately the next day.

        Liked by 2 people

      • dawsont825's avatar

        In that scenario with a true liberal already vetted and ready to be confirmed, would you support Biden using Colom as leverage over the Mississippi senators? As in, them agreeing to turn in blue slips on Colom for the Mississippi district court vacancy in exchange for a more moderate nominee to the hypothetical 5th circuit vacancy?

        I can’t say that I’m over the moon excited for a centrist or left-of-center nominee when we could have an outright liberal on the 5th for 3 decades minimum, but it would be amazing to have Colom have the power to nullify any law in Mississippi which crosses the line.

        Like

      • dequanhargrove's avatar

        @dawsont825

        It would depend on several things for me. First, which judge is the one leaving. If it’s Leslie Southwick, I would be open to that. The 5th nominee would have to be better than Kolar is on the 7th & I wouldn’t even entertain somebody on Ramirez level.

        If Graves was the judge leaving I would probably say no deal. They can keep the district court seat vacant unless the 5th recommendation was an A- or better.

        Liked by 2 people

      • dawsont825's avatar

        That’s the kind of attitude I expect from you lol. I just wonder if Biden has any type of fight left in him. With control of the senate hanging in the balance and the annoying need to seek bipartisan approval for shit they wouldn’t allow Dem senators to be consulted on… I just know Biden would take whatever he could get instead of playing hardball and getting 6 amazing young liberal judges in Texas in exchange for one centrist circuit judge.

        I’m going to dream of fiery dissents from future circuit court judge Scott Colom and no one can take that away from me lolol.

        Like

    • Ethan's avatar

      I don’t think she’s quite as conservative as Carnes. If she goes senior as soon as she’s eligible AND a Democrat is in the White House, I would love for Alejandra Avila (born c. 1989), a lawyer who just finished clerking for Justice Sotomayor, to be her successor. She immigrated to the US from Mexico as a teenager. https://global.utexas.edu/news/alumna-alejandra-avila-selected-clerkship-justice-sonia-sotomayor

      Liked by 1 person

      • dawsont825's avatar

        Hopefully by then the 5th circuit will be more moderate and we’ll have a Dem president who cares about nominating and confirming liberal judges to all districts and circuits.

        I’m sure that’s about as likely as a Dem SJC chairperson that is aggressive as Grassley was.

        Congrats to Ms. Avila, I can’t wait for her to be a district court nominee in 15 years or so

        Liked by 1 person

    • Ryan J's avatar

      Ramirez won’t be eligible to take senior status until 2034. Julie Carnes was able to pull that because she had been a district judge for 22 years. I think it’s ridiculous that Carnes was able to just take senior status after 4 years, that’s effectively appointing a senior judge to the bench.

      Ramirez doesn’t seem like the type of person who would give the seat to the GOP that quickly, and definitely not someone who would intentionally time her retirement to let a GOP president pick her successor. Julie Carnes is a conservative Republican so that kind of behavior can be expected from her.

      Liked by 1 person

      • dawsont825's avatar

        It’s a damn shame that Obama even signed off on Carnes, but that was during a different age in judicial nominations, I’m sure that kind of cross-party nomination trend was common back in the day. Forgive me if I’m misremembering, but was Sotomayor either elevated or nominated by Bush Sr.? That kind of non-ideological cordiality wouldn’t fly nowadays. Chad Meredith showed that will never happen nowadays. Unless you count the few outright democrats Trump agreed to appoint.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a reply to Zack Jones Cancel reply