Judge Amy Baggio – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon

Longtime public defender turned judge Amy Baggio is President Biden’s third nominee for the federal trial court in Oregon.

Background

Baggio received a B.A. cum laude from Wake Forest University in 1995 and a J.D. from Lewis & Clark Law School in 2001. After spending a year at the Portland Metropolitan Public Defender, Baggio joined the Office of the Federal Public Defender for the District of Oregon, starting as a research and writing attorney and then shifting to be a Assistant Federal Public Defender in 2005.

In 2013, Baggio left to start her own law practice. In 2019, Governor Kate Brown appointed Baggio to the Multnomah County Circuit Court.

History of the Seat

Baggio has been nominated for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. This seat will open on August 21, 2024, when Judge Marco Hernandez moves to senior status. Baggio was among six candidates recommended to the White House by Oregon Senators in June 2023.

Legal Experience

Starting her career as a public defender at the state level, Baggio spent ten years at the Federal Public Defender’s Office. Among the cases she handled there, Baggio argued before the Ninth Circuit unsuccessfully that the crime of receiving child pornograpy includes an intent to distribute. See United States v. Olander, 572 F.3d 764 (9th Cir. 2009). Baggio also represented detainees at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay. See Gul v. Obama, 652 F.3d 12 (D.C. 2011). In addition, Baggio joined an amicus brief on behalf of the detainees in constitutional challenges to their detention. See Boumedine v. Bush, 476 F.3d 981 (D.C. Cir. 2007).

Between 2013 and 2019, Baggio served as a solo practitioner in Portland. During this time, Baggio represented co-defendants in the prosecution of Ammon Bundy after the 2016 occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. See United States v. Bundy, 195 F. Supp. 3d 1170 (D. Ore. 2016).

Jurisprudence

Baggio has served as a Circuit Court Judge since 2019. In this role, she serves as a primary trial judge, supervising criminal and civil cases. In a notable decision later affirmed by the Oregon Court of Appeals, Baggio denied a motion to suppress, finding that exigent circumstances prompted by ongoing animal neglect justified officers.entering the defendant’s residence to seize her cat. See State v. Hsieh, 499 P.3d 142 (Or. App. 2021). In another notable decision, Baggio granted a writ of habeas corpus releasing a prisoner due to inadequate measures used to treat Covid-19 in the facility, which the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed. See Lawson v. Cain, 524 P.3d 529 (Or. App. 2023).

Political Activity

Baggio has a limited donation history, consisting of a single donation to President Obama’s campaign in 2008.

Overall Assessment

Like many of Biden’s nominees, Baggio has extensive experience in indigent defense, ranging from the representation of detainees to those of right-wing militants in Oregon. Baggio’s history is likely to cause significant opposition through the confirmation process, although Baggio is still favored to be confirmed before the vacancy is expected to open.

200 Comments

  1. dequanhargrove's avatar

    Although she wasn’t my top two picks out of the six recommendations for Oregon, nevertheless she’s a solid nominee. I gave her an A- but thinking about bumping her up to an A after more research.

    Like

  3. Jill's avatar

    By a vote of 80-12, the #Senate confirmed the nomination of Irma Carrillo Ramirez to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit.

    This is when you know you’re well qualified….Bipartisanship works!!!

    Like

    • keystone's avatar

      I really don’t want to reopen this can of worms, but I might argue that the Ramirez vote is actually the complete opposite of bipartisanship working.

      The proposition was that the Dems would nominated a qualified progressive candidate OR they would nominate a qualified older more moderate candidate in exchange for a handful of TX district seats.

      They stuck a “bipartisan” deal and nominated Ramirez, however, it seems as though the Republicans have largely ignored the second part of the agreement. Yes, I’m aware of the Kazan nomination but that is not enough.

      I’ve typically been a proponent of bipartisanship in nominations, but the Ramirez confirmation (as it currently stands) makes me less inclined to want to support bipartisanship going forward. The Trump judges largely ignored bipartisanship. If the Republicans aren’t going to honor their words in terms of nominations, then I’m not sure what the point is of even trying to work with them.

      Liked by 3 people

      • dequanhargrove's avatar

        @@Keystone

        Your not responding the can or worms. The fan was never closed except for people like @Jill that try to pretend this was a good deal from the beginning. For
        Those of us that have two eyes & actually use them to see, we knew all along this deal was bull shit because it depends on trusting Cruz & Cornyn.

        Now the one this I’ll say is the deal was made by the last WHC office which was HORRIBLE. This new WHC office didn’t sign off on this so I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt that they wouldn’t repeat a mistake this huge.

        Like

    • Ethan's avatar

      I would’ve preferred the following Latinas over Ramirez who are all younger:

      -Southern District of Texas judges Marina Garcia Marmolejo and Diana Saldaña.

      -Texas Court of Appeals justices Amparo Guerra, Luz Elena Chapa, and Veronica Rivas-Molloy.

      Like

    • Aiden's avatar

      This is just completely untrue.

      I mean theres judges appointed with very moderate records from republicans that are opposed by democrats based purely on partisan interests and vice verse.

      Also vote count nearly never has a relationship with qualification.

      I wouldnt have liked the six conservative appointemnts to the Supreme Court but they are all completely well qualified to be there.

      I wouldnt have liked Judge Thapar’s or Bibas’s nomination from my ideological standpoint, but they are beyond qualified to be on their respective. courts

      There are Senators like Graham who say that for the most part if they are qualified they would vote for them due to presidential deference. However many Senators just say no purely for ideological reasons.

      I mean 12 voted no on ramirez, yet I guarantee to you would have voted yes if she nominated by trump.
      There are senators who dont agree to a single nominee

      Liked by 2 people

      • Aiden's avatar

        Yeah I believe him, Sotomayor and Alito have all faced some heat from ethical experts. Though yes though Alito seems to be the worst and most partisan on the court. Thomas’s recusal issues are a serious concern.

        However at the time of appointment, Thomas was qualified. Now obviously that is based purely on his work and qualifications seperate from the allegations and the partisan evaluations.
        He was Chair of the EEOC for 8 years, was a state appellate prosecutor, worked for monsanto and most importantly was a DC court of appeals judge for 19th months.

        A majority of the ABA voted him qualified.
        Now perhaps on paper he was probably one of the lesser qualified, but he was still qualified at the time.

        Like

  4. Joe's avatar

    I can’t really think of a single Biden appellate nominee that wasn’t exceptionally qualified. These are all either sitting judges, professors, legal counsel at major organizations, or current/former US Attorneys.

    There are a handful of district nominees that probably fall short of the mark, but no more than 4 or 5.

    Like

      • dequanhargrove's avatar

        Agreed on Corley although if we’re only counting things before her confirmation vote I would have voted yes for her. I wasn’t happy with her nomination for more traditional reasons such as there were younger & more progressive options.

        Like

      • Aiden's avatar

        I think I would agree. I would of voted against Bjelkengren, i dont think she is qualified, her judiciary hearing wasnt good at all either.
        I think there would be less than 5 I’d vote againist.

        However there are quite a few id be unhappy about.
        (All of the new jersey district court appointees basically, especially Williams) Also Judges Corley,
        Rearden, Lee, Pan, Childs, Kahn

        There are probably more.

        I think Rearden would be someone id probably consider voting againist, along with O’Hearn and maybe Williams.

        However the rest are qualified just dont love their ideology or qualifications or think there was alot better for the seat. E.g De Alba

        Like

  5. rob's avatar

    I’m watching the AliKhan vote and Manchin/Graham have voted no so unless Collins or Murkowski votes yes and all senators are in attendance, VP Harris will be required to break the tie and finally have the record for most tie breaking votes cast.

    Like

  6. rob's avatar

    Yes she arrived back from Dubai on Sunday and nothing on her public schedule for today.

    Collins and Murkowski just voted no so she will be required. Maybe that’s why they didn’t announce any further voting plans until they knew she would be required.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Ben's avatar

    A bit weird how much they celebrated this record. It’s only so high because of the unprecedented number of cloture votes needed and because it’s been only a 50 or 51 seat majority for 3 years.

    Anyway, confirmation (and another tie) at 2:15, then a recess for an all senator Ukraine briefing later. That’s why so little was scheduled today.

    Like

      • Gavi's avatar

        I was being facetious to highlight the fact that delays in judicial confirmation votes are usually because of Schumer’s poor scheduling or absences and not caused by time spent on trying to break Tuberville’s hold.

        Anyway, I hope Schumer immediately moves to confirm all qualifying (Tuberville still has a hold on certain ranks) military nominees/promotions en bloc before another Republican senator decides to seek attention for themselves by announcing a new set of holds.
        Speaking of which, I wonder if Lee is also releasing his holds…

        Liked by 1 person

      • Gavi's avatar

        And the people of NY are left destitute of any new federal judges and DOJ officers haha.
        But I think her “hold” was “lifted” because, if I am not mistaken, that asylum housing policy was changed? It’s so fake that I can’t even remember what it actually was about.

        Liked by 1 person

      • dequanhargrove's avatar

        I remember Schumer sending 3 of the 4 cloture motions for the pending New York nominees right after she announced her hold. The best thing ever would have been if he scheduled Ramon Reyes too. That would have been the biggest smack in Blackburn’s face this side of Andre Mathis

        Liked by 1 person

    • Joe's avatar

      Definitely welcome news. Not just for judges but also our nations military readiness. Had they delayed too much longer I think there could have been some serious downstream effects. To be honest I still think that might be the case. Just shameful stuff from Tuberville and the GOP politicians who enabled him for this long.

      Liked by 2 people

  15. tsb1991's avatar

    There’s a cloture vote for that counterterrorism nominee at 5:15PM, and confirmation will be “Determined at a time by the Majority Leader with consultation with the Republican Leader”, which probably means a Wednesday morning vote.

    Wrap-up tonight should be interesting, if Schumer comes out and gets the military promotions confirmed. If that’s the case you should see a real “woosh” of the executive calendar and tomorrow’s executive calendar should be a lot smaller lol. I use the term “woosh” since that’s what my local TV meteorologist would say during the summer, whenever we have a long stretch of extremely humid weather and a cold front sweeps in and ushers in much drier, comfortable air behind it.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. Joe's avatar

    Fun fact on AliKhan – I believe she is the first district judge (and possibly first judge ever) to ever be confirmed with a vote of 51-50 in US history.

    Harris has voted on a few district nominees in this congress (which was a first in it’s own right) but the previous votes were all cloture votes or were 50-49 or 49-48.

    Liked by 3 people

  18. Mitch's avatar

    If Tommy Tuberville was willing to release most of the military nominations, will he work in good faith on the two judicial vacancies?

    About Alabama’s other Senator, Katie Britt, she’s made a good impression on most observers.

    Like

    • dequanhargrove's avatar

      I doubt it. As I have said previously, if I had to bet on which states wouldn’t have any judicial nominees for Biden’s entire term, Alabama would be at the top of the list followed by Arkansas. I would put Missouri is third but with 4 vacancies, I’m hoping we might squeeze 1 or 2 nominees out of there.

      Like

      • dequanhargrove's avatar

        The only states that have not had even one circuit or district court vacancy during Biden’s entire term are North Dakota & West Virginia. Technically the answer is only North Dakota because judge King did announce he was taking senior status, so West Virginia did have an announced vacancy until he withdrew.

        Like

      • Ethan's avatar

        @Dequan. There are three Democratic appointed judges (two Clinton; one Obama) on the Southern District of West Virginia who are eligible for senior status. I doubt more than one (if any) go senior before Manchin leaves office. Though I do believe that both Capito and Justice would work in good faith a la the Senators from Indiana and Louisiana.

        Like

      • dequanhargrove's avatar

        I could see Justice working in good faith too. Especially since he was initially elected as a Democrat. But it sure would be nice if at least one of them went senior in the next few months & leave North Dakota as the only state not to have any judicial vacancies under Biden.

        Like

  19. dequanhargrove's avatar

    I’m so happy to copy/paste this from the senate record;

    4:31 p.m. Majority Leader Schumer is speaking on military promotions. He then asked for unanimous consent for the senate to pass the following nominations en bloc by voice vote: Executive Calendar #46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 110, 111, 112, 113, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136 137, 138, 139, 180, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 199, 200, 201, 203, 204, 205, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 248, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 289, 290, 291, 293, 294, 295, 296, 325, 326, 327, 330, 331, 332, 336, 337, 339, 340, 342, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390, 391, 392, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422. There was no objection

    Like

  21. star0garnet's avatar

    In ND, Ralph Erickson’s eligible for senior status in April. Regardless of their politics, there’s a solid chance any judge goes senior upon qualifying. That’s apparently particularly true of circuit judges who spent more than a few years as a district judge.

    Like

    • dequanhargrove's avatar

      Ralph Erickson is my second favorite Trump circuit court judge out of his 54. Mark Bennett is my favorite due to his age & being just right of center. I know Erickson is a recovering alcoholic & has a great story in his life of recovery. It would be great for him to decide he would like to spend the rest of his life helping others do the same & step-down next year.

      Like

      • Ethan's avatar

        @Dequan, I’m almost certain Biden would renominate AUSA Jennifer Puhl (born c. 1974) who Obama initially nominated for the seat before McConnell blocked him from doing so and left it for Trump to fill.

        Although I’d prefer AUSA Megan Healy (born c. 1980), who is younger.

        Like

      • dequanhargrove's avatar

        Jennifer Puhl would be my guess as well. For multiple reasons. One, the circuit only has one woman on it so almost certainly Biden’s first pick would double that. second, since she had the home state support from the two Republican senators already, they would likely enthusiastically give it to her 6 years older. And last, since she would be replacing a Republican judge, there’s no worry about the court not moving to the left with her.

        Like

      • tsb1991's avatar

        My thinking on Kolar is if anything happens with him this year, that he’d be the final cloture vote of the year, and then there’s some agreement to not have to re-vote on cloture when they get back to start the 2nd session. Of the pending appeals court nominees, he’ll probably have the most Republican support so I can see some agreement with him (although there were agreements to carry over Sanchez and Thomas on the 9th circuit from 2021 to 2022 who were far more hostile with Republicans).

        Forgot to mention that there’s always the possibility of new nominees tomorrow. I’d personally bet against it since there’s no hearing set for four weeks from tomorrow, but as long as nominees are in by next week, we’d be good, since that would get us set for a 1/10 hearing.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Mike's avatar

      I’m not loving that they didn’t set up a cloture vote for him for tomorrow. It’d be nice to see a confirmation Thurs and a cloture for another circuit confirmation on Monday.

      …I was getting excited about the prospects but seeing time wasted on these random political confirmations makes me think they’re not going to confirm a dozen district judges in a last minute hurray like they did in 2021.

      Like

      • tsb1991's avatar

        There’s 30 hours of postcloture time on appeals court nominees, so cloture votes on them are typically held as the last vote on Thursday, unless there’s a unanimous consent agreement to shorten or eliminate the postcloture time, in which you could have a confirmation vote midweek. While the postcloture clock doesn’t run over the weekend since the Senate isn’t i session, there’s typically an agreement to make-believe that it did and just have the time expire when they get back the next week.

        As for votes tomorrow, I forgot cloture was filed on some ambassador to Croatia, but there’s that and the likely failed cloture vote on the Ukraine/Israel aid bill.

        If we get a large batch of district judges confirmed before the end of the year, they will very likely be the pending red state nominees, since they may be able to get voice votes on them. It may also include the two Oklahome nominees since they should be voted out in the SJC meeting on Thursday. We could either get voice votes on several of them or some expedited time agreement where we flatout get confirmation votes (no cloture) or cloture votes with immediate postcloture expiration times.

        Liked by 1 person

      • dequanhargrove's avatar

        While the post cloture clock technically doesn’t run on the weekends, I think the agreement always holds because if you look on the senate calendar, they actually count Friday as work days. We all know there’s a better chance of the Sun rising from the West then the senate working on a Friday, so I assume them leaving Friday’s as a work day has something to do with the 30 hours post cloture counting from Thursday after the vote & all day Friday setting up confirmation on Monday since all Saturday & Sundays on the calendar actually show as off days.

        Like

  23. Mike's avatar

    I don’t think I’ve seen the full 30 hour rule actually be implemented in the last 3 years unless they count the time that passes when they leave for the night.

    Irma Carrillo Ramirez cloture and confirmation votes were about 28 hours apart in total.

    Also during the better days they confirmed 5 Circuit judges between 9/07/2022 and 9/15/2022 so they can definitely line up the votes to allow about 24+ hours to pass and still vote to confirm one judge and invoke cloture on another each day.

    Like

    • tsb1991's avatar

      If you go back to September of 2022 I think that’s all the Senate voted on during the month (although I think a government funding bill passed by the end of the month), so I’m sure there was some tradeoff there, that Republicans would agree to shorten the postcloture times on those nominees as long as nothing else was voted on (I’m sure the voting schedules each week were pretty light in result of that).

      The last time I remember cloture not being invoked on a Thursday for an appeals court nominee was actually Abudu (her cloture vote was finished Wednesday night around 8:30PM, after Coons and Menendez got back to break a tie after being absent all day). She actually had her confirmation vote the day after. While you’d expect no Republican cooperation on confirming someone like Abudu, maybe there was a bet between McConnell and Schumer, where McConnell would allow for a vote the day after if Schumer could scramble the votes for cloture?

      Like

  24. Joe's avatar

    Yes, typically the 30 hour rule is meant to be understood as “confirmation vote the following day”. With unanimous consent of course.Sometimes it’s as little as 16 or 18 hours.

    Like

  25. keystone's avatar

    I’ll say one thing – if Jim Justice’s blue slip is needed for a WV nominee, that nominee sure isn’t gonna be Carte Goodwin… cuz Justice really doesn’t seem to be a fan of the Goodwin family.

    Like

  27. Aiden's avatar

    So am I correct to assume that Federico would be confirmed on Monday?
    Also does anyone know the likelihood of another circuit nominee getting confirmed.
    Also the likelihood of the red state district courts being confirmed. Basically how many Judges could we get done by end of year.

    Like

    • dequanhargrove's avatar

      @Aiden

      Yea absent any major change, Federico should get his cloture vote Thursday & confirmation vote Monday. I believe there’s a decent chance either Kolar or Aframe also get confirmed before the end of the session but that heavily depends on if they cut into the start of the recess.

      Also on a side note I know some others on the blog here was concern about the lack of cloture motions which could lead to some wasted floor vote time. Remember there was a non judicial nominee that failed his cloture vote about a week ago. Schumer changed his vote to no (Similar to Arianna Freeman) so he can bring his nomination back up. Look for that to happen while all 51 Democrats are in town. That cloture/confirmation vote could take up 5 plus hours of floor time.

      Like

      • dequanhargrove's avatar

        Sadly the nominee will probably not be renominated after the new year with two Democrats voting against him. Of course Schumer could wait & see if any Republicans phone it home & head out of time early for the Christmas recess. That could still get him confirmed. But absent that, it doesn’t look good for Mr. Rodriguez.

        Like

      • dequanhargrove's avatar

        @Frank

        Yea Wikipedia totally lost a lot of credibility when they allowed an idiot like the letsrun nut take down all pages of judicial nominees until they are confirmed. After he was successfully with that, I saw somebody on this blog write he then turned to taking down pages of beauty pageants. There are a few other idiots that back him but he is definitely fanatical on the issue. When he came on this blog to spy on us that was the last straw for me. He’s probably still spying on us because let’s be honest, anybody who takes 5 minutes of their lives to take down Wikipedia pages truly has no life so he probably gets off by spying on here… Lol

        Liked by 2 people

  28. Ryan J's avatar

    I counted the number of Biden judges who were confirmed with the bare minimum number of votes excluding absences (meaning party line in 2021/22 or with Manchin voting no in 2023). I found 13 such instances, 6 in 2021/22 and 7 in 2023.

    9 circuit judges: Lee (2nd), Perez (2nd), Koh (9th), Sung (9th), H Thomas (9th), Freeman (3rd), Abudu (11th), Bloomekatz (6th), de Alba (9th)

    4 district judges: Ho (NY), Choudhury (NY), Merle (NY), AliKhan (DC)

    Liked by 1 person

      • dequanhargrove's avatar

        We have six nominees left who haven’t had a hearing so all six should be in the hearing. If Holland missed a fourth hearing, I agree something is going on with her nomination. She would be in serious jeopardy of not being renominated. Arguably she could have been confirmed before the end of the year had she been in the first hearing she missed.

        Like

      • keystone's avatar

        I can’t even imagine what the Berner and Mangi hearing is gonna be like.

        So much of Mangi’s work has been in the area of religious freedom, which is an area that the Republicans usually love, but he comes at it from a Muslim perspective rather than a Christian one. I’m sure they’re gonna ask him about Masterpiece Cakeshop.

        For Berner, I think they’re gonna want to jump all over her work with Planned Parenthood, but I think they’ll need to tread carefully bc the Republican def don’t clips of the Judiciary Committee sounding off about abortion in a post Dobbs world. What was Rikelman’s hearing like? Have there been any other Biden nominees with a Labor or Union background?

        It is gonna be fascinating to watch

        Like

      • dequanhargrove's avatar

        @keystone

        Yes I’m definitely looking forward to Wednesday’s hearing too. To answer your two questions, Rikelman’s hearing wasn’t nearly as bad as I thought it was gonna be. And Jennifer Sung is probably the Biden nominee with a predominantly union background & as we know she needed the VP to break the tie for her vote.

        Liked by 1 person

  31. Zack's avatar

    On Tom Cotton and his antics with the judiciary committee, I have no doubt he feels empowered because he knows he won’t face punishment back home but to the folks upset Democrats didn’t run a candidate against him in 2020, let’s be real here.
    In 2008, Mark Pryor was still powerful enough to where Republicans didn’t even bother running a candidate against him and Democrats had solid majorities in both chambers (albeit many blue dogs.)
    By 2014, the Arkansas that would elect Blue Dogs Democrats was long gone and the minute the polls closed, Tom Cotton was declared the winner.
    Mark Pryor lost by 17 points in a state that is now solid red because Democrats put a Black man in the WH and folks lost their minds.
    I can’t get angry that Democrats didn’t waste resources in a losing battle
    As for Rich Federico, glad to see this vacancy will finally get filled after the Wamble mess with someone who IMO is going to be more progressive then he would have been.
    Now if only a couple of the Obama judges would take senior status on there…

    Liked by 3 people

  32. Zack's avatar

    An additional fact about Berner is the fact her wife Debra Katz represented Christine Blasey Ford, the Brett Kavanaugh accuser so I’m sure that is going to get brought up at the hearing by Republicans but as with post Dobbs, Republicans are going to want to tread carefully because there is still a lot of anger over how Ford was treated.

    Liked by 1 person

  33. pj91's avatar

    i feel the biden administration hasn’t been picking judges that have feeder potential or are compromise picks if one of the conservative judges die or become incapacitated.

    Remus should have been nominated for the NH seat on the 1st

    Katyal should have been nominated to either DC circuit or to Wood seat on 7th

    Noah Feldman (clerked for Souter in 90s) should have been nominated to the MA seat on the 1st

    Like

  34. dawsont825's avatar

    Despite bipartisan support, Scott Colom’s federal judicial nomination still stalled in Senate

    It’s a damn shame what Hyde-Smith is doing to Colom. If this isn’t a reason for Durbin to adjust blue slips or scrap them altogether, then nothing will.

    On another note, a junior senator bucking their senior senator? I didn’t know that was a thing (Looking hard at you Sen. Duckworth, former Sen. Franken, Sen. Gillibrand, etc.)

    Liked by 2 people

    • dequanhargrove's avatar

      I see four realistic ways Colom ends up on the district or circuit courts. I will list them below in order of most to least likely;

      1. A vacancy opens up on the 5th circuit from one of the two judges eligible for senior status. This could lead to Biden immediately nominating Colom to the 5th but more likely leads to negotiations that Hyde-Smith will sign off on him for the district court & a compromise nominee for the 5th. My choice would be put Colom on the 5th (Where he belongs) & leave the district court seat vacant, but Biden would probably go for the 2 for 1 deal instead.

      2. Biden wins re-election. I think that could lead to Colom getting on the bench because we are likely to see additional Mississippi vacancies either on the 5th or one of the district courts, so that a package deal could be worked out.

      3. Durbin amends his stance on blue slips. I’m angry that this isn’t my #1 most likely scenario but with Durbin as the SJC chairman, I don’t see it being higher than third… By the way whoever wrote earlier Durbin probably did a line of Cocaine after the last SJC hearing with 5 nominees all who got blue slips turned in by Republicans is HILARIOUS. I almost crashed my car laughing… Haaaaaaa

      4. A deal could be reached for the vacant US attorney posts. I put this as least likely because with less than a year left in Biden’s term, I doubt Hyde-Smith would trade off a progressive Black man in his low 40’s to be a lifetime judge in exchange for a US attorney she likes that could be out of a job in a year. This deal would have been higher on the list if it had been made when Colom was first nominated.

      Liked by 1 person

    • dawsont825's avatar

      I like your way of thinking. Every senator has to have a soft spot for staffers or people working for them in their states who could “grease the wheels” per say. I know that Bloomenkatz was either legal advisor or was legal counsel to Sen. Brown’s 2012 reelection campaign. So there is always a glut of individuals who could be used to ease a stalled nomination or something.

      I know Durbin won’t scrap or modify blue slips when he had an entire panel of red-state nominees with GOP senator returned blue slips (pretty sure he did a line of cocaine after the hearing to celebrate). I remember reading former Sen. Franken’s story of when Trump nominated Stras to the 8th circuit and he wasn’t very fond of his record or extreme ideology (boy was he ever right). In the story, Grassley either approached him in his office or pulled him aside after a SJC meeting and urged him to return blue slips for Stras, and when he refused or demurred, Grassley told him that his blue slip wasn’t a veto and would not stop a hearing or confirmation for Stras. Ultimately, he caved when he realized Klobuchar turned in her blue slip for Stras (ironic that she has more energy to fight interns and staffers than she does to keep a FedSoc true right-wing hack from deciding federal law for the country and constituents from her state *sips tea*)

      WHY CAN’T WE HAVE THAT? Add Colom to a SJC hearing and let Hyde-Smith whine and bitch about decorum or whatever and confirm him anyway. When the senior senator from that state, the former Governor and numerous other people from both sides of the aisle support his nomination and urge his confirmation… one racist meemaw junior senator should NOT keep him from being a judge.

      Liked by 1 person

      • CJ's avatar

        This reminds me of a compromise to the blue slip process that I thought of. What if only 1 senator’s blue slip is needed to advance a nominee. While some on the blog have said that would only work in states with 1 Democratic senator (i.e. Ohio, Wisconsin, Montana, West Virginia), but I still think it would make confirmations much easier for Biden. If this were the rule, Colom would be able to get confirmed because he has Senator Wicker’s support. I also think it would make nominations easier in states like Utah, Florida, South Carolina, and Texas, because Senators Romney, Rubio, Graham, and Cornyn are much more willing to vote for Biden’s nominees than the other senators of their respective states.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Joe's avatar

        I agree Dawson. There has to be something that can be worked out under the table, right? If I was someone at the WH counsel’s office I would at least float the possibility to someone on Hyde Smith’s staff.

        At a glance, it appears the US Attorney vacancy for ND Mississippi is vacant. SD Mississippi and the US Marshalls are all filled. Plenty of vacancies in the state department and US Ambassadorships though…

        Liked by 1 person

      • star0garnet's avatar

        …yes it would be so smart for Dems to scrap blue slips when they control 750 to the GOP’s 562, and my best guess by the mid-30s is a 866-466 advantage, and that’s with giving FL and OH to the GOP. So long as a few GOPers like Hyde-Smith, Cruz, and Hawley see the utility of blue slips, the GOP will have a much harder time scrapping them for district courts than they did for circuits.

        Like

      • Aiden's avatar

        @pj91 Exactly right!!

        Democrats being able to pick up seats on state supreme courts is a masive plus and has got to be more of a focus.
        We cant let North Carolina ever happen again

        I think Eid was replaced by Melissa Hart who was an employment discrimination expert and I believe is on the more liberal side of the all democrat colarado supreme court.

        Like

      • dequanhargrove's avatar

        It’s gets me angry when I see Democrats appointing Republicans to the state Supreme Court’s. I know it has happened in Colorado & Pennsylvania just to make two. I won’t even get into New York because even when they try to put Democrats on the highest court, they are more conservative than some Republicans.

        I just don’t see Republicans doing the same in reverse. The only example I can think of is the Joe Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court but of course when Obama nominated judge Boggs to the NDGA, his nomination was tanked by Democrats. So wouldn’t really count him as a Democrat.

        Like

      • Aiden's avatar

        @Dequan
        Completely Agree!

        I think in New Jersey the 4 democrats are very liberal and i dont mind it.

        But New York is beyond a joke. After everything Hochul talked about, when she nominated Lasalle i was so angry. Thank god he was tanked
        But still even Halligan was one of the most conservative on the 2nd list.

        Im hopping with the new democrat elected to Pennsylvania there will be a mostly solid 5-2 or 4-3 democratic majority

        I didnt know about the Georgia, I love how much I learn on this forum its great

        Liked by 1 person

  36. keystone's avatar

    Senate Thune says he doesn’t see how a border/Ukraine/Israel/Taiwan bill could pass before Christmas “unless we’re here right up until the very end. But we’ll see. Maybe all of a sudden there will be a convergence of views about the need to get this done.”

    Should Schumer maybe file a couple more clotures on judges so there’s something to vote on in the mean time?

    Liked by 1 person

  37. Jamie's avatar

    I’m not so sure that Judge Bloomekatz is well to the left than Sherrod Brown, it’s more that Brown has dialed back his public embrace of some of his left-wing views now that he represents a solidly red state. For most of his career Brown was basically Bernie-lite, including on things like immigration where both of them were mostly skeptics from a labor point of view. Deep down he probably still is.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Aiden's avatar

      In the 6th Circuit Judge Davis and Judge Mathis seem to be more conservative than Judge Bloomekatz. With the two siding against her in an en banc decision that limited habeus corpus rights. (Judge Bloomekatz was in the dissent).
      However, they did dissent with the liberals including Bloomekatz in another criminal case.
      Ive listened to quite a few oral argument recordings for the 6th. Judge Bloomekatz is definitely more progressive than any of his other appointees perhaps the most or close too it on the entire court.

      Also what I’ve noticed so far from 1st Circuit Judge Gelpi and 4th Circuit Judge Heyten is that both of them seem to be more pretty conservative on criminal issues and pretty liberal on civil etc issues. In the 1st Circuit Judge Montecalvo and Gelpi ended up on opposite sides of a criminal en banc issue. http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/19-2204EB-01A.pdf

      In the 4th Circuit it seems that Judge Benjamin has a more liberal streak on criminal issues so far compared to Heyten with them also ending up on the opposite side of at least two en banc criminal polls.

      In the 2nd Circuit the Judges are all progressive with the only liberal Judge not being Biden Appointed is Judge Lohier. And he is showing a comparatively more moderate ideology.

      Liked by 1 person

  39. Aiden's avatar

    Also today an en banc decision came out. Where Sung dissented from a position joined by H.A Thomas, Sanchez and Mendoza for the most part.
    Sung wanted the California State Bar not to get immunity from title 2 of the ADA.

    This cements my belief that Judge Sung is the most liberal on the court.

    Here is my ranking from most progressive to least.m for biden appointees in 9th. For those that havent seen it.

    Sung
    Mendoza
    Koh
    Roopali desai

    Sanchez

    H.A Thomas

    I believe Johnstone will be somewhere from Sanchez to Thomas.

    I think Alba will join the 4 most liberal. However I predict she wont be as liberal as Judge Sung maybe sitting around Mendoza or just a tiny tad more conservative.

    I spaced them out to emphasis the difference

    Im still shocked by H.A Thomas’s ideology overtime i hope itll be more liberal

    Liked by 1 person

      • Aiden's avatar

        I think sometimes the most conservative and most progressive issues join on these immunity issues because their can be both skepitcal of the state for different reasons.

        In the 3rd Circuits en banc gun issue. The most progressive judges in this case Judge Freeman joined Judge Hardimans (the most conservative) to strike down gun protections. With a dissent from the more moderate judges I think this will be more common soon.

        In the 5th circuit the most liberal and conservative judges join together for some things such as criminal issues or strike down white collar convictions.

        Or how Justice Gorsuch and Justice Brown Jackson join becuase they are both very libertarian despite being ideologically very different they also team up on immigration for those reasons.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Jamie's avatar

      Yeah, I’m not so sure that you can make clear conclusions about ideology based on a year or two on the courts. We’ll probably have to wait until the middle of (hopefully) Biden’s second term before ranking judges based on their ideology.

      We expect Sung and Bloomekatz to quite liberal based on their background, but I’d wait before making conclusions on the others. Judges also differ in how strictly they follow SCOTUS and precedent.

      Like

      • Aiden's avatar

        I think I disagree to an extent. I dont think what your saying is the case for every circuit.
        For example for the 3rd circuit who have very low levels on unpublished decisions and pretty low en banc levels. Along with similar circuits. What your saying is likely the case
        But i think from en banc decisions and dissents from rehearing you can within a year or so gather a rough idea of ideology of judges especially in the 9th, where there is so much en banc activity.

        You can also see some of this in the 2nd recently which is suprising.
        I think for example when Judges Sung and the progressive bloc join en banc dissents consistently and for example judge sanchez doesnt you can assume there is an ideological difference.
        Also ive multiple cases where Judge Mendoza has dissented from a more moderate majorty opinion from sanchez or sanchez from a more progressive opinion.

        I guess ideology can change though. Overtime judges can become more moderate or progressive example was Justice Souter on SCOTUS. Also perhaps with changing supreme court precedent.

        Ideology yes could also change perhaps due to confidence too.
        I think we see this on the New Jersey Supreme court with more dissents recently from the new appointees

        In regards to changing scotus precdent
        I brought this up in why we can’t compare the old progressive bloc to the new progressibe bloc because of more current conservative supreme court precedent.

        But i do concede that you are probably right thaat judges follow precedent to different extents and that nots always a reflection of ideology

        Like

  41. Hank's avatar

    Not convinced that Holly Thomas is less liberal than Sanchez (I’ve seen at least one good immigration decision and a dissent from a bad environmental one). Sanchez seems like the most moderate Biden appointee on CA9 for sure, and Koh has turned out better than both Sanchez and HA Thomas based on their en banc votes. I don’t think the Eleventh Amendment case is particularly meaningful (Sung joining a Bumatay dissent in full is something I would have never expected), as solid liberals like Murguia and Mendoza also joined the majority.

    Like

    • Aiden's avatar

      I think I have to disagree. Ive watched a recent oral arguments and other ones and Holly Thomas seems to be as equally skeptical as some of her most conservative panel members in issues.
      Apart from that one environmental case she hasnt being liberal at all.
      One immigration disposition sparked a dissent from conservative Judge Forrest.
      Also I believe in En Banc Rehearing dissents, Sanchez has joined the progressive bloc a few times and Holly Thomas only once or twice

      But I mean Holly Thomas and Sanchez are both by far the most moderate out of them all.
      They join the least amount of time with the progressive bloc.

      For example here;

      Click to access 21-35023.pdf

      Both didnt join the dissent that all other biden Judges did.

      I think Sanchez and Holly Thomas are perhaps a little closer than i portayed. I think there close but I believe Thomas is a little more conservative.
      However yes they are both by far the most moderate

      Like

      • Hank's avatar

        If you’re referring to Arizmendi-Medina, the majority Thomas joined was a holding that was friendly to the noncitizen, so of course Forrest dissented. I believe that Thomas joined Forrest in an unpublished decision that was unfavorable to the noncitizen, but most of her authored presidential decisions haven’t been that interesting/political. I also agree with the others that it’s still pretty early to tell, and both Thomas/Sanchez seem unlikely to break from the other liberals when it actually matters in a published decision or en banc vote – less confident about Johnstone just based on his background. Some judges are just more reluctant to call cases en banc regardless of ideology (Miller seems like a conservative that doesn’t always join the conservative dissentals), and Thomas/Sanchez seem closer to Nguyen/Friedland when it comes to en bancs (as evident from that opinion you posted).

        Seems like the Biden appointees in the other circuits have generally tracked expectations based on background so far – of course Heytens on CA4 would be pro-govt a lot given that his whole career was representing the government, and neither Davis nor Mathis on CA6 had much in terms of progressive backgrounds. Bloomekatz has written like what, one dissent and one opinion? I’d hesitate to jump to any conclusions with so little data.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Aiden's avatar

        I will check the case, I dont remember it being friendly to immigrant, but i will check I may have read it wrong.

        They have broken from the progressive bloc in en banc votes. I think obviously they are at least moderately liberal so in terms of some of the more basic decisions i dont think any of them in en banc cases may join with republicans. But i guess its issue by issue.
        Im not trying to say they are conservative. I concede i was wrong if i did.

        I think its circuit by circuit. I think by now in the 2nd and 10th we have good indications of ideology. Not so much in the 7th or 3rd.
        I think the 1st they have a fairly substantial amount of published deicsions so the ideology of gelpi is obviously more conservative on criminal issues etc.

        However in reagrds to the 6th I agree its not as firm.
        But ive listened to a number of oral arguments and i can see some questioning differences.
        Also there were 2 en banc criminal cases we can obviously see that Bloomekatz is in the progressive bloc from that. And that mathis is more moderate. However I agree that the 6th circuit hasnt had the en bancs etc as much as the 9th

        Like

      • Aiden's avatar

        @Hank
        I think i have to disagree that they have just tracked expectation, at least somewhat i disagree.

        Holly Thomas is the best example, i mean you acknowledged she is similiar Nguyen but wouldnt her background suggest her to be the most liberal or close to it.

        Apart from a few criminal cases, id say Heytens has being far more liberal than i expected. On Government issues his still liberal, ive seen a few opinions and listened to a few oral arguments id say he is more liberal than expected . Just on criminal issues not so much. His written some very good liberal decisions.
        Im very happy with how his turned out based on his ideology. So far Benjamins en banc votes suggest she may be more liberal on criminal issues. But i hope that stays and she turns out to be a progressive. So far im
        Pleased. But I know I have wait Im so exicted for the new 4th nominee. Its very much needed.

        I know nothing is firm and that as more comes out we will know more. But i think for some circuits we can see alot already is basically the summary of what im saying. Though sometimes i do read a little too much into it

        Like

    • Aiden's avatar

      Actually i think it is.
      I dont think it is super insignificant but its not insignifcant. I think its that very conservative and very progressive judges joins forces on this issues regarding immunity.
      I think the 5th cirucit took away state bar immunity for their advocacy and i think thats why bumatay joined.
      However Sung Believed they should be held to account for ADA violations. I think its pretty progressive
      I know they both joined the same opinion though i expect for different reasons.

      Like

    • Aiden's avatar

      @Hank

      No thats not the case i was talking about.
      Mine is a memorandum disposition.

      And now quickly, i think it seems that the government affirmatively waived an argument and that it should of being sent back. But Thomas said no

      Forrest dissented saying that Haro may have relied on that concession not to write a reply brief. The brief could of spoke about the issues Thomas Denied for not meeting the substanial evidence test . Thomas joined with Callahan. And she is one of the most conservative, from what I know.

      I know this is not a case thats super helpful or indicative. I was quite new to federal judiciary research or interests in this area when I first read this.
      But still its something

      I know this issue specifically in immigration issues is talked about alot, I think Desai critisiced the conservative approach adopted in just similiar issues not this case specifically. and I think it was Sanchez or Sung who did it in another oral argument.
      About waiving and burbano
      Im not super well informed on this issue but I know burbano and remand etc has being contested.

      Like

  42. Jamie's avatar

    On the appointment of the other party justices to the court, but to be fair it happens in many states for both parties. I don’t love it either when a Democratic Governor appoints a moderate/conservative but it happens.

    I wrote a post that didn’t go through last week responding to Ethan about Utah, where GOP Governors have regularly nominated one or two justices to the Utah SC that were Democrats or non-conservative Indies. In particular on the current SC, Paige Petersen is a Dem and Diana Hagen in an Indy. Previously Deno Himonas was a non-GOP justice, and I’m think that Jill Parrish was one too.
    This is also the case for the Utah Court of Appeals, where Carolyn McHugh was a Dem nominated by a GOP Gov, and Gary Herbert tried to nominate Margaret Plane, a liberal former ACLU counsel in 2020 and it was rejected by the Utah Senate.

    In Georgia, I don’t really count Michael Boggs, but Verda Colvin appears to a Democrat (albeit not a particularly liberal one by any means). Despite her three appointments from Brian Kemp, she appears to have made a whole bunch of small donations to Biden and Senate Dems all the way until this year.

    My posts keep not going through, maybe it will go through using the Reader.

    Liked by 1 person

  43. Ben's avatar

    Nice to see that the Senate Executive Calendar has gone down from 71 pages Tuesday to 38 today. They even voice voted a bunch of commission members last night who were probably lost in the mix of military promotions and overlooked for months. It’s now all the easier to count up pending judges- hopefully next week is super productive on that front.

    Liked by 1 person

  46. tsb1991's avatar

    Pretty brief SJC meeting, here are the votes:

    -Sarah Hill was 14-7 (Graham, Grassley, Cornyn)
    -John Russell was 18-3 (Lee, Cruz, Hawley voted no)
    -Ramona Villagomez Manglona was 20-1 (Hawley voted no)

    I didn’t expect a voice vote on Hill, but was surprised that Russell and Manglona were not voice votes. You had some hot mics at the end with a few people acting surprised that they got Blackburn to vote yes on two of the nominees, lol.

    Like

  47. tsb1991's avatar

    If there’s any SJC meeting next week (I wouldn’t be surprised if it was cancelled), the only nominees that would be on the agenda would be to hold over the South Carolina/Florida nominees, setting them up for a vote after the New Year.

    Also for today, it’ll be interesting to see Federico’s cloture vote. He should have a floor of 5 Republican votes, the usual trio along with the Kansas Senators, so we’ll see if there’s any support beyond that. And hopefully some more cloture motions get sent to the desk today, given that there’s still no deal in sight on the Ukraine/Israel aid. Although the other legislation to be out on the lookout for would be whatever the NDAA conference produces.

    Like

      • Joe's avatar

        If she got 3 GOP votes in committee it’s safe to say she’ll ultimately be confirmed relatively comfortably – whether it’s next week or after the new year. Obviously I prefer the former if they can squeeze her in.

        Either way, it doesn’t matter. Home state senators can’t really change their mind at this point anyway. She’s already had her hearing and can be voted out of SJC again next year even if it’s 11-10.

        Like

  48. Gavi's avatar

    @Keystone re: returned blue slip/nay final vote

    Absolutely. Per an archive SJC webpage https://perma.cc/PE8T-KK6F:
    “A returned blue slip does not necessarily mean that the home state senators will vote to confirm the nominee. However, it does indicate that the senators elected to represent that state were consulted prior to nomination and that the nominee is likely to be confirmed.”

    Remember the blue slip isn’t an official action, but voting is. Senators may not want to block movement on nominations to their home state courts for whatever reason (usually to uphold a package deal) but don’t want to actually vote for those nominees.

    Also, the blue slip has been modified so many times.
    Does anyone remember when Leahy gave the Michigan Dems blue slip powers over ALL 6th Circuit vacancies, not just those from Michigan? This was due to a dispute with the Bush WH over two MI 6th Circuit vacancies. To strengthen the hands of the two Dems, Leahy did this thing that I would have never otherwise thought he would.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Gavi's avatar

      Just remembered a more recent example of this. Someone earlier called out Tammy Duckworth for not bucking her state’s senior senator, but she provides the example of both (going against the senior senator and voting NAY on at least 2 nominees for which she previously returned blue slips):

      Trump’s SDIl judges Stephen P. McGlynn and David Dugan.

      I hope not, but I wouldn’t be surprised if home state pressures make the OK senators change their minds like Duckworth did.

      Liked by 3 people

  50. Mike's avatar

    Oh wow, Chucks really going to waste two full days on this stuff that probably won’t even matter without the House GOP being onboard or for political positions that might not last a year if Biden loses.

    Next week better be focused on judges.

    Like

Leave a reply to Mitch Cancel reply