Judge Cristal Brisco – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana

A fixture of the South Bend legal community who previously worked under then Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Judge Cristal Brisco has been nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana.

Background

Brisco received a B.A. cum laude from Valparaiso University in 2002. Following her graduation, Brisco attended the University of Notre Dame Law School, graduating in 2006.

Brisco subsequently joined Barnes & Thornburg LLP, where she worked until 2013, when she became Corporation Counsel for the City of South Bend under then-Mayor Pete Buttigieg. After a brief stint as General Counsel at St. Mary’s College, Notre Dame, Brisco became a magistrate judge for the Circuit Court of St. Joseph County in 2018.

In 2021, Governor Eric Newsom named Brisco to the St. Joseph County Superior Court, where she currently serves.

History of the Seat

Brisco has been nominated for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. This seat was vacated on January 23, 2021, when Theresa Lazar Springmann moved to senior status.

Legal Experience

Brisco began her legal career as an associate at Barnes & Thornburg. While there, Brisco frequently represented the City of South Bend as private counsel, including in defending suits brought against the South Bend Housing Authority. See, e.g., Fincher v. South Bend Housing Authority, 612 F. Supp. 2d 1009 (N.D. Ind. 2009). Brisco also represented the City as an employer in defending against discrimination allegations. See Pittman v. Housing Authority of City of South Bend, 695 F. Supp. 2d 866 (N.D. Ind. 2010) (granting summary judgment to Defendant on allegations of racial discrimination and retaliation).

Between 2013 and 2018, Brisco worked as Corporation Counsel for the City of South Bend, Indiana. During that time, Brisco authored a letter declining to have the City Attorney’s Office represent Councilmember Henry Davis against a libel suit brought by police officers that Davis had alleged that made racist remarks. See Tom Perkins, ‘Look at His Record’: Buttigieg Faces New Criticism From His City’s Black Leaders, The Guardian, Sept. 26, 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/sep/25/pete-buttigieg-south-bend-lawsuit-police-shooting. Brisco also joined an amicus brief on behalf of the City of South Bend in a challenge to President Trump’s “Muslim travel ban.” See Intern. Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, 857 F.3d 554 (4th Cir. 2017).

Political Activity

Brisco has a limited political history, which consists of donations to Indiana Democrats Joseph Donnelly and Mel Hall.

Jurisprudence

From 2018 to 2021, Brisco served as a magistrate judge on the Circuit Court for St. Joseph County. As a magistrate judge, Brisco was appointed by the Indiana Supreme Court to a Study Commission on the Future of the Indiana Bar Exam. See In re Order Creating a Study Commission on the Future of the Indiana Bar Examination (Ind. 2018).

Since her appointment in 2021, Brisco has served on the St. Joseph County Superior Court, which serves as a trial court of general jurisdiction. Notably, Brisco granted summary judgment against most of the claims alleged by plaintiffs claiming injuries from use of the defendants’ swimming pool. See Pennington v. Memorial Hospital of South Bend, 206 N.E.3d 473 (Ind. App. 2023). Brisco’s decision was affirmed by the Indiana Court of Appeals. See id. Additionally, as a Superior Court Judge, Brisco was appointed by the Indiana Supreme Court to serve on the Indiana Commission on Equity and Access in the Court System. See In re Order Establishing the Indiana Commission on Equity and Access in the Court System, (Ind. 2021).

Overall Assessment

Brisco’s nomination, paired with that of Elkhart County Judge Gretchen Lund, is the Democratic half of the deal struck with Indiana Senators. That being said, while Brisco’s background does suggest some areas of progressive advocacy, it also shows a mainstream legal philosophy (one that led a Republican Governor to tap her for the bench). Overall, as long as Brisco maintains the support of her home state senators, she should be confirmed comfortably.

139 Comments

    • Ethan's avatar

      Still one pending vacancy in the Southern District of Indiana. While I would LOVE for Mario Garcia to be the nominee, I tend to think one of the other Magistrate Judges (M. Kendra Klump or Crystal Wildeman) would be more likely. I’d also keep an eye an AUSA Civil Division Chief Shelese Woods.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Mitch's avatar

    I believe that Brisco’s maiden name is Clark.

    I had thought that AUSA David Hollar would get the nod. Judge Brisco seems to be a candidate who’s acceptable to most under the circumstances. If she shows legal knowledge in the confirmation hearing, she’ll be confirmed with little fuss.

    Like

  3. Gavi's avatar

    @Rayladato, I’ll just respond to you here now that we have a now write up.

    “We’re not saying the Republicans are eager to confirm Biden’s nominees in their states, but that…”
    Folks on here as recently as last night were surprised that some of the red state nominees have to face a cloture vote, meaning they were hoping for voice votes, no? What warrants this surprise? What is the voice vote to red state nominee ratio? It’s a much safer bet that Republicans won’t sign off on voice votes for Biden’s judicial nominees, save the precious few exceptions. That’s what I am referring to when I say stop being surprised that Republicans aren’t in any rush to confirm Biden judges.

    “… we expected Schumer to use the Democratic majority to confirm blue-state nominees when he had full attendance.”
    We’re heading into the 4th year of Schumer’s leadership of the senate. How many times have folks on here look to periods of full attendance with glee only to be let down by the dearth of action on Article III judges? This is our third end of year recess. Nov and Dec 2021 saw 14 confirmations. Nov and Dec 2022 saw 13. So, based on the historical pattern, what’s the expectation for end of 2023? Never mind all that, let’s keep the hope alive that this period/year will be different.

    “… other R Senators would defer to them and get them passed.”
    Again, Republicans largely do not care. Did you hear Blackburn on the floor yesterday blasting SC’s Benjamin? A nominee with the sign off of both Republicans, including one that is the ranking member of SJC and the other a recent contender for her party’s presidential nomination. Republicans have agreed to a whopping 3 voice votes for red state nominees. So much for deference to their red state colleagues.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Joe's avatar

    I think both things can be true.

    Schumer was probably saving the red state nominees for the end of the term to potentially leverage in some sort of deal if an opportunity presented itself. But, now that the end of the term is here, he decided it made sense to just go ahead confirm those two while the senate works on a potential border deal.

    At the end of the day, I don’t think it’s too big of a deal at all. It’s two more good nominees confirmed to courts that desperately need good judges. We will potentially see more cloture motions this afternoon depending on how things go with the NDAA votes and any potential Ukraine/Border deal.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. keystone's avatar

    I saw this post last week from JP Collins, the GW Law Prof:

    “The fact that Biden is just a few judges behind Trump’s pace, when Trump inherited twice as many vacancies, had a larger Senate majority, and was focused almost exclusively on appointing judges is really quite remarkable.

    Not to mention that Senate Democrats were willing to play ball and return blue slips and voice vote district judges, making confirmations easier and quicker…”

    I know we argue a lot on here about the candidates and the speed of confirmations and the order of confirmations, but I thought this was an interesting perspective.

    Also, thank you all for the debates and insights and rants and raves. It’s great to belong to a community of other weirdos who obsess over the ins and outs of the federal judiciary.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Mike's avatar

      Yeah but this sounds better than it is.

      In 2019 Republicans changed the rules to cut debate for district nominees from 30 hours to two hours. For the first 2 years of GOP control of WH and senate, they were taking way longer to confirm some district judges.

      Dems are behind Trump even with a 2 year head start on the 2 hour window.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Mike's avatar

    I was going to say they’re probably going to confirm 4-5 nominees this week before I realized they’re out for the year afterwards.

    They’re going to file way more clotures today for an all nighter on Thursday right…right?

    Like

  7. Joe's avatar

    It’s going to be very interesting Mike. I’ll certainly be watching later tonight to see what happens

    I did read one report yesterday that Schumer wants to confirm the remaining generals/admirals before the end of the year. It’s possible those nominees may get the votes instead.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. dequanhargrove's avatar

    Ok the first time I tried to post this it didn’t go through & I didn’t copy it before replying so I had to type it again. And once again, I HATE WORD PRESS… Lol

    @keystone

    Very true. Despite some room for improvement, Biden has still been the best president when it comes to judges in my opinion. Ther definitely have been missed opportunities such as Ramirez, Childs, Pan (DC circuit), Khan & any number of New Jersey district court judges. Still, all in all Biden has been the best.

    @Ethan

    I wish Mario Garcia was part of the original package. He should have been the pick for the 7th in my opinion, but if not then at least one of the district court vacancies. Now it’s unlikely the Indiana senators will sign off on somebody as good as him with no incentive.

    @Mike

    Very good point on the 30-hour reduction for district court confirmations not being reduced until midway into Trump’s term. That went a long way in compensating for all the vacancies he inherited.

    @raylodato

    I can’t think of any reason for Holland to miss tomorrow’s SJC meeting. Well no good reason that is.  

    Liked by 1 person

      • dequanhargrove's avatar

        @Keystone

        I think they should stay in session next week & still try on Ukraine. And while they are in session, of course continue confirming judges all week. But I admit I could be a little bias… Haaaaa

        As for who could possibly be a new batch this week, I doubt we will see a nominee for the 6th this quickly. Blackburn will need at least three months to even pretend to be adequately consulted. If I had to guess who would be in the next batch, here would be my guesses;

        02 – NY-S
        06 – MI-E
        07 – WI-E
        09 – CA-S
        CL

        I would be surprised but not shocked to get nominees for the following;

        08 – NE
        08 – SD
        DC

        @CJ

        I believe an even split on any federal court means the lower court order is the precent that will be followed. OF course, unless a higher court rules differently in the future.

        Like

  13. CJ's avatar

    I have a question, upon the confirmation of Mangi to the 3rd CCA, the Court would become ideologically evenly split. I know that the 3rd CCA uses en banc less often than many other appeals courts, but what happens if an en banc court is evenly split?

    Liked by 1 person

  14. star0garnet's avatar

    For Biden to pass Trump’s total of 234 of Article III appointees, he’d need his current nominees minus Colom plus 43 new nominees to be confirmed. There are 24 current/announced vacancies lacking a nominee that don’t require a GOP blue slip. So surpassing Trump’s total would require filling those plus a combo of 19 more between new fillable vacancies/some of the 37 current/announced vacancies that require a GOP blue slip. While circuit vacancies have all but ground to a halt, district vacancies have not. Vacancy announcement years of seats Biden filled plus current/announced vacancies:

    2014: 2 (2 non-R district)

    2015: 6 (6 non-R district)

    2016: 2 (2 non-R district)

    2017: 5 (5 non-R district)

    2018: 16 (14 non-R district, 2 R district)

    2019: 11 (8 non-R district, 2 R district, 1 IT)

    2020: 7 (2 circuit, 3 non-R district, 2 R district)

    2021: 84 (29 circuit, 43 non-R district, 21 R district, 1 IT)

    2022: 60 (1 SCOTUS, 9 circuit, 28 non-R district, 22 R district)

    2023: 46 (4 circuit, 30 non-R district, 12 R district)

    Liked by 1 person

    • dequanhargrove's avatar

      Technically Trump confirmed 230 Article III judges if you don’t count ACB & 3 other judges twice. But your point is still well taken. I am sticking with my prediction he will come up a little short of 230, but to be honest it doesn’t matter. If Biden isn’t reelected, we likely will have a lot more to worry about regardless.

      Liked by 1 person

    • dequanhargrove's avatar

      I’ll never forgive Hochul for trying to put another conservative on the highest court in the state. Thankfully she was embarrassed into eventually making a good decision, but it never should have gotten to that point. With the Louisianna governor being replaced by a Republican, she is now the worst Democrat governor in the country.

      Like

    • Aiden's avatar

      To clarify, it was renwick that was PT justice that voted not halligan as she recused. Though it was unlikely the Lasalle would of recused. Its also notable that Difiore put lasalle as PT on alot of the cases when needed and he always voted woth the conservative bloc. Now wilson picked a liberal for this case its interesting perhaps a little concerning.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ryan J's avatar

      Yay I agree with the court both times (I think the dissenters have it right on purely legal grounds but given how many times GOP hacks have upheld extreme gerrymanders, I would vote to uphold NY’s Dem gerrymander, something I would not have done last year). I think the 2022 House results in NY & the poopoo (‘oops’ I meant the GOP) subsequently letting their most fringe members hold the country hostage flipped me on this issue. Additionally, even though it may seem like the exact same case, it’s slightly different — I expect these new maps to be a bit less extreme than the originally proposed ones.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Jamie's avatar

        The other thing worth noting is based on last years results in NY, the GOP would still have a reasonable chance to win districts even under a supposed gerrymander. I think Democrats will argue that the relevant number to look at are not 2020 Biden/Trump but Hochul/Zeldin or the 2022 results for Congress.

        Liked by 1 person

  16. dequanhargrove's avatar

    I just went on Wikipedia for the Hell of it & I see both Joshua Kolar & Nicole Berner’s pages have been put back up despite them not being confirmed yet. The “Letsrun” idiot that has dedicated his entire life to taking down Wikipedia pages is probably having a full-blown meltdown today. He probably makes Blackburn’s rant on the senate floor yesterday look sane. Somebody better put him on a suicide watch… Haaaaa

    Like

  17. tsb1991's avatar

    Ramirez on the 5th Circuit got her commission on the 8th.

    Tomorrow should also be a big day for news in the judiciary, with hopefully the day starting off with new nominees from the President (so we’d be set for the next hearing on 1/10), I’m sure Republicans will be off to the races on Berner tomorrow, unless for some weird reason she doesn’t appear tomorrow, and then the Louisiana district judges should be confirmed tomorrow.

    Schumer did mention getting all of the 4-star generals confirmed before the Senate leaves, which could be this Thursday, given the bleak prospects for a Ukraine deal. I’d expect a ton of cloture motions sent out tonight for those generals, maybe they sneak in a cloture motion for Kolar, which would set up a vote for when the Senate gets back after the holidays or in the unlikely event they’re back next week?

    No business meeting has been posted for this week though. If there was a meeting it would be to hold over the South Carolina and Florida nominees. Maybe they’d have to be held over a second time anyway after the new year?

    Like

  19. CJ's avatar

    @Ryan J, since you still have an Wikipedia account, is it possible that you and others who have an account to create a page for Seth Aframe? Also can Wikipedia users contact each other, you could enlist the help of the user the dueled Let’srun.

    Like

  20. Aiden's avatar

    The Kolar page is obviously up for deletion. It welcomes people to participate in the deletion board and discussion, and it
    Contains a link for that. That is probably the only way it can be stopped. So ig please if you have time, go to the link and push back against deletion

    Liked by 1 person

  23. tsb1991's avatar

    I might miss the hearing since I’m catching up on work from my time off, but the wideshot of the SJC shows Cruz, Hawley, and Lee are already in attendance, so we’ll see what the limits are of a high heart rate in this hearing!

    Liked by 1 person

  25. star0garnet's avatar

    Great to have notification a year out for Azrack, who’s going senior the day she qualifies. We’re now at the 50% mark for 2024 district court qualifiers whose successor won’t require a GOP blue slip. The 13 who’ve declared already break down as 10 Obama, 3 Bush; 10 of the 13 are going senior within a week of qualifying. The 13 remaining by qualifying order:

    Feb: William Johnson (NM, Bush)

    Feb: Beth Labson Freeman (N CA, Obama)

    Mar: Steve Jones (N GA, Obama)

    Mar: Mitchell Goldberg (E PA, Bush)

    Mar: Philip Brimmer (CO, Bush, chief till 2026)

    Mar: Mark Hornak (W PA, Obama, chief till 2025)

    May: Cormac Carney (C CA, Bush)

    Jun: Michael Simon (OR, Obama)

    Oct: Philip Gutierrez (C CA chief, Bush, chief till 2027)

    Nov: Gerald McHugh (E PA, Obama)

    Nov: Jeffrey Schmehl (E PA, Obama Republican)

    Dec: Valerie Caproni (S NY, Obama)

    Dec: Lorna Schofield (S NY, Obama)

    Liked by 1 person

    • dequanhargrove's avatar

      I think we would get nominees fairly quickly if some of those judges would announce. Some of those courts have current vacancies so they likely have a running list.

      The NDCA, EDPA, CDCA & Oregon likely would have nominees picked fairly quickly. I would also love to see a vacancy on in New Mexico, the NDGA & the SDNY.

      Like

    • keystone's avatar

      I’d say the most likely ones are:

      Schofield (SDNY) – She’s spoken a lot in interviews about being a judge and a mother and the need to make time for work, family, and personal and to create a work-life balance.

      Freeman (NDCA) – She is very connected to the NoCal ACLU via her Hubby. I could see her announcing after her bday in Feb. Maybe sooner if the current NDCA queue starts to get some movement.

      Jones (VDGA) – Jones lives in Athens which is in the MDGA and talks a lot about how much he loves it there. I think he wouldn’t mind being able to skip the commune to Atlanta. He’s currently presiding over the GA redistricting case, so I think he might think about senior status once that is resolved.

      Simon (OR) – His wife is a Democrat Rep. Oregon currently has 2 nominees in the queue. I think he’ll announce after his bday or if the queue clears up a bit.

      Pennsylvania worries me the most because it has historically taken so long to name nominees and I haven’t seen any signs of that improving with two Dem senators. If we quickly get some EDPA noms for the current openings, I think we can get some more vacancies. However, of the ones on this list, McHugh is the only one I see maybe going senior. I think there’s more potential for Quiñones Alejandro and even Chief Judge Sanchez (both are already eligible) to go senior before Schmehl.

      Hornak (WDPA) has potential.

      Caproni (SDNY) – Something about her reminds me a bit of Pauline Newman. I could imagine her wanting to stay until the very end.

      The other big ones I have an eye on (all of which are already eligible) are:

      Mae D’Agostino (NDNY) – She has a bday coming up

      Marc Treadwell (MDGA) – He’s currently presiding over a big Trans rights case, so maybe once that is done.

      Marc Goldsmith (EDMI) – Could see him announcing once the current opening is resolved.

      Richard Stearn (Mass) – I think he’ll announce once they start getting close to replacing Patti Saris.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Ethan's avatar

        @keystone, I live in the Atlanta area and could not imagine commuting regularly from Athens to Atlanta. I trust Ossoff and Warnock completely on whoever they might pick to succeed Jones should he decide to go senior. I bet they will pick someone who is either AAPI or Hispanic since there has never been either on that court (Obama’s nomination of Dax Lopez was unsuccessful).

        For the Middle District of Georgia, if Treadwell goes senior, I’d keep an eye on AUSA Senior Litigation Counsel Lance Simon (born c. 1984). He’s openly gay and served as a foreign law clerk for Israel’s Supreme Court.

        Liked by 1 person

  26. dequanhargrove's avatar

    WOW… What a SJC hearing for panel 1 today. As expected, it was a heavyweight bout. Here is my recap;

    Durbin talked about the historic two circuit court nominees. He then talked about this being the third straight SJC hearings with a nominee that had at least one blue slip turned in by a Republican senator.

    Senator Graham talked about the border.

    Senator Cardin then introduced Nicole Berner. He made sure to mention Berner has promised to have her chambers in Baltimore.

    Senator Van Hollen then introduced Berner. He mentioned one of her family members who is dead couldn’t make it in person because the SJC didn’t have a sign language interpreter so he welcomed her in sign language saying she was watching on C-Span.

    Senator Mendez then introduced Mangi. Senator Booker was next but deferred to the Oregon & Indiana senators in case they need to leave.

    Senator Wyden & Merkley then introduced Baggio.

    Senator Young then introduced the two Indiana nominees.

    Senator Booker then enthusiastically introduced Mangi. Booker joked he recommended Mangi for the Third circuit because he didn’t want somebody so good to consider running against him in the 2026 senate elections.

    Berner then introduced herself & her family, including as she mentioned some who left the Israel war to come support her. Mangi then introduced himself with a deep British accent & was quite funny during his introduction.

    After Durbin asked the nominees questions, senator Graham followed, asking Berner about her union representation first. He spoke to her about advocacy to give prisoners workers rights. Then he asked about past comments regarding workers rights laws are racist. Graham then got annoyed when she wouldn’t answer yes or no if she said that & cut her off & said never mind. He then pivoted to Mangi & past comments regarding an advisory board in regards to 9/11. Graham then talked about two of the other board members who he said has either supported or said positive things about terrorist groups.

    Senator Whitehouse then asked Berner about her membership on the American Law Institute. He then spoke to Mangi about his pro bono work.

    Senator Lee then asked Berner about past comments she made about Republicans on the SJC. He brought up comments regarding the Kavanaugh accusations. He then brought up a case that he stated Berner didn’t disclose a past controversial sexual accusation case to the committee.

    Senator Booker asked Mangi about his time at Oxford. Both exchanged laughs about their past experiences at Oxford.

    Senator Cotton didn’t waste a second when Durbin turned it over to him to go back to Berner & demand she answer the question Senator Graham asked about if she said the right to work movement is racist. When she started to answer, Cotton angrily cut her off & demanded an answer. He asked her repeatedly. He then asked her if the people of Wisconsin are racist since there are many who agree with right to work positions. He quickly turned to Mangi about his past membership in the group senator Graham asked him about earlier. He brought up members on the advisory boards support of terrorist groups. Mangi condemned the attack on Israel on October 7th. He then asked if he believed Jews in Israel are colonial settlers. He then asked Berner about her amicus brief she wrote on behalf of a LGBT person who wanted a Colorado cake baker to make a cake for them & refused. He brought up the SCOTUS agreed with the baker & asked if she believed if a pro Hamas group went to a Jewish baker & asked for a cake their cause, does she think they should have to.

    Senator Butler went next & allowed Berner to finish her answer to the earlier question regarding a speech she gave at Ruckers University since she was cut off. She then asked her about her union representatives. She then spoke to Mangi about his past work both as an athlete & his pro bono work.

    Senator Kennedy then started by saying Mrs. Berner, you didn’t tell senator Cotton the truth did you? He then read back a statement in a speech she gave to the American Constitution Society. He then repeated, he doesn’t think she is telling the truth. He then asked about a past union member who accused fellow union members of sexual harassment. Berner said she didn’t remember her & Senator Kennedy said he is embarrassed she didn’t remember her. Kennedy then read accusation after accusation including a man who said “She won’t get a job her unless she sucks my” & then Senator Kennedy changed the last word to “part of my male anatomy”. Kennedy then continued to talk past Durbin hitting the gavel to let him know Berner should be allowed to answer. Kennedy then asked if the man that made that comment is still working for the union & Berner said she doesn’t no. Kennedy told her he believe he does. He then turned to Mangi & angrily said his advisory board held an event on the 20th anniversary of 9/11. He then went over some of the invited speakers & went through their past including pro Palestine views & apparent terrorist views. Mangi told Kennedy he never heard of the event, didn’t know about the speakers or their views. Durbin then interjected & said the senators time has expired. Kennedy continued to speak & Durbin then turned the floor over to Senator Klobachar mid sentence.

    Klobachar then allowed Mangi to talk about his past. She then let Berner speak about her career.

    Senator Blackburn begin to ask Berner’s union work regarding sexual assault. She said she had “serious concerns” & accused Berner of doing nothing to protect the victims. Blackburn said it was unacceptable Berner allowed the accused to review the case of the accuser about himself. Blackburn interrupted Berner as she was answering & Durbin then gaveled, staring Blackburn’s time has run out but allowed Berner to answer.

    Senator Hirono then begin by saying she is so happy her Republican colleagues are now all of a something interested in sexual assault accusations since they didn’t seem to care during the Kavanaugh hearings.

    Senator Cruz begin to talk about the university president’s testimony last week when they refused to condemn beliefs of the eradication of Israel. He said he was concerned about the advocacy board Mangi was on. Cruz then pressed Mangi on if he believes Israel is an occupational force. Cruz repeatedly interrupted so Durbin then interjected & said allow Mangi to answer. He then brought up the board’s 20 year 9/11 anniversary event that had speakers who were convicted of terrorist related charges. Durbin then asked Cruz to allow him to answer the question & then Cruz begin to SHOUT at Durbin. Durbin then reminded Cruz not to intimidate any witness or member of the committee. Durbin then allowed Mangi to answer.

    Senator Welch then spoke about his past work as a public defender. He spoke about attacks he had had to face because of some people he had defended.

    Senator Hawley started with Mangi, reading off comments in regards to Israel & asked if Mangi agreed with the comments. Hawley repeatedly asked Mangi the questions regarding the comments over & over. He then asked Mangi about the Holocaust since he wouldn’t answer his question about present day events. Hawley then started shouting at Mangi asking why didn’t he know about the comments people were making that was on the board he sat on. Durbin then let Hawley know his time had expired but allowed Mangi to answer.

    Senator Padilla went next after Durbin entered into the record a letter from a large Jewish woman’s group that wrote in support of Mangi’s nomination as well as an apology from Durbin for the accusations that had been leveled against him. Padilla the entered some letter did support for the nominees for the record.

    Liked by 5 people

  28. star0garnet's avatar

    Wow – they were quite efficient with the Lund nomination. Invited 9/25, interviewed 9/28, vetted 10/6, announced 11/15. That’s the most efficient first contact to announcement for a district nominee for whom the dates are known (51 days), nearly cutting the next best time (Sarala Nagala, 97 days) in half. It’s the second-fastest vetting to announcement for a district nominee (40 days), barely missing the mark of Julien Neals (39 days). Three sitting federal judges and Tiffany Cunningham are Biden’s only nominees who had a quicker selection processes. Given that Brisco was vetted in June, I’d guess that means Biden vetoed a few GOP counterparts before Lund.

    Liked by 1 person

      • star0garnet's avatar

        Back in early 2021, I was interested in how long the earlier stages of the process were taking, so from their questionnaires, I’ve taken whether they were invited or applied, the date of that event, the date of their first interview (generally with a senator’s committee or counsel), and the date of their interview with the WH counsel’s office, to go along with vacancy announcement, vacancy, nomination announcement, nomination, hearing, committee vote, confirmation, and commission dates.

        It was pretty straightforward last congress, but it’s getting increasingly less so, like with Mangi’s; he was invited at some random date in 2019, interviewed in 2019, 2020, and 2023, then interviewed for the 3rd Circuit on 9/28. It’s at the point where nominees have forgotten dates and many states have had multiple rounds of nominees, which of course have crossover.

        Liked by 1 person

      • dequanhargrove's avatar

        When I read the SJC Q’s, I also look to see how the process started. For instance, I remember for Nancy Abudu it said the White House reached out to her. I assume that’s because both home state senators were fairly new & Warnock wasn’t even the original choice to run for the seat. It was Stacy Abrams (the original choice) that suggested him to Schumer. In the case of Pryor & Federico, one of the Republican home state senators reached out to them but in the case of Kolar the White House reached out to him. In the case of Freeman & Rikelman, both applied for district court vacancies initially.

        Like

  29. aangren's avatar

    Someone correct me if i am wrong but isnt lund a republican? Reading her bio it seems she was even considered for the indiana supreme court by the right wing governor. This seat would have been better left vacant.

    Like

  30. keystone's avatar

    Gross. Mitch McConnell tweeted “@POTUS’ latest judicial nominee, Adeel Mangi, served on the board of a law school organization that amplifies anti-Semitic terrorist propaganda. As Jews face an historic wave of anti-Semitic hate, this is the kind of nominee the Biden Administration wants us to confirm?”

    I really hope they confirm him ASAP.

    I haven’t really seen many online attacks on Berner yet.
    I will say, the part in today’s hearing where Blackburn suggested that Berner wouldn’t give women a fair shot as a judge was interesting. I’ve never heard someone accuse a lesbian of not being pro-woman enough.

    Like

      • Ryan J's avatar

        I’m actually worried that there might be 2 or more Democrats opposing Bjelkengren given that there are legitimate questions about whether she is qualified. I think Edelman has the support of every non-Manchin Dem so he should get confirmed at some point.

        Like

      • dequanhargrove's avatar

        I would probably vote against Bjelkengren if I were in the senate. Today during panel 2, senator Kennedy asked all three district court nominees about Title 6 of the Civil Rights Act & none of the three could answer what it was about. Kato Crews didn’t know what a Brady Motion was. Others have been caught flat footed as well.

        But Bjelkengren looked like a deer in headlights when she was asked three questions about basic constitutional law. She was clueless. It had nothing to do with the cleage lights of the moment. I just wish they don’t try to renominate her in January if she doesn’t have the votes. Her & now Hollad have a strong possibility of not being renominated. Colom does as well but for a much different reason & I still hold out hope one of the two judges on the 5th eligible to retire from Mississippi will do so if not be the end of Biden’s first term, hopefully in a second term.

        Like

      • Jamie's avatar

        In addition to Bjelkengren, I’m skeptical of Colleen Holland’s qualifications. There’s a difference between being a law clerk and a judge, and she seems to have little experience in practicing law outside of being a law clerk. I’d be fine with her as a magistrate and gaining experience that way. That said, she has strong academic credentials (first in her class at Cornell Law), so if she gets a hearing I’ll keep an open mind.

        Like

      • dequanhargrove's avatar

        And only one other Biden nominee had a similar background as Colleen Holland & she didn’t have a good hearing either. But she was for one of the Puerto Rico seats & I chalked it up to a language barrier. There’s just no way a nominee has missed four hearing slots without a medical issue & there’s no problem.

        Like

    • dequanhargrove's avatar

      @Lillie

      Yea Wikipedia rules suck big time. The problem is there’s no central authority to make decisions, they just leave it too to the users. So something that should be as common sense as the president of the United States nominating somebody to a lifetime position to 1/3 of the federal government should make a person “notable” can be hijacked by an idiot like Let’srun & a few Trump supporters.

      @Ethan & myself wrote to both The American Constitution Society & Alliance for Justice to see if either of them could come up with their own Wikipedia type website solely for judges. Neither were able to do it sadly. We even offered to help with the up keep.

      Perhaps one day Harsh can make one up. He’s done such a phenomenal job with this blog & I would offer to be one of the administrators to help keep to. But it’s a lot of work so I wouldn’t dare say it’s something Harsh could add to his plate. But if he or any organization was willing to do it, I would certainly be more than happy to help keep the website up. I just refuse to be apart of Wikipedia anymore. From time to time I may go on to look up a judge but no longer would I help put info on the pages when dumb users can just go & delete it. It’s sad but it was good while it lasted.

      Like

  32. tsb1991's avatar

    Cloture filed on Sarah Hill (NDOK) and a nominee for Assistant Attorney General. A sign that the Senate is staying beyond Thursday?

    Also, it sounds like cloture will be voted on for at least one of the Louisiana nominees tomorrow.

    Like

    • Gavi's avatar

      The OK senators changing their minds on Hill wouldn’t have mattered, anyway. Remember, blue slip powers are only to proceed or not with SJC hearings. Senators may withdraw support but can’t withdraw a piece of paper they’ve already submitted. Same thing goes for nominees returned to the WH, who are then renominated the next year.

      Speaking of which, no way would the WH not renominate Bjelkengren next year. She’s cleared SJC and can do so again next session. (As I’ve already stated, I’m not so hypocritical when it comes to Bjelkengren vs. Crews & today’s nominees who don’t know one of the seminal pillars of the CRA. Judges study cases, deliberate the merits, and rule.)

      Like

      • dequanhargrove's avatar

        @Gavi

        But Bjelkengren & Crews aren’t the same. Even if you discounter the deer in headlights look she gave versus every other nominee who simply hasn’t studied the law exam question Kennedy asked (I am not discounting it but for the sake of argument let’s just say I did), there are still other troubling issues with Bjelkengren.

        For one, she was asked on her SJC Q to list 10 cases & she only listed 6. For God’s sake any lawyer this side of my cousin Vinnie could list 10 cases.

        And that’s on top of her not even having a progressive background. This is Washington state. Even though it’s the Eastern part of the state, we certainly could get a better nominee, even another Black woman. And we can do so in the next 11 months.

        Like

  36. Rick's avatar

    That would be great if they could confirm all the District Court nominees awaiting a vote before they leave for end of year recess, and only have the 2 Circuit Court nominees to do in Jan. Plus they’ll have all the SC, FL District Court nominees along with the 5 from today.

    Liked by 1 person

  37. Mike's avatar

    Working through the night on 12/17/2021, senate Dems confirmed 9…NINE judicial nominees and they seriously are going to end the year confirming 3 bipartisan picks?!

    Mitch would be pistol whipping his senators if they left the year with 16 lifetime judicial nominees sitting pretty just needing a cloture and confirmation vote.

    They better be working Friday.

    I remember reading an article not too long ago where some dem senator said their year end goal was to match Trump at the end of his 3rd year and a ACS member was quoted saying it wasn’t mathematically possible for them.

    These democratic leaders have no fire, maybe we should replace them with people born after the Korean war.

    Liked by 1 person

  38. keystone's avatar

    @Dequan

    Bjelkengren’s hearing left me with some reservations about her abilities. But the ABA looked at her body of work and deemed her to be Qualified. Jabari Wamble, who had been an ass’t DA and an ass’t US attorney couldn’t meet that mark.

    Bjelkengren was definitely underprepared for her hearing. A lot of that is on her. But I put some of the blame on the old WH prep team (they were great at picking noms, but they weren’t great at coaching them).

    Bjelkengren isn’t my favorite pick, but she was the pick of president pro tempore Patty Murray, so I don’t think that nom will def. remain.

    In other news – Jabari Wamble’s wikipedia page still exists. Weird that he’s notable enough but not some of the others.

    Liked by 1 person

    • dequanhargrove's avatar

      I’m not so much against having a bad hearing. But when you couple that with having a bad SJC Q & not even being progressive, that’s a tough sell for me. I mean if Schumer & the Washington senators couldn’t get her confirmed with a no vote from me, I possibly would vote Present. But I don’t think it’s fair to ask senator Kennedy to hold Republican president’s bad nominees accountable to turn around & confirm somebody who seem obviously unqualified for the job.

      I’m all for ramming young progressives down Republicans throats at all costs, but if you r not even progressive, please at least at least know the functions of at least ONE of the Articles of the constitution. I’ll give her a pass on not knowing what purposivism is… Haaaaa

      And WOW, the Let’srun idiot actually advocated for keeping a Wikipedia page??? My goodness, he must of taken my advice & been drunk or high that day… Lol

      Liked by 1 person

    • Jamie's avatar

      As I said yesterday, they’ll be there for a while. McConnell actually wants a deal to fund Ukraine, unlike the GOP Putinistas. It wouldn’t shock me it they are there until they hammer out a deal or Christmas.
      Of course, if the Senate is going to stay open, you might as well confirm a few judges!

      Like

      • dequanhargrove's avatar

        I certainly hope that turns out to be true. That probably explains why they are confirming non controversial red state nominees right now instead of blue state nominees despite all 51 Dems being in session. They probably don’t want to rock the boat so perhaps they will forgo the handful of nominees that will need VP Harris until January & February in lieu of a deal to fund Ukraine. Out of all the nominees that likely will need a tie breaking vote, all but Sara Russell is a sitting judge somewhere so them waiting an extra 2 months won’t hurt but so much.

        Liked by 1 person

    • tsb1991's avatar

      I noticed that on the C-SPAN feed. If they’re protest votes, at least use them on votes like this where he’s not needed?

      Also, for housekeeping purposes, the Edwards confirmation/Long cloture is setup for 3PM. If those aren’t going to be the last votes of the day, Long could be confirmed at 5PMish tonight.

      Schumer did mention in a speech earlier that the cloture motions that he filed yesterday could be voted on tomorrow, so stay tuned for a possible session tomorrow.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Jamie's avatar

        Are they protest votes though? I’m wondering if Edwards was involved in investigating political corruption in the US Atty’s office. If he was, it wouldn’t surprise me if Menendez voted no. He blocked Patty Shwarz’ nomination for 2 years under Obama for that reason.

        Liked by 1 person

      • dequanhargrove's avatar

        That was my thoughts as well. If Menedez is voting no, it’s more than likely the nominee was involved in a corruption investigation. And seeing that Menedez is connected in some way to every crime committed since the Tavern on the Green robbery, I wouldn’t be shocked if that’s more of the reasoning for the no vote.

        Like

      • dequanhargrove's avatar

        Menedez voted yes on confirmation for Edwards. That was strange.

        Good news on Brandon Long. Durbin asked for unanimous consent to withdraw the cloture motion with no objections. Looks like they are going straight for the confirmation vote without a cloture motion to save 2 hours.

        Like

  42. Gavi's avatar

    Hers (and Kristen Clarke, and to a lesser extent–Lisa Monaco) was a hard-fought confirmation, so I am sorry to see her leave for a non-Appeals court job. But she’ll have served for a long time at DOJ so I can’t complain. Now I hope Biden replaces her with a staunchly pro-abortion advocate.

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/14/politics/doj-official-police-reform-abortion-leaving/index.html

    I must say, I am a regular critic of Biden on judges, but his DOJ is staffed with some pretty fantastic people (minus Garland), especially the female appointees. It’s really a shame we can throw most or all of them onto appeal courts throughout the country. Chief among them is the 10th justice, SG Liz Prelogar.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ben's avatar

      Yep, and last vote of the week too. Schumer told senators to be back next week, so I guess we’ll see soon how he schedules the Monday return vote(s). Still several executive nominees teed up in addition to Hill. Too bad he didn’t line up Kolar’s two votes to stretch this weekend.

      Liked by 1 person

      • dequanhargrove's avatar

        I don’t understand why they would rather come back next week instead of just work a full day this past Monday, a full day today & full days tomorrow & Saturday. But either way I’ll take next week. I know they will take an extra week off in January because let’s face it, these guys never work unscheduled days without making up for it later. But if it means less judicial nominees having to be resubmitted than it’s worth the trade off. I just hope they have that same energy when it’s time for that ridiculous five week Summer recess which is followed by an even more ridiculous six week election recess.

        Like

    • Joe's avatar

      Sarah Hill should also get confirmed later in the day on Tuesday as well.

      Not sure how the rest of the week will go beyond that. Depends on how negotiations for the bill goes I guess. It’s possible if it take several more days to negotiate then we might get more judges confirmed Wed/Thur. But if they’re real close to finishing they may just wrap it up Wednesday and head home. I suppose we’ll find out more Monday afternoon.

      Personally I would be surprised if we get much more, but I’d love to be pleasantly surprised

      Liked by 1 person

      • keystone's avatar

        In addition to O’Malley, Fonzone, and Hill, they also need to confirm Elizabeth H. Richard to be Coordinator for Counterterrorism. They had the cloture vote for her last week (63-37). Since the cloture vote had so much cross party support, I wonder if they might just decided to do a voice vote confirmation.

        Liked by 1 person

      • dequanhargrove's avatar

        And let’s not forget the military promotions Tuberville still has a hold on. I really wish they had just worked a full day this past Monday, a full day today & a full day tomorrow. They could have used that to negotiate more voice votes or at the very least a vote-a-rama for non-judges.

        Like

  46. Zack's avatar

    It should be noted both of the Louisiana judges confirmed today will be filling seats that are considered judicial emergencies so that very well could be the reason why they were confirmed today over some blue state nominees.
    In any case, it’s always good for the sake of justice to have seats filled in areas that need them.

    Liked by 3 people

  49. star0garnet's avatar

    Last day of the 2021 session saw 56 voice votes, so hopefully there will be at least as many next week. Those 56 broke down as 40 diplomats, 8 board members, 6 assistant/under secretaries, and 2 Fed. Cl. judges. Apart from O’Malley, Fonzone, Hill, Richard, and Jose Rodriguez, there are 131 civilian nominations on the floor. Twelve are off the table (11 judges and Julie Su). The other 119: 63 board members, 20 diplomats, 8 assistant/under secretaries, 8 counsels/CFOs/IGs, 5 agency leads/assistants, 2 US attorneys, 1 US marshal, and 12 judges (7 DC superior, 2 IT, Manglona, John Russell, and Kazen).

    Liked by 2 people

  50. dequanhargrove's avatar

    In the article, senator Kennedy said he plans to return next week but that some Republicans don’t want to come back. “I just know that some of my colleagues aren’t going to want to come back because they don’t think we have enough time,”

    My God Schumer, tee up the handful of tough votes Monday for Wednesday please. Manchin & crooked ass Menedez could vote no on all of them if they like with multiple Republicans not returning to Washington. Jose Rodriguez doesn’t even need a cloture vote so tee him up too.

    (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-adjourns-senate-delays-holiday-immigration-deal-ukraine-israel-rcna129815)

    Like

Leave a reply to Rick Cancel reply