Ernest Gonzalez – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas

Longtime federal prosecutor Ernest Gonzalez has been nominated to fill a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.

Background

Ernesto Gonzalez, who goes by Ernest, received a B.A. from the University of Texas at San Antonio in 1987 and a J.D. from the Thurgood Marshall School of Law at Texas Southern University in 1993. Gonzalez subsequently became an Assistant District Attorney in Bexar County.

In 2000, Gonzalez became a federal prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas. In 2003, he shifted to become a federal prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Texas. He has held that position until 2023, when he became a senior advisor with the U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Section.

History of the Seat

Gonzalez has been nominated for a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. This seat opened on December 1, 2022, when Judge Frank Montalvo took senior status.

Legal Experience

Gonzalez started his legal career in Bexar County (San Antonio) where he worked as a state level prosecutor. However, since 2000, Gonzalez has served as a federal prosecutor, starting in the Western District of Texas and then moving to the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Department of Justice.

During his time as a federal prosecutor, Gonzalez prosecuted a number of cases involving narcotics distribution. See, e.g., United States v. Loza-Gracia, 670 F.3d 639 (5th Cir. 2012). For example, he handled an appeal before the Fifth Circuit in a case involving the distribution of methamphetamine in Eastern Texas. See United States v. Garcia Mendoza, 587 F.3d 682 (5th Cir. 2009).

During the Covid-19 pandemic, Gonzalez also responded in opposition to motions for compassionate release for prisoners sentenced for narcotics distribution offenses. See, e.g., United States v. Dodd, 471 F. Supp. 3d 750 (E.D. Tex. 2020); United States v. Boutte, 568 F. Supp. 3d 706 (E.D. Tex. 2021).

Overall Assessment

As a lifelong prosecutor with extensive experience litigating on both the state and federal levels, Gonzalez brings a fairly conventional set of experiences to the bench, but this still should render him a fairly uncontroversial nominee. While Gonzalez may draw questions based on his lack of civil experience, given that he has the support of his home state senators, he should nonetheless be confirmed comfortably, while the White House can be happy with one of its political appointees moving to the bench.

70 Comments

  1. Frank's avatar

    Appears to be a pretty reasonable and standard nominee, besides his lack of civil experience. His work to fight against soft on crime policies certainly had to have helped his prospects with the TX senators and should be commended.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Val Verde's avatar

      Mr. Gonzalez’s track record should cause concern for his suitability as a federal judge. In large part, you should investigate his responsibility for causing the massacre in Allende, Mexico in March 2011. Propublica has previously covered Mr. Gonzalez’s role in causing that atrocity: https://www.propublica.org/article/allende-zetas-cartel-massacre-and-the-us-dea/. Putting aside Mr. Gonzalez’s mishandling of the investigation as a federal prosecutor, some of the quotes in that article, I believe, could call Mr. Gonzalez’s impartiality into question. For example, he states that his prosecution of the defendants in that case “was something personal, absolutely.” And what may be even more concerning is that Mr. Gonzalez would likely sit in the Del Rio courthouse, just a few miles from Allende, on the other side of the Rio Grande. Despite 12 years since the massacre, the Allende massacre and its aftermath is still palpably front of mind for many people on both sides of the border near Allende. Mr. Gonzalez is the wrong choice for a seat as a federal judge in the Western District of Texas.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Dequan's avatar

    I’m super happy to wake up to the Ernesto Gonzalez write up post. I’ve been waiting for this one. He is the most stealth Biden nominee outside of the clerk, oldest Puerto Rico nominee. As for the nominee himself, I’m sure him arguing in opposition to motions for compassionate release for prisoners sentenced for narcotics distribution offenses was enough for Cornyn & Cruz to sign off on him. The last sentence in Harsh’s write up gives me some hope he is at least left of center.

    As for the CDCA vacancy, I have long said I fully expect at least two more vacancies in 2024 from that court. There are simply too many judges over 75 for me to believe all will serve the entire year. While we have Padilla & Butler, I hope we have several more vacancies in the state no matter if it’s the four district courts or the 9th. I hope this gets us closer to getting Bryant Yang nominated.

    Like

    • Thomas's avatar

      I’m also pretty interested to see Gonzalez at his hearing – I haven’t expected nothing else than a conventional nominee, namely a prosecutor here.
      But the court is in unstable condition with four vacant posts, and three more eligible out of 13 judgeships.

      I know, some here welcome every vacancy, but here we are again at the subject, we also have at the Central District of California – 7 out of 28 are eligible for senior status, and none of them is under 70 years old, most of them much older, with 2 vacancies and one of the busiest court of the country. Even if the situation was much worse after Biden became President with six vacancies and Birotte as youngest judge of the court with 54 years –
      I don’t appreachiate letting a court running to a level it is hardly able to work properly due to political reasons.
      And, like at the Fourth Circuit, there are just the youngest of them leaving, the eldest ones are staying.
      Another example is the Eastern District of Louisiana, 12 judges, Feldman passed away with 87 years, and Fallon went senior with 84, Barber with 79, and Vance now with 73 years – and there are still 3 out of the 10 remaining who are eligible for senior status, with a 4 one will become eligible – the youngest judge with 60 years was the chief – and there are some more who are not eligible, and old anyway. Papillion and Long have lowered the average age, but getting problems to find a new chief, who is not 65 years old is strange.
      Another court with lots of old judges is the District of Massachussetts, where just 2 out of 13 were under sixty years old – and Biden has not improved that much.

      After the WH announced key nominees today, I remembered, that there is still not a single nomination for the six vacancies at the US Tax Court, the latest is open since 2018 – does nobody care, because there is no senator pushing for, or don’t possibly interested people don’t know where they should apply for?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Great data on the age of the judges on various courts. As for the US Tax Court, my guess is the administration feels it’s now hanging fruit. If Biden wins reelection & Democrats lose the senate, he would still likely get to fill those vacancies. So he’s focusing on morning vacancies that he wouldn’t be able to fill or would have to negotiate package deals to fill should the aforementioned scenario play out.

        Like

    • Dequan's avatar

      I’ve been advocating for Bryant Yang since my initial letter to The White House with judicial recommendations in 2021. He is my version as Dale Ho of the West Coast. I would love for him to be nominated to the 9th but for now, at least one of the two CDCA vacancies would be just what the doctor ordered.

      Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        @Aiden

        The Biden administration doesn’t seem to be interested in naming non-DC area lawyers to the DC circuit. Out of the four he’s nominated so far, three have been from DC. Childs is the only exception, but we of course know she was a special request from Clyburn.

        If there was another vacancy on the DC circuit, it would likely be another DC area attorney like Deepak Gupta for instance that would be nominated. But even if it was an out of towner, I would advise anybody from a big blue state. Bryant Yang could wait for a vacancy on the 9th circuit. I would use the DC circuit for a phenomenal attorney from a red state, particularly from a state that isn’t likely to have a vacancy anytime soon.

        Like

  8. star0garnet's avatar

    Was wondering who the next Bush moderate to step down on CD CA. With her out, the courts that are set to end the year with at least three senior-eligible judges (current+future vacancies):

    8: CD CA (2)
    7: ED PA (2)
    6: 5th Cir., 9th Cir.
    5: 4th Cir. (2), 8th Cir., Fed. Cir., SD FL (4)
    4: SCOTUS, 6th Cir. (1), ED LA (2), ND TX (1), SD TX (2)
    3: 10th Cir., D MA (1), ED MI (1), ND NY, SD NY (1), MD NC, D SC (1), WD TX (4), SD WV (and possibly WD NC and SD OH if Cogburn and Marbley don’t get replacements)

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Dequan's avatar

    @Ethan sent me this David Lat interview of Federal Circuit Court judge Pauline Newman. I am really torn between what I think should happen.

    I guess if I had a vote in the manner I would vote to allow her to stay. I believe the other judges on the court are correct in their accusations. I just don’t know if it’s been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that she is incapable of discharging her duties. I wouldn’t want to vote to set the precedent it would create.

    Anyway it’s a good watch for anybody interested. The last video clip in particular is the best one in my opinion. He ask her why doesn’t she just retire & her answer was hilarious & probably what swayed me to say I wouldn’t vote to remove her from the bench.

    (https://davidlat.substack.com/p/6-video-clips-of-judge-pauline-newman?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email#media-f9f5dc83-8914-4cae-a1d3-fc4adecaa1ad)

    Liked by 3 people

    • Joe's avatar

      I would probably vote to allow her to stay as well, only for reasons of precedent. Personally I think she likely has lost it and doesn’t belong anywhere near a federal bench. But that’s just a personal opinion and shouldn’t impact the reality

      If she wants to die on the job that is her right

      Liked by 2 people

      • David Lat's avatar

        Folks should also check out my almost hour-long podcast interview of Judge Newman (link below). I’ve spent five hours with her this month—a four-hour visit in chambers, followed by the podcast recording—and she didn’t have a single “senior moment” during that whole period. I’ve since heard from several other observers, including IP lawyers who have seen her speak about complex topics at conferences, who confirm that she is very much “with it.” Two former chief judges of the Federal Circuit have also spoken out in her favor.

        In the abstract, I don’t love the idea of 96-year-old, active-status judges, and I’m inclined to support term limits and/or a mandatory retirement age for federal judges. But reform should be undertaken on a system-wide basis. The solution is not to push out individual elderly judges because you have personal issues with them.

        I’m working on a longer story about what’s going on at the Federal Circuit. Please feel free to drop me a line if you have info or insight to share; my email appears in the little blurb at the start of my interview post:

        https://davidlat.substack.com/p/integrity-an-interview-with-judge-pauline-newman

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        I have no doubt judge Newman has slowed down as any 96 year old would & she may or may not even be very good at the job anymore. But even if all of that is true, I don’t think that should be a good enough reason to remove a life time tenured judge from the bench.

        And for her not to have any senior moments over the five hours David Lat has spent with her is impressive. There’s no less then two US senators that couldn’t say that over the course of Biden’s presidency. I honestly am not a big fan of her one year suspension either without some review from another circuit. Either she is incapable to discharge her duties or she can do the job. I don’t believe in the middle ground AKA suspension.

        Liked by 1 person

  10. tsb1991's avatar

    I forgot to mention it, but did anyone see what I think were those Code Pink protestors at the SJC meeting yesterday? When the camera switched to the view of the kiddie desks where the more junior Senators sit for votes (Ossoff, Padilla, Welch, Blackburn, etc) you could see them in the background with their red-painted hands up. Not sure why you’d be protesting that committee since they have very little if anything to do with military (Armed Services) or foreign policy (Foreign Relations).

    Probably the same weirdos who told us that you couldn’t use the judiciary to threaten them to support Democrats in 2016 or 2020 lol and that they’d think Biden or Hillary would appoint people that would make Alito look like a SJW.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. Mitch's avatar

    @Dequan

    I saw an post of yours on Bryant Yang and found some additional biographical information. Yang immigrated to the U.S. at 5 y/o. His parents worked at a grocery chain and money was tight. His father died when he was a teenager and he worked three jobs to pay for his education.

    Here is the link:

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Zack's avatar

    I too struggle with Pauline Newman because IMO, I do think her coworkers are right about her but you also don’t want to see a precedent set here.
    In the same breath, with people living longer and longer this isn’t going to be the last time this issue pops up and there is going to be a time when someone who clearly can’t be on the bench will refuse to leave.
    Then what?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      So for me, I initially was in favor of removing Newman from the bench. The reason I was swayed is because there’s a difference between a judge being bad at their job versus not being able to do their job.

      If a judge is bad at their job, I don’t necessarily think that alone should be grounds to remove them if they have lifetime tenure. Being 96 years old can make you slower, not able to keep up with new technologies & any number of other reasons that could lead them to be bad at their jobs.

      That’s a big difference from somebody that can’t do their job. It was said that Newman had a heart attack & was not able to discharge her duties. That would be grounds to remove a judge in my view. But after seeing the interview in the David Lat link, she appears to be able to discharge her duties (Albeit much slower now).

      To me, her not being able to discharge her duties or her breaking the law (Taking bribes, being corrupt, ect…) are the only reasons I think she should be removed. I just don’t see her being guilty of either. If we want to start removing judges because they are bad at their job, we may have to start considering many others & some of them could be closer to my age than Newman’s.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Haaaaaa… That would be a plus… Lol

        But no in all serious, for me to give a nominee an A or A+, they usually have to meet a few criteria’s.

        1. They usually need to be young, under 50. As mentioned before, only two circuit court nominees by Biden so far have been exceptions to that rule for me, Beth Robinson & Nicole Berner.

        2. They need to have a progressive background.

        3. They need to be amongst the best nominees for the seat. For instance, I gave Andrea Mathis an A for the 6th-TN. I would have given him a lower grade if he was a nominee for the 9th-CA or 2nd-NY because there are much better possibilities.

        4. Diversity isn’t a must, but it doesn’t hurt.

        Like

      • Mitch's avatar

        @Dequan

        Of all the lawyers you listed, Lamar Baker is the most impressive. He worked at the Office of Legal Policy and the White House Counsel’s Office, and you have to be sharp to last there. And he has judicial, prosecutorial, and defense experience. It would make sense for him to be high on the White House’s list.

        Liked by 1 person

      • star0garnet's avatar

        This. It’s not as if there’s a constitutional mandate for each seat on a court to be be functioning to maximal capacity. Wynn’s seat sat open for 16 years; that’s a far greater handicap to a circuit court than one judge working at 2/3 case capacity. It would be an issue if all judges suddenly began working at 2/3 capacity, but that’s a far-fetched possibility outside of the smallest district courts. Memory loss affecting judgements and refusing to step down or slipping into a potentially permanent coma would be one thing; this seems to be another entirely.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        If there was another vacancy on the 9th-CA soon, I might put Lamar Baker at the top of my list to guess who would be selected, regardless of who I would personally want. Particularly with Butler in her seat for another 11 months. I would expect an African American (Male, female, straight, LGBT or otherwise) to be at the top of any list for consideration.

        Like

    • Ryan J's avatar

      We’re getting the worst of both worlds here because Newman is not allowed to hear any more cases but Biden doesn’t get to appoint a new judge. I think that it was wrong to suspend Newman from hearing cases. I think that she shouldn’t be removed unless it’s very clear that she can no longer do the job well, and right now it’s unclear. Although her defenders are mostly conservatives, I think that it would be mostly liberals defending her if this happened during Trump’s presidency.

      Liked by 2 people

  14. Mike S.'s avatar

    Just wanted to wholeheartedly agree with the earlier comment about feeder judges and legal superstars on the left. In general, I prefer a good center left judge. But you need solid progressive rockstars (think Judge Dale Ho) on the bench as well. Academic heavyweights (like Judge Rachel Bloomekatz on the 6th Circ.) who can write persuasively and effectively as a counterweight to their conservative counterparts. I think we’ve gotten a few so far from Biden…
    I am so very pleased they are stepping up the amount of nominations recently. I would love to see six nominees and a hearing every two weeks for the foreseeable future.

    On the sad case of Judge Newman… this is the story we will see more and more as federal judges with lifetime tenure age and live longer. I agree that for 96, she appears cogent and lucid in her interviews. We just don’t know what she was like in chambers or interacting with other judges. I’m not really buying her argument she is being pushed out for “political reasons”, its the Federal Circuit after all… I just wish she had a serious conversation with her Chief and an agreement in hand to still be assigned a caseload when she went senior. Her time is limited and this is a sad end to her otherwise distinguished career.

    Liked by 1 person

    • star0garnet's avatar

      I’m not sure we’re really seeing an upswell of judges staying on into their later years. Judges in the FJC database by decade of birth who lived to at least their 80th year (or 90th, for that stat), who remained as active judges into at least their 80th (or 90th) year:

      1730s: 1/2 (50%) served into 80th year+, 0/1 (0%) 90th
      1740s: 1/3 (33%) 80th, 0/0 (0%) 90th
      1750s: 3/5 (60%) 80th, 0/2 (0%) 90th
      1760s: 5/6 (83%) 80th, 1/1 (100%) 90th
      1770s: 2/6 (33%) 80th, 0/1 (0%) 90th
      1780s: 4/6 (67%) 80th, 1/2 (50%) 90th
      Pensions introduced 1869, affecting the following:
      1790s: 1/2 (50%) 80th, 0/0 (0%) 90th
      1800s: 1/7 (14%) 80th, 0/2 (0%) 90th
      1810s: 2/13 (15%) 80th, 0/1 (0%) 90th
      1820s: 1/10 (10%) 80th, 0/0 (0%) 90th
      1830s: 4/18 (22%) 80th, 0/3 (0%) 90th
      1840s: 10/19 (53%) 80th, 2/2 (100%) 90th
      Senior status introduced 1919, affecting the following:
      1850s: 11/26 (42%) 80th, 1/7 (14%) 90th
      1860s: 9/38 (24%) 80th, 1/10 (10%) 90th
      1870s: 28/57 (49%) 80th, 0/13 (0%) 90th, 0/1 (0%) 100th
      1880s: 14/76 (18%) 80th, 1/10 (10%) 90th, 0/1 (0%) 100th
      1890s: 5/69 (7%) 80th, 0/17 (0%) 90th, 0/2 (0%) 100th
      1900s: 11/124 (9%) 80th, 2/45 (4%) 90th, 0/5 (0%) 100th
      1910s: 9/171 (5%) 80th, 1/65 (2%) 90th, 0/4 (0%) 100th
      1920s: 17/289 (6%) 80th, 8/166 (5%) 90th, 0/4 (0%) 100th
      1930s: 33/296 (11%) 80th, 0/82 (0%) 90th
      1940s: 24/200 (12%) 80th

      Newman, 96, is the oldest active federal judge ever, having passed fellow Fed. Cir. Judge Giles Rich, who died at 95. But she seems to be the exception. The introductions of pensions and senior status solved most of this issue, and while the last 15 years have seen a rise in 80-year old judges, they’re still at a pretty low level, and we’ve seen a recent reduction in 90-year old judges after a tiny rise that may have been a blip. Only 7 of the 171 living judges born in the 1930s are still on the active bench, and one of those 7 is Rovner. The Baby Boom may change the calculus, but we’re a ways off from knowing that, and what we’ve seen so far has been a generation largely eager to enjoy their golden years and/or observing political pressures.

      Liked by 1 person

  15. Mike S.'s avatar

    To me, its more of an issue with older judges who have taken senior status yet are still on the bench. Granted, we are seeing the Judge Newman issue play out, and she is still in active service, so it still gets a lot of attention. My understanding is that once a judge goes senior, they can work as much as they want, but its ultimately at the discretion of the Chief Judge. As we increasingly see an aging federal judiciary, it is something to consider.

    This is an article from over ten years ago (yet still worth the read), but I think it sums up a lot of the concerns with lifetime tenure and judges who should be hanging up the robe for good and just refuse to do so. Perhaps things have changed in terms of policy since then, but I wonder how many judges still haven’t given up their “car keys” yet:

    “The judiciary does not assess the competence of its senior judges. The courts have no formal policy requiring, or even recommending, that judges receive medical checkups or consult with geriatricians. Instead, the institution relies on other judges to monitor colleagues, and, working discreetly behind the scenes, to push out enfeebled judges gently. Judge Dee Benson of U.S. District Court in Utah, age 62, likened the process to persuading an elderly parent to stop driving: “How are we going to get grandma off the highway?”

    https://www.propublica.org/article/life-tenure-for-federal-judges-raises-issues-of-senility-dementia

    Liked by 2 people

    • star0garnet's avatar

      That it certainly a fair point; a chief judge who isn’t checking in on the performance of their senior judges isn’t doing their job well. Perhaps a formalized system of routine check-ins is in order, overseen by the circuit judicial councils with appeals to the judicial conference, as there’s plenty of room for abuse as it stands now and plenty of judges hold enduring grudges against colleagues.

      Liked by 1 person

  16. keystone's avatar

    Looks like the Biden campaign is really starting to steer into abortion and reproductive rights messaging. I wonder if well see this reflected in some of the judicial noms.

    A couple years ago people on this blog used to talk about how TJ Tu, the Senior Counsel, Center for Reproductive Rights, would make a phenomenal nom for SDNY but might be too controversial to be picked. It’s funny bc the climate has changed such that what perceived to be his greatest hindrance is now prob one of his greatest assets towards being nominated (IMO). I could see WH nominating someone like him and almost hoping that someone like Cruz or Blackburn would go off. Benefit being that Tu would prob be confirmed and there would be a bunch of sound bytes that could go viral or be used in ads.

    We usually talk about reproductive rights lawyers with regards to the NYC area courts, but I’m sure there must be others.

    For instance, Austin Kaplan, who represented Kate Cox in Texas, and Traci Timko, who represented Brittany Watts in Ohio. Granted, neither of those candidates would ever get nominated bc of blueslips, but I think the WH (in the case of TX) and Sen Brown (in the case of OH) could create some headaches for the GOP by floating names like that.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      I definitely could see another reproduction rights nominee or two this year. I actually think it would be smart. Now I will give the Republicans credit, they didn’t focus on or make a huge deal of it at the Julie Rikelman hearing.

      Perhaps they finally realize the dog has caught the car & don’t want to dig the hole any deeper but either way it’s a win/win for Democrats.

      If I could advise the WHC office I would tell them this. Look one of the seats that the home state senators aren’t working in good faith. Perhaps Alabama, Missouri or Arkansas, then nominate one of the states most prominent reproduction rights attorneys you can find. Obviously the seat wouldn’t get filled because of blue slips but the seat isn’t gonna get filled anyway. Let the nominee know up front the circumstances. This will highlight the issue as news outlets will certainly cover the obstruction while simultaneously put Republicans on the defense & ruling up the progressive base which is (How can I put this nicely) not currently as motivated as needed.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Hank's avatar

      Tu would be a great pick – though I think it’s more worthwhile to nominate pro-choice advocates for appellate seats because district judges are limited in what they can do and abortion issues will almost certainly be appealed.

      The Rikelman and Berner nominations have really been encouraging in that defending the rights of women is no longer seen as disqualifying by a party that claimed to defend Roe. Other than possibly the Rovner seat on CA7 (which I would guess is Maldonado’s if she wants it), I don’t imagine we’ll see any more circuit nominees with pro-choice experience before the election – although to be honest, Susan Collins would likely benefit politically from supporting a pro-choice nominee to the Maine CA1 seat.

      Now if Wardlaw or Gould were to go senior on the 9th, I could see the CA or WA senators supporting a pro-choice advocate as a nominee. I would still prefer to see Sunshine Sykes (CDCA) or Lauren King (WDWA) elevated because they would bring experience in American Indian law to the bench (and be the first Native American circuit judges ever), but not much point in speculating until the vacancies actually occur.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Jamie's avatar

        Kacsmaryk has impact because of judge shopping, he is the only federal judge in the Amarillo area. So the anti-choicers file cases there as they know that they will get him as their judge. If he was a judge in Houston or Dallas, he would have far less impact.
        It is the same with Reed O’Connor in Fort Worth/Wichita Falls, who struck down many Obama and Biden policies, including the ACA.
        This kind of judge shopping fraud needs to be curbed by Congress.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Hank's avatar

        On Kacsmaryk, that’s only because CA5 is so insane – his BS wouldn’t fly in any normal circuit or if SCOTUS weren’t 6-3 in favor of the nutjobs. But I agree that appointing pro-choice advocates to district courts is still better than not appointing them as judges at all, and I’d like to see more of that instead of these career prosecutors we keep seeing even in blue states.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Dequan's avatar

        I have no problem with them putting reproductive rights judges on district courts. Not every case will be heard by the circuit courts & we already know the SCOTUS only hears about 80 cases a year.

        And I definitely think there’s a decent chance we could get one for the 1st. I don’t even know if Collins would object, especially after the Kavanaugh debacle for her. I wouldn’t bet on it but I don’t think the 7th is the only one of the four circuit court vacancies that it’s possible.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Jamie's avatar

      ” I could see WH nominating someone like him and almost hoping that someone like Cruz or Blackburn would go off. ”

      Not sure it would work anymore. I was shocked that there was not one question to Berner about her Planned Parenthood work. It’s quite possible that Cruz or Blackburn would find other issues to attack someone like Tu other than abortion. Hawley is more likely to tee off on this issue.

      Liked by 1 person

  17. Zack's avatar

    There’s also the nominee for the 6th Circuit to replace Julia Gibbons coming up at some point, although we know that one is going to be a moderate simply due to the fact Gibbons isn’t taking senior status outright and would likely revoke her status if the nominee is a flaming liberal.
    Still, in this case a flip with a moderate is better then a Federalist Society keeping that seat for thirty to forty years.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hank's avatar

      Yeah I hope the administration isn’t dragging this out and we get a nominee for the Gibbons seat real soon – I agree that we’re not likely to see anyone with a progressive background for this seat, but Mathis didn’t have a particularly liberal resume either. Gibbons has a lot of former clerks who seem at least center-left (including current WDTN chief judge Lipman, who is almost certainly too old for the seat), so the admin should just pick one of those and move it along already. Ritz, as a white career prosecutor and former Gibbons clerk, would likely satisfy Gibbons and get at least one of Graham/Collins/Murk even if Blackburn whines about it.

      Also, the fact that it’s taken this long suggests to me that (no surprise) Blackburn/Hagerty were lying about backing McMullen for the last vacancy. Blackburn will probably oppose anyone to the left of Clarence Thomas for the CA6 seat and is clearly planning to refuse to return a blue slip for the WDTN seat until at least the next election, so there’s no point in bothering with that crazy hag.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Ryan J's avatar

        Often times, far-right senators only claim to agree to a moderate nominee AFTER Biden picks a nominee they don’t like. If Biden were to pick a progressive Latina for CA5, I could absolutely see Cornyn & Cruz saying they would back Irma Ramirez in their statement opposing a more progressive nominee. I will also re-iterate that I think Cornyn & Cruz would not have backed Irma Ramirez if they actually had the power to hold the seat open for the next GOP president.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Ryan J's avatar

        If McMullen wants the seat and Blackburn/Hagerty are refusing, I take it as Blackburn/Hagerty are making a bet that they can hold the seat open. It’s a gamble for them because if they win they hold the seat open but if they lose they get another Andre Mathis shoved down their throats.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Jamie's avatar

      I’m not as convinced as you that Gibbons would revoke. The “taking senior status upon confirmation” is more common these days. Gibbons is not a hard right-winger and she could have left under Trump and did not. That suggests to me that she wants to leave now.
      The replacement is likely to center to center-left because we’re in an election year and you want to get someone confirmed and Biden likely wants to negotiate a package including the district judge(s).

      Liked by 2 people

      • Hank's avatar

        I don’t think the likelihood of a judge conditioning their senior status on a certain replacement is necessarily related to ideology – we’ve seen it happen with Kanne (far-right), King (center-left), and kind of with Rawlinson (centrist). And Gibbons not wanting to be replaced by a Fed Soc hack doesn’t mean she’s ok with being replaced by the Tennessee equivalent of Dale Ho, so there’s always a risk she may revoke if she dislikes the nominee for whatever reason (too extreme, not a former clerk, etc.).

        On the bright side, the “going senior upon confirmation of a successor” works both ways – Gibbons might also revoke if Blackburn/Hagerty drag this out to deny Biden her replacement as well. Given that Gibbons went senior under Biden even after seeing how the situation played out with Mathis, I doubt she cares much about what Blackburn thinks.

        Ria Tobacco Mar would be great, but obviously not going to happen since she doesn’t even live in Tennessee. She’s a good example of how Gibbons is not a Fed Soc nutjob in terms of her ideology or the clerks she hires (though she is definitely conservative on issues of criminal law).

        Liked by 2 people

  19. Rick's avatar

    I went back and looked at the Senate Commerce Committee meeting where the 3 Amtrack Board nominees were approved. It was a voice vote for all 3. Hopefully, after they wrap those 3 up around Tues afternoon, they can work on some judicial nominees for late afternoon Tues and into Wed and Thurs

    Liked by 2 people

  20. Mitch's avatar

    About the 6th. Circuit vacancy, my opinion is that the Senators are leaning towards Travis McDonough, Chief Judge of the Eastern District of Tennessee. There hasn’t been a judge from there on the 6th. Circuit in many years.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment