Nominated nearly a year before the seat she is seeking to fill opens, Rhode Island Judge Melissa DuBose is poised to become the first judge of color and first judge from the LGBTQ community on the Rhode Island federal district court.
Background
A native Rhode Islander, Melissa DuBose was born in 1968 and attended Providence College, graduating with a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1990. DuBose subsequently spent a decade working as a high school teacher before getting her law degree from Roger Williams School of Law in 2004.
After graduating, DuBose joined the Rhode Island Attorney General’s Office under then Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse (now a U.S. Senator and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee). In 2019, DuBose became in-house counsel for Schneider Electric. Since 2019, DuBose has served as a judge on the Rhode Island District Court in Providence.
History of the Seat
DuBose has been nominated for a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. This seat will open on January 1, 2025, when Judge William Smith takes senior status.
Legal Experience
After spending a decade as a high school history and civics teacher, DuBose went to law school after one of her students committed a murder as part of a gang fight. After law school, DuBose worked as a special assistant attorney for the Rhode Island Attorney General’s Office, prosecuting juveniles.
From 2009 to 2019, DuBose worked on ethics and corporate compliance in-house with Schneider Electric, an energy company based out of France.
Jurisprudence
In 2018, Gov. Gina Raimondo (now the Secretary of Commerce) appointed DuBose to the Rhode Island District Court. DuBose was subsequently confirmed to the court in 2019, where she has served as a trial judge since, presiding over both civil and criminal cases. DuBose is also a member of the Committee on Racial and Ethnic Fairness in Rhode Island Courts and is chair of the Public Engagement and Education subcommittee.
In addition to her time as a judge, DuBose also serves on the Board of Directors for the Roger Williams University School of Law, and chairs the Board’s Diversity & Inclusion Committee.
Political Activity
DuBose has a relatively brief political history, with small donations to Democrats Angel Taveras and Joseph Fernandez.
Overall Assessment
In Whitehouse, DuBose’s historic nomination has a powerful ally on its side. While she is likely to draw a number of questions regarding her views regarding diversity and inclusion in the court system, Whitehouse’s support should ensure a smooth and on-track confirmation for DuBose.
The Vetting Room 
Overall, a good if not fairly conventional nominee.
I wouldn’t be surprised if a member of the Judicial committee got in a tizzy over her time as Roger Williams University School of Law’s chair of the Board’s Diversity & Inclusion Committee.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agreed that it’s fairly conventional nominee.
Very important diversity especially for the Rhode Island District Court.
However her credentials don’t show a progressive streak. Which is a bit disappointing.
B-
LikeLiked by 1 person
Also does anyone know the likelihood of a circuit nominee being announced in the next batch?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Longest known vacancy at this point was the TN 6th circuit, from back in August. That’s normally about enough time for a blue state, but who knows how much time they’re wasting trying to negotiate with these red state senators. Next wasn’t until the Maine 1st circuit seat in November. Not enough time for that one. It could be a few months still without a circuit nominee I’m afraid. Would love to be proven wrong.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I doubt we will get a circuit court nominee next week. All 5 vacancies are relatively newly announced & the oldest one is from Tennessee. I’m sure Blackburn will draw that process out for months before agreeing to a nominee.
LikeLiked by 1 person
DuBose is a good nominee. The only issue I have with her is her being in her mid 50’s. It’s not as big of a deal for this seat since Rhode Island only has one circuit court seat & Lara Montecalvo was just confirmed to the 1st two years ago. So there’s almost no chance of DuBose getting elevated anyway. I would give her a B+
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Ben
The Maine selection committee interviews took place Jan 4-6. I assume selected candidates have prob met with the Senators at this point or are in the final stages of that interview step. We’re prob nearing the point where recommendations are sent to the WH – which involves interviews with the WH staff and background checks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah that’s good. So hopefully within a month or so?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The background check can take a while. I’m thinking we’ll get it in Spring, hopefully early but prob mid.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Apparently Stranch is taking senior status upon confirmation of her successor.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Where did you read that at?
LikeLike
John Doe (I follow him on Twitter – excellent resource for judiciary related news, he is more on the conservative side) is reporting he is under the impression that 6th Circ. Judge Jane Branstetter Stranch will take senior status upon confirmation of a successor.
He seems to indicate there has been a recent push from the White House to have circuit judges go senior before the election. Wonder if any truth to this? TBD…
LikeLiked by 2 people
Was just seeing that. I wonder if this helps the deal making to come to a satisfying conclusion for both circuit seats.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And hopefully the WDTN seat as well. Just as big of news would be if there’s a push from the White House to have circuit judges go senior before the election. My God that would be amazing if so.
LikeLike
Hope that isn’t true, but considering his track record there’s probably quite a bit of it present. Why can’t the judiciary remain independent from the other two branches? Such conduct should frankly be illegal.
LikeLike
The Trump administration did the exact same thing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I know, and it doesn’t change my opinion on the matter. Just because Republicans do something immoral doesn’t make it suddenly moral for Democrats to do.
LikeLike
It’s inevitable with the current political climate. The fact that the president has to negotiate with senators to get judges confirmed already could be considered a “breach” of judicial independence. But the alternative to negotiating tactics would be to leave red states with exclusively red judges and blue states with exclusively blue judges, which I think is a recipe for Civil War.
LikeLike
Oh I know John Doe. He is definitely a reliable source. That dramatically changes things. You can now nominate a much better nominee for Gibbons seat & fast track them. Then once they are confirmed, you can nominate anybody for Stranch seat since she won’t rescind. This is HUGE news. Biden could appoint the entire Tennessee delegation to the 6th circuit if true.
LikeLike
Stranch’s family is huge in the Nashville area and very involved with Vanderbilt University’s Law School. Her father, Cecil Branstetter, cofounded the Nashville law firm Branstetter Stranch & Jennings.
Last year, the firm split into two new entities. One of them, Stranch, Jennings & Garvey, PLLC, is led by her son, Gerard Stranch IV. It focuses on focus on civil rights, the opioid epidemic, union-side labor law and complex civil litigation.
Seems like there could be some interesting candidates in that vacinity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Probably not the best long-term strategy, but I really wish the whitehouse would tell the Tn senators to kick rocks and put two really good circuit noms on the 6th. Obviously keeping in mind the JSG vacancy is conditional.
LikeLiked by 3 people
The WH clearly isn’t shying away from red state circuit vacancies (the subject that finally motivated me to get involved in discussion here after some failed ‘awaiting moderation’ tries). Thanks in large part to the aftermath of Scalia and Ginsburg’s deaths, we’re now looking to just 3 Obama and 9 Clinton circuit appointees for announcements. When Biden was elected, those numbers were 20 and 31. At the end of the year, Dem appointees are set to constitute less than a third of senior-eligible circuit appointees for the first time in a long time. I just sincerely hope that this won’t yield a right of center compromise candidate for either seat. If Dems hold the presidency for another two terms, they have a solid shot at majorities on the 5th, 6th, and 7th (and at breaking the tie on the 3rd), leaving the GOP with just the 8th and 11th.
LikeLiked by 4 people
This is excellent news. Would absolutely love to see another nominee in the Andre Mathis mold for this seat. Would be worth it to see Blackburn head explode.
I also think this increases the odds that we see a nominee for that district court seat as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is refreshing to see circuit court judges in red states realize that we are living in extremely dangerous times. It would be nice if circuit court judges in blue states followed their lead.
Maybe the fact that one of the parties is currently openly defying a Supreme Court order and calling for a rebellion might convince them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is also another vacancy coming up for the Central district of California, as it was just announced that George W Judge Philip S. Gutierrez is taking senior status on his 65th birthday.
Gutierrez was a moderate from what I’ve read so this won’t be as big of a flip versus someone like Corman Carney (who is a racist) would be but still, a seat we can filled with a moderate/liberal judge is better then a right wing hack.
As for the the 6th Circuit, glad to see Stranch taking senior status, Clay and Moore need to follow suit, as do judges on other circuit courts.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I’m not that enthusiastic that Gutierrez is leaving, because the Central District of California is unstable due to the large number of judges how are already eighty or close to it, the number of vacancies may rise due to natural causes, and can’t be filled in the case that Democrats lost either the Senate or the President next year.
And that on one of the busiest court of the country.
Because of the higher number of circuit court vacancies, these will surely be prioritized, what is generally correct, but I have esimated some weeks ago, that the Senate has to confirm roughly eight district court nominees per month, with rougly 55 vacancies and 30 future ones. Surely there are more to come, and not all of them will be filled due to obstruction, but just an estimated value.
I would also be careful with the estimation, that the WH will announce pretty liberal candidates to these circuit court vacancies, the trend is going to the other direction.
Seeing that nominees like Edelman or Gaston are not getting enough votes for confirmation now, is worrying me, while I can’t see the Republicans in the SJC doing something else than in the three years before, there is not much appetite on professionally diverse candidates in the Democratic Caucus, the closer the election is looming.
So Melissa DuBose suits well in ‘The Sceme’ of racially diverse, but otherwise more conventional nominees.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wish more district judges conditioned their retirement on the confirmation of a successor, that would solve the problem of seats being vacant.
LikeLike
For the Stranch vacancy, the compromise nominees would be Magistrate Judge Alistair Newbern or US Atty Henry Leventis. If you want to tell Blackburn to kick rocks, you could nominate Stranch’s son J. Gerard Stranch or Tricia Herzfeld.
I would expect obstruction from Blackburn/Hagerty here, so Biden should prepare to nominate a hard core liberal. But first get a deal on the Gibbons and district nominees first.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I agree that all of them are possibilities. I’d also throw in Tricia Herzfeld, who is currently in private practice but previously worked as Legal Director for the ACLU of Tennessee as well as Edmund Sauer, who is also currently in private practice and previously clerked for Stranch (and also served as Deputy Counsel to former Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear). I’d LOVE for the nominee to be Vanderbilt Law Professor Samar Ali, whho would be the first Muslim woman to serve as a circuit judge. She served as a White House Fellow from 2010-2011 but I’m not sure the White House would even try to nominate her given the pushback Manghi faced. Though she’d be an easy A+.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Has there been a confirmation of the Stranch senior status beyond the John Doe Tweet?
Also, now might be a good time for Clinton MDFL district judge Aleta Arthur Trauger to go senior.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That would be nice although there is already a vacancy in the Northern District of Alabama from Abdul Kallon’s resignation. If Tuberville can’t agree to one of these three Magistrate Judges (Gray Borden, Nicholas Danella, and John H. England III), I have no hope. I also have very little hope Tuberville would agree to anyone form Andrew Brasher’s old seat on the Middle District of Alabama. Magistrate Judge Jerusha Adams would be my ideal pick there. I do think Britt would work in good faith.
LikeLiked by 2 people
*MDTN
LikeLiked by 1 person
If Trauger takes senior status she needs to condition it on confirmation of a successor. That ought to increase the chances of Blackburn and Hagerty cooperating.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Something that has occurred to me about the Smith and Branch seats is that a lot (not all) of the names we’ve mentioned for those seats are male.
Andre Mathis’ seat was previously held by Bernice Donald. You had a situation where all three of the TN circuit seats were held my women justices. Prior to serving on the Federal circuit, Julia Gibbons Smith was one of the first women judges elected in TN. I’ve also noticed that a lot of the Gibbons Smith’s law clerks have been women, I think she took pride in mentoring them.
I think if all of those seats end up with male nominees, it’s not gonna be good look but also, I think Blackburn. will quickly oppose on the grounds that women aren’t being represented in the picks. I don’t think she’d care if they were all white conservative men, but it’s a narrative that could get traction and complicate the nominations.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yeah good point. I looked up Alistair Newbern and she sounds good. Magistrate judge, ran the Vanderbilt appellate litigation clinic, clerked for Clinton judge on 6th.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Do we have the list of nominees for the Central California district and who we want to see on there, especially since there will now be three vacancies from there?
LikeLike
Sure. Here was the list I posted last week I would consider A or A+ for to any of the CDCA seats.
Lamar Baker
Hernaldo Baltodano
Jessica Bansal
Chandra Bhatnagar
Melissa Goodman
Brian E. Nelson
Rachel Rossi
Jonathan Schneller
Bryant Yang
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bryant Yang is my top choice for one of the vacant seats as well as any 9th Circuit vacancies down the line.
Hopefully CA’s two senators agree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
At this point with this being an election year, I’m not expecting any super-controversial candidates right now, but of the names I’ve heard of from your list I do agree they’d be good picks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I was leaning towards Bryant Yang being my second choice after a young progressive Black man for the 9th. Now that we have SIX circuit court vacancies (Once we confirm this mornings news), I’m confident at least one will be filled with a Black man. So that would move Yang up to first on my list for any future 9th vacancy as well.
Can I say that again for the people in the back. We now have SIX circuit court vacancies without a nominee. It feels good to say that. Of course seven or eight would sound much better but I won’t get greedy just yet… Lol
LikeLike
I wonder if like Charles Wilson a couple of people have taken senior status but just haven’t announced yet?
LikeLiked by 1 person
With the news this morning, we are at Biden potentially being able to get 49 circuit court judges in his first term. I still don’t see 54 happening, but even to get within a handful of that is amazing. If even a few Democrat appointees would (Or have already) announce, he could get within a breath of 54.
LikeLike
Great to hear about Stranch (if true) – she’s been a solidly liberal judge on CA6, so I just wish she had announced her taking senior status sooner. I think this is the first time there’s been multiple simultaneous appellate vacancies in one red state? I know California had multiple appellate vacancies at once, but of course the CA senators aren’t psychos like Blackburn.
And I think this may make filling both the CA6 seats more complicated – Blackburn will probably refuse to return blue slips for either CA6 vacancy unless she/Hagerty get one of the picks (and she would likely argue that Gibbons as a Republican should be replaced by another Republican). I’m afraid the White House might accept this given how they’ve been caving to Republicans on everything from immigration talks to the Edelman/Gaston nominations. Hopefully they aren’t so stupid as to let Blackburn pull one over on them and waste the chance to flip the Gibbons seat.
As for candidates, Newbern would be great, but unlikely to get a blue slip. Law school appellate clinics usually take a lot of prisoner’s rights/civil rights/pro se cases that Blackburn will claim are “soft on crime” (or whatever nonsense she comes up with). I’m sure Newbern is well-connected in Nashville between her time as a magistrate judge and her ties to Vanderbilt though, so I hope she can get the administration to back her even without a blue slip like they did with Mathis.
LikeLiked by 1 person
For those keeping track of future Chief Judge structuring, Judge Brisco received her commission today. Completely expected after N.D. Okla. sequencing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Recalling some comments from yesterday, do you all think which senator is the senior senator has an impact on what happens on judges? Sure, some of the senators who are refusing to cooperate with Biden on judges are their state’s senior senator (Tuberville, Hawley, Ron Johnson) but there are also a number of junior senators who are refusing to cooperate with Biden on judges (Hyde-Smith, Sullivan, Daines) despite their senior senator being willing to cooperate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
For blue states, I do think it makes a difference, particularly when the senior senator is on the SJC, but even when it’s not the case. As for red states, not as much now, as many of the junior senators there seem to be willing to do their own thing to advance their own political careers through more obstruction.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yeah, it definitely makes a difference for blue states.
LikeLike
Every state is different. New York seems to have a 3-1 Schumer-Gillibrand ratio. California seemed to have a 1-1 ratio with Feinstein-Padilla with both having separate commissions. Vermont had a commission with Bernie getting more members on it than Welch. There’s no rhyme or reason, each state is different.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cristal Brisco got her judicial commission today.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hopefully Lund didn’t. That way despite being younger, Brisco (The Democrat) will have seniority over Lund (The Republican). Biden got it right with the two Oklahoma judges. Not so much so for the 4 EDPA judges.
LikeLike
I agree that Biden got it right with giving Brisco her commission first (even though that denies Lund the chance to be chief judge). I think Oklahoma is different because Russell isn’t an outright Republican.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If the Republican pick got their commission first and thus denied the Democrat pick from becoming chief judge, that would have made me upset.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I guess that with Oklahoma I won’t really know whether giving Hill her commission first was right until we see who the next judge is. If the next judge is a Democrat, then I think giving Hill her commission was correct, but the next judge will probably be a Republican because the 2 non-Biden judges are both Republicans and the Oklahoma senators are also both Republicans.
LikeLike
Actually now I’m confused because John Heil didn’t become chief until 2021 and I don’t know John Russell’s birthday (he turns 65 in 2028). I guess I now agree with you about Biden getting it right with the Oklahoma judges because idk if Russell would have had the chance to become chief judge at all. I’m having an internal battle about this as I type these comments.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Easy rule of thumb. It there’s more than one nominee for the same court & they are all Democrats; sign their commissions at the same time or in order of oldest to youngest. If there’s any doubt then sign the one you know is a Democrat first.
It doesn’t matter their age & if we think they will never become chief judge. Remember anything can happen (Death, elevation, resignation) that can change who we think can become chief judge later on. But once the commissions are signed, that’s the order, no changing that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We should consider in the Oklahoma case, that Heil is sitting on all three courts, and might not serve his term out, because he has to become chief at the Eastern District, who has just two judgeships, when the other judge will take senior status. I don’t know how it’s according to the rules, but alone due to the workload nobody can be chief judge on two district courts.
But honestly I don’t share these thoughts how to preventing John Russell and Gretchen Lund from becoming chief judges – the real problem is, that on a smaller court everybody needs to take the job of the chief, and if you put an older one on the most junior post, you get problems, especially, when the other ones are similar of age and service time, take a look at the Middle District of North Carolina or at Vermont.
LikeLike
I don’t think the one male judge was in the EDPA either. But it’s clear in both cases they are at best, the most conservative of all the picks. So even with that, I would want them to get their commissions last.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Regarding Stranch moving to senior status, I haven’t being able to find any other source confirming so.
Is there usually this delay between John Doe’s twitter announcement and a confirmation in mainstream media or law360.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hmmm…
For comparison,
When Rovner announced, the tweets, and all of the legal press reported it on the same day. Her announcement letter was printed online and she gave quotes to reporters. I also think the listing went up on the USCourt site that same day (I think).
With Wilson it was a bit different.
Jan 22: news first broke on the SDFLA blog. It them started to get tweeted that same day.
Jan 23: Bloomberg, Law360, and Reuters all published reports.
Jan 26 : I still don’t see it listed on the US Courts page.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The biggest issue for me with the one TN will still be Gibbons.
There is nothing to stop her from doing a King or Kanne if she feels like it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Earlier I’d mentioned that Dem appointees are set to constitute a historically low proportion of senior-eligible appeals judges. Having looked into it more deeply, we truly are headed to historic levels. Since the Rule of 80 became the standard of qualification in July 1984, 314 circuit judges (146D, 168R) have sat on the bench as senior-eligible active judges. Another two GOP appointees will qualify in April. Another 31 (9D, 22R) went senior or retired the day they qualified. Assuming Gibbons, Kayatta, Wynn, Rovner, and Stranch have been replaced, when Wilson goes senior at the end of the year, we’re set to have 12D and 26R (31.6%D) appointees eligible. Dating back to 1984, the only time GOP appointees have constituted a greater proportion were 244 days in 2004-2005, peaking at 8D, 21R (27.6%) on June 30 and July 1, 2004 (thanks to Carter’s appointees having aged out and Clinton’s not yet qualifying). Dem appointees peaked as a proportion in July 1986, with 17D, 4R (81.0%).
How the number of senior-eligible active circuit judges has fluctuated from one presidential term to the next [breakdown of those retiring/going senior normally over the ensuing term, so excluding deaths, resignations, promotions, and disability senior status]:
1/20/1985: 13D, 5R (72.2%) [9D, 14R]
1/20/1989: 16D, 9R (64.0%) [18D, 15R]
1/20/1993: 12D, 6R (66.7%) [16D, 13R]
1/20/1997: 11D, 11R (50.0%) [8D, 24R]
1/20/2001: 8D, 11R (42.1%) [7D, 16R]
1/20/2005: 9D, 19R (32.1%) [4D, 15R]
1/20/2009: 19D, 23R (45.3%) [14D, 13R]
1/20/2013: 26D, 28R (48.1%) [13D, 12R]
1/20/2017: 33D, 37R (47.1%) [8D, 26R]
1/20/2021: 37D, 26R (58.7%) [37D, 6R]
1/20/2025: 12D, 26R (31.6%)
In the next term, 25 (16D, 9R) will qualify (as will Kagan). The timing is optimal for Democrats to pull off a three-term hat trick to continue the mirror image course we’ve been on for many years (see below). If they can hold the presidency, and occasionally the senate, they’re set to dominate the circuit and district courts, and could regain ground on SCOTUS with a little luck. Imagine 2030-2070 being a judicial mirror of 1990-2030.
1941-1953 (FDR/Truman) vs 1981-1993 (Reagan/GHW)
1953-1961 (Eisenhower) vs 1993-2001 (Clinton)
1961-1969 (Kennedy/Johnson) vs 2001-2009 (GW)
1969-1977 (Nixon/Ford) vs 2009-2017 (Obama)
1977-1981 (Carter) vs 2017-2021 (Trump)
1981-1993 (Reagan/GHW) vs 2021-present (Biden)
LikeLiked by 2 people
I love the way you laid it all out there! Thanks for nerding out and making it plain for us to understand.
Sometimes I get frustrated and down when I see the conservatives on SCOTUS charting an overtly right-wing path of jurisprudence with contempt for settled law. Then I realized that there are small periods in history in which, if the right steps are taken, the future can be better. What I constantly remind myself is that the 6-3 (stolen) majority on SCOTUS only happened due to bad timing and sheer luck. The late-Justice Marshall not being able to hold on until after Clinton won the election in ’92, Scalia dying in 2016 when the GOP had the majority in the senate, and RBG not retiring when she should’ve/could’ve.
What gives me a bit of hope is that we’re about to enter a period where in 2 years, there will be 4 members of SCOTUS who would be over 70 years of age. And while it’s tacky and distasteful to wish death or ill on anyone, with aging comes higher chances of retirement and/or the inability to bounce back after illnesses/medical emergencies. The path to majority STARTS with Thomas’s seat. It pisses me off that he’s been on the court for 30+ years and is only 75 (also outlasted Ginsburg and Breyer). Justice Thomas is the most partisan justice on the court, and I have no doubt he’ll wait for the confetti to fall from the stage after the next GOP president wins on election night to declare his intentions to retire. My only hope is that we can get some of that Marshall/Scalia luck. As in, Thomas being blocked from retiring due to 2 or 3 consecutive Dem presidents (Marshall) or an untimely illness/death (not wishing for it to happen, just trying to draw a parallel) during a Dem administration (Scalia). If that were to happen and Biden or the next Dem president gets the chance to replace Thomas, then the waiting game starts for Alito and Roberts.
Again, I know that the 3 oldest GOP appointees are partisan and would rather die than let anyone to the left on Ayn Rand replace them, but that would be the beginning of a more balanced SCOTUS with the chance of having a liberal one sometime before I have grandchildren or am eligible for AARP.
Can’t speak to much of your analysis of the future CCA vacancies and the ideological makeup of each circuit court, but I would be very happy if the more extreme courts (5th and 8th) followed the path of the 9th circuit. If we can’t have a massive overtly liberal court (just pretend the 1st doesn’t exist lol), then neither can they. A pipe dream would be to flip both circuits, but I’ll be more than happy to get 6+ appointees to the 5th and at least 4 appointees to the 8th. Occasional majorities on 3-judge panels are all I can ask for.
LikeLike
An estimate of where the circuits could end up, if Democratic presidents end up replacing all GOP appointees who will be at least 75 by 2033 (compared to where they should be at the end of this year with what we know now) [and where they’d be if all senior-eligible GOP appointees were replaced]:
1st: 100% D (100% D) [100% D]
Fed: 92% D (67% D) [92% D]
4th: 80% D (60% D) [87% D]
10th: 75% D (58% D) [92% D]
DC: 73% D (64% D) [82% D]
9th: 69% D (55% D) [76% D]
7th: 64% D (45% D) [82% D]
3rd: 57% D (50% D) [79% D]
2nd: 54% D (54% D) [77% D]
5th: 53% D (29% D) [76% D]
6th: 50% D (44% D) [69% D]
11th: 42% D (42% D) [50% D]
8th: 36% D (9% D) [82% D]
Yes, not all of those over 75 by 2033 would be replaced, but most will, and a fair number of those younger than that would as well. (There are currently only 11 GOP appointees over 75, and one of them is Rovner.) Of those who’ve qualified after the Rule of 80 came into force and who were born at least 75 years ago, only 59 of 254 (23%) were active past their 75th birthday. Granted, most had a chance to be replaced by their appointing party if they wanted it. Some would certainly die before being replaced by a Democratic president, but for plenty, the prospect of another four years, let alone eight, before retirement is daunting.
While I would certainly rather Dems keep the senate this fall, and I don’t think it’s worth the tradeoff, likely the most advantageous scenario, in terms of replacing GOP judges, is Biden having a 49-51 senate next congress followed by a Dem majority the following congress. McConnell (or his replacement) wouldn’t allow many votes on circuit nominees, so there’s not a lot of danger of Biden agreeing to conservative nominees, and plenty of GOP appointees, including younger qualifiers, would feel safer about retiring.
LikeLike
I really hope somebody on the 8th leaves the bench this year. It’s the only circuit Biden hasn’t been able to place a judge on. Jane Kelly is the only woman & only Democrat appointee. I would love for her to get even the slightest bit of backup.
LikeLike
wouldn’t it just be easier to bring RICO to fedsoc and basically make fedsoc membership a disbarment worthy offense?
That way, it would be harder for an R presidency to f-ck with the dems on the blue slip issue.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Dequan, Maybe Lavenski Smith will go senior when his term as Chief ends later this year. If he does, my top choice to succeed him would be AUSA Cameron McCree, one of his former clerks who is also a Black man.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sad to say but the SCOTUS horror show we have right now wasn’t also due to bad luck but also the fact that as a whole, Democratic voters simply haven’t cared about courts or playing the long game the way Republicans have.
That was shown by idiots splitting their votes between Gore and Nadar in 2000, staying home in 2010 and 14 and not voting for Hillary in 2016, with many of them saying warnings about the courts wouldn’t make them vote for someone they didn’t want to.
And thus we have the horror show we have now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
if Judge Gould retires, what do you guys think about Noah Purcell being the nominee? He seems like a great candidate to me & I would expect heavy opposition
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think if Gould retires there’s a good chance Jamal Whitehead will be the nominee for various reasons. I think Gould is the last circuit court judge with a disclosed disability so replacing him with Whitehead will leave one. Also they rushed Whitehead’s confirmation which usually indicates they want him in the court quick in case there’s a vacancy for elevation. Plus Whitehead is young, progressive but still didn’t cause much of a stir during confirmation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m glad that liberal senior eligible judges are seeing the writing on the wall. It’s a shame that they are just seeing it. It’s one thing to give Biden the opportunity to name your successor. It’s quite another thing to give him early enough notice to name a decent one.
My happiness about the (possible?) Stranch vacancy is tempered by my fear that this second vacancy will only increase the odds that we get a subpar nominee for this seat and for Gibbon’s. Before the Biden apologists remind us about Andre Mathis, I’d like to remind them in turn that Mathis was confirmed in a totally different setting than where things are now.
I don’t begrudge anyone their Biden sycophancy, so please don’t begrudge me my skepticism: The WH can’t get some of its blue state *district* court nominees over the line in a Dem senate, can it really withstand the Republican pushback with red state circuit court nominees?
Besides the usual hackery of the TN senators, one is running for reelection and will make mountains out of molehills, if that’s what it takes. Don’t be surprised if the best we get are two center-right nominees for the circuit seats with the district court seat thrown in as a package, with them being non-FedSoc hacks as a sweetener for Dems. That’s how much faith I have in Biden.
Do we really expect the TN senators to work in good faith resulting in Biden appointing all three of the state’s circuit court judges?
I expect one of these things:
1: The TN senators will sign off on two circuit court nominees just left of Chad Meredith, maybe with the district court thrown in the bargain.
2: The WH will ignore blue slip for one of the circuit court seats because the TN senators won’t play ball on filling the district court vacancy in a package deal (most unlikely).
3: We will see 2 Irma Ramirez-type circuit nominees with the “promise” of future cooperation on filling the district court vacancy, a la Texas.
4: We will see one single Irma Ramirez-type circuit nominee with the “promise” of future cooperation on filling the other circuit and district court vacancy.
5: The WH let the TN senators string out the negotiations until the end of the year.
6: We will get three decent to outstanding nominees with the senators’ blue slips (haha, just kidding, who do I look like, Joe?).
In other news, was this appointment already posted on here?: https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/press/pressreleases/pr_01-23-24
Justice John Roberts named Senior Judge Robert J. Conrad, a right-winger, as Judge Roslynn Mauskopf’s replacement as Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
Roberts could have named any active judge for this role, which would have triggered a vacancy for Biden to fill. By appointing a senior judge, there’s no vacancy to fill. I should also note that Biden and the NC senators haven’t filled the Conrad vacancy in the first place, so the WDNC will now be short-handed, since the senior judge won’t be hearing many cases (if any) in his new role.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But under the circumstances you describe, it might be better, that those circuit court judges remain on their posts, some people here are keen to create more and more vacancies, who can’t be filled until the end of the year, and then might be filled with FedSoc hacks, although at least some of them could stay until a new Democratic president with a more stable senate majority will move in the White House and the Capitol to get a more liberal successor.
Somebody could also say, I’m sad about Wilson’s departure, because I want to have at least one Clinton appointed circuit judge in active service before Jones and Easterbrook will go senior, as they will surely outlast the older Bush senior circuit judges, and he is the youngest one and court serve another ten years.
On the last point a further district court vacancy to fill is not make a real difference in Biden’s legacy.
Some here were not very sad, when Conrad and Mosman at the District of Oregon left on the first possible opportunity, because they are right-wingers. I think it’s better when a senior judge holds the position of the AO Director.
That Roberts would choose a judge, who was appointed by the same President who appointed himself, is no surprise.
I know, everybody will shout no, but I can’t see how all wishes should fulfilled under the current circumstances.
And I would expect that the Republican senators are not enthusiastically support, that all three circuit court seats will be filled within a little more than two years by the President of the other party. Although I absolutely feel no regrets to Blackburn and Hagerty on this…
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s a very plausible theory Gavi. Personally I don’t anticipate it playing out that way but never say never.
I think a scenario like Indiana where we get a magistrate judge and a former AUSA who are both center left to mainstream Democrats is the worst case. Just my opinion.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I actually think that is the most likely outcome, to be honest. Biden doesn’t want to rock the boat going into the election, even though these appointments really won’t lift up or sink his candidacy either way. I’d rather see a candidate from a more atypical background, but based on what we’ve seen really since the Mathis drama I would be shocked to see anyone super controversial.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Joe and @Frank
You think the *worst* case scenario is getting a magistrate judge and a former AUSA as nominees?
My goodness, that’s the best case scenario for Biden/TN senators. Indiana senators are not TN senators.
If Biden holds to the TN blue slips, I think Stranch’s replacement will be well to the right of her, even if that nominee is still technically a Dem. I can’t even see Gibbon’s replacement being too far to the center from where she was.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree regarding the IN senators being different than the TN senators, but I think a better comparison for this situation would be TX and Ramirez, as far as the type I think we’ll get for these two openings. Besides, if Gibbons is leaving due to poor health, I doubt she’ll revoke due to the nominee being too liberal (not that I think that will be any type of issue).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, this thread is laughable. This administration’s worst sin is putting an older, seemingly pure centrist on the 5th, and now it’s suddenly going to do much worse. Mkay. And deciding to give up on some blue state nominees is a sign of impending doom. When every president dating back to Bush Sr. has given up on at least as many where their party controlled the blue slips (even ignoring presidents’ fourth congresses). Would have made for great conversation under Obama, let alone any previous president.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Snark aside, do you actually have anything to add?
Is your argument that prior presidents had to give up on some nominees, even though those presidents had to deal with filibuster in the senate and Biden doesn’t? Or are you just content to reaffirm a position that Biden is awesome?
Don’t let Judge Priscilla Richman hear you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m content to roll my eyes at people who predict doom that has neither precedent nor solid facts to back it up. Previous presidents generally had voice votes to deal with, and rarely dealt with filibusters of nominees from states where they aligned with the senate delegation. Even Trump dealt with more failed own-party nominations than Biden has.
Biden isn’t awesome; he’s just done an adequate job and does give a damn. His team last congress was exasperating. It just so happens that an adequate job easily surpasses any other president’s performance thanks to the lack of filibuster, lack of ironclad circuit blue slips, the country’s societal progress, and this congress, despite having a closely divided senate, having one of, if not the left-most median senators ever.
And as I assume you’re not some wacky conspiracy theorist, I’d reconsider your use of ‘sycophancy’ as I’m not sure what sort of advantage I’d be gaining chatting on a low-traffic blog.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Then roll away.
The truth is, every Biden misfire on the judiciary will be easily explained away or minimize by you. If not awesome, the A you give him is not just for adequate.
I refuse to accept that as long as a Dem president isn’t naming FedSoc hacks to the courts he should be worshipped. Not nominating FedSoc hacks should be the floor, not the ceiling. Seems that folks like you would accept or even welcome 49 Irma Ramirezs, the worst Dem circuit court appointee, as long as they aren’t FedSoc hacks. That is the “doom” we deplore.
You can use any word to describe yourself, I choose sycophancy. If the cap fits…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lol. Keep on deluding yourself then. I’m far from happy with Ramirez; I’d give her roughly a 50/100, on a scale where Biden’s median circuit appointee is an 85, and Trump’s is a 0. If every Trump appointee said they’d resign on the condition they were replaced by a Ramirez, sure, I’d be happy. But that’s neither here nor there. The worst either of us can point to is a centrist who’s probably replaceable in 10 years, when a liberal firebrand hopefully won’t be an alienating outcast on the 5th. To you, that’s a sign that the administration’s fatally flawed and their next nominee will be Julie Carnes. To me, while it’s far, far better than a Republican selecting the replacement, it’s an annoying incident that’s within a single standard deviation of the administration’s previous low points in terms of circuit selections (Gelpí, Childs, Pan, Kahn, Delaney), and it doesn’t change the equation much. With the thankfully avoided exception of Meredith, they’ve stayed pretty far away from nominating FedSoc hacks. There’s a lot of ideological territory between them and a centrist, even if not many people are occupying that territory today.
LikeLiked by 3 people
It’s a delusion, not an opinion different from yours, huh?
I’m glad that even though you say that you’re far from happy with Ramirez, you’re still as much as half happy with this elderly appointee. Maybe she’ll be able to hang on for 10 years. That’s unknowable.
And who would a “liberal firebrand” alienate on the 5th? Ho? Maybe Richman, you know, that nominee Bush fought 4 years for?
Again, you’re always going to say that every Ramirez is nothing more than a “standard deviation,” not an unnecessary missed opportunity that could potentially have long lasting consequences.
And here you are again think that not nominating FedSoc hacks is the ceiling.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Again, lol. It’s a delusion to think that this administration has ventured anywhere near nominating a FedSoc hack for a circuit judgeship. It’s a delusion to think that anybody that disagrees with you is automatically wrong. It’s a delusion to think that anybody here is a sycophant. It’s a delusion to think that something several deviations outside of the norm is likely.
A 60-year old woman in the social bracket of most federal judges has well over a 90% chance of living to 70 and 75% chance of making it to 80. But that part doesn’t matter near as much as the likelihood the seat will only be occupied by a centrist for 10-15 years (when there’s a solid chance one if not both TX senators will be Dems, if they’re even consulted), rather than 30+. If Southwick or some non-insane visiting conservative district judge (so, about half of the judges in the circuit) were on a panel with Ho, they’d be far more likely to side with Ho if their counterpart was a liberal firebrand than if they were a centrist. Of course, being persuasive and having strong legal acumen are roughly as important; I have little measure on those points, although the WQ from ABA at least points to those being strong. And a centrist’s opinion with a Ho dissent is far less likely to be overturned en banc than a liberal firebrand’s is.
“And here you are again think that not nominating FedSoc hacks is the ceiling.” Where in the world do you get this impression? The administration’s demonstrated floor to date is several deviations above this “ceiling.” The ceiling is every nominee being a heavyweight on the scale of Thurgood or RBG. The Ramirez outcome is far from ideal, and thus a failing grade of 50/100, but for this to have been much of a missed opportunity, the crazies’ majority on the 5th would have to quickly shrink. That’s likely to take most of a decade, if it happens, and then Ramirez will very likely be up for replacement within a few years while probably being healthy enough to retire under a Democrat.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Are you just making stuff up now? Is that the theme you’ve turned to?
Can you show me where I’ve said that you’re wrong just because you disagree with me (on a matter of opinion, not fact)?
You speak of delusions. (Putting aside the delusions of a “solid chance” of a blue Texas 10 years out, which was supposed to FINALLY happen every election cycle or so for the last 10-15 years.)
What do you call thinking that the 5th circuit, infamous as it is, is after all, a half reasonable court, if you flood the zone with district court judges who sit by designation? The only thing liberals need to do is stop being liberal and be centrists to maybe pick up a second vote by a designated judge, and some how this luck will hold up in en banc reviews. Earlier you spoke of precedence and solid facts, how deep is the factual record of this outburst of centrism on this circuit?
The ABA’s WQ now accounts for persuasiveness? If that’s the case, how many of the 5th judges also got a WQ rating? Just Ramirez?
Also, it’s nice that you’ve move from snark and eye rolls to strident defense of Biden’s judicial nomination record. But there’s no reason to be defensive, it’s not illegal to be a sycophant or to have the opinion that Biden is awesome and that Irma Ramirez-type nominees are no big deal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Magni getting confirmed will be the tell for me on whether we will be seeing any liberal nominees down the pipeline that Biden & company will nominate/fight for.
As for some of the failed district court nominees, a couple of them did fall victim to smear attacks but the other one simply had a horrific performance at her hearing that doomed her chances while another one simply didn’t have enough experience (IMO) to be a judge.
As to your bullet points, I don’t see number 1 happening because I don’t see Biden’s judicial advisors allowing a flip (Stranch) with a conservative, even if they are “moderate.)
I could number 3 happening for one of the seats the main reason that I don’t see Gibbons keeping senior status if her replacement is a flaming liberal.
At this point, I think some district court seats will be written off.
Have to see if TN’s will be among them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Someone I could see being in the mix to replace Julia Gibbons Smith is Burch, Porter, & Johnson Attorney Jennifer S. Hagerman.
– Memphis based
– Born ~1974.
– Clerked for Gibbons Smith 2x.
– Past President of the Association of Women Attorneys Memphis Chapter.
– Member, United States District Court, Western District of Tennessee, Standing Local Rules Committee (2016-present), Civil Rules Subcommittee Chairperson (2017), Chairperson (2018 and 2019).
– Her firm is left leaning. It represents corporate clients but in the past represented MLK Jr and more recently provided counsel to Rep. Justin Pearson when TN state house tried to oust him.
Her background is very corporate law and not progressive. Although she was part of her firm’s team in a suit between the city of Memphis and Wells Fargo over the bank’s practice of engaging in unfair lending practices towards African Americans.
She has 2 political donations – 1 in 2006 to Harold Ford Jr’s Senate campaign and 1 in 2014 to Memphis civic leader Ricky E. Wilkins’ congressional campaign.
She’s not an A candidate by any stretch and she’s not on the top of my list, but she’s someone I could see being somewhat left leaning and acceptable enough to the TN Senators and the WH and who Gibbons Smith would like.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thinking about your comments about JSG yesterday and her views towards women in the judiciary and beyond, I agree this sounds like an intriguing possibility.
I saw an interview from her on the POrtia Project podcast a while ago which I think affirms what you said.
LikeLiked by 2 people
An aside about Maine. Senators Angus King and Susan Collins are increasingly not getting along. This could complicate the search for a Federal Judge.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Might have more of an impact on the district court seat then the Circuit Court one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting.
I think it will be OK. Rep Pingree is sorta running the Maine judicial search process. So if King and Collins are having some beef, there’s a natural intermediary there.
At the end of the day, the Maine delegation is small and quirky and I’d say all 4 members care A LOT about their state.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The article about her having talked to his new GOP opponent? That’s just a warning shot that if she endorses his opponent, he’ll be free to campaign against her in 2026.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I didn’t see anything about that. Any chance you have an article or a link to something that explains it? I figured that two multi-term incumbent senators from a NE state got along very well. I know partisanship is everywhere, but I really assumed that those two got along well and could quickly agree to a liberal/left-of-center nominee for both the district court and the circuit court vacancy.
Since Susan Collins has been far and away the GOP senator most likely to vote for Biden’s judicial nominees, I doubt he and the WHC would piss her off by nominating someone she doesn’t approve of or anything. I’m sure the nominee will be decent, but just hearing that there are problems between Collins and King just makes it more interesting.
Also, this is likely the final term for both Collins and King, so it may not even matter. (Update: It seems like Angus King is running for reelection this year. So maybe by 2030 there is a new senate delegation from Maine with Sarah Gideon and someone else. We’ll see.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is what’s up in Maine:
https://www.mainepublic.org/politics/2024-01-22/coaxed-by-susan-collins-former-maine-gop-chair-to-challenge-angus-king
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you add in the Stranch vacancy (which nothing official beyond the fedjudges Twitter account, which I do take his word for it, has been posted, right?), I had mentioned this earlier but I believe we now need just two more appeals court judges to go senior for Biden to have a chance at that nice number of 50 appeals court nominees. Like last time that 50 does not double-count the Garland/KBJ/Pan seat.
We’re currently at 38, 39 come Tuesday, with three more pending nominees to get to 42. Beyond the pending nominations are vacancies on the 1st, 4th, 6th x2, 7th, and 11th to get to 48.
I also thought of this but one advantage of now compared to 2022 is that the backlog of appeals court nominees shouldn’t be as big of a problem. Coming out of the August break in 2022 you had 18 appeals court nominees awaiting confirmation. 10 of the 18 were confirmed by the end of the Congress and the final one wasn’t confirmed until last summer (Bloomekatz). Obviously with Democrats holding the Senate in 2022 it changed the focus of the lame duck session to be less on nominations and more of legislation to get passed before losing control of the House.
Finally, on the subject of 2022, it’s hard to understate how much the President dodged a bullet on his party not just holding the Senate but gaining a Senate seat that year. If Democrats had lost the Senate I’m sure a ton of the unconfirmed nominees don’t even get re-nominated and then it’s back to the drawing board to have any chance at those vacancies getting filled. Knowing what we know now, if the Senate stayed 50-50 after 2022 that means Bloomekatz, Abudu, Ho, Choudhury, Merle would most likely not get re-nominated with Manchin’s opposition enough to sink them.
LikeLiked by 2 people
One more thing on the notion that some of the Circuit Court nominees from red states will be far right types.
We’ve seen a couple of nominees get sunk for being perceived as too far left because it’s an election year from certain Democratic senators.
You think some of these same senators who need every Democratic voter/swing voters they can get will suddenly turn around and vote for anti-choice or anti-LGBT jurists on a circuit court level given the blowback there was from the Chad Meredith mess?
LikeLike
So… new noms this week?
LikeLike
If we don’t want to miss a hearing slot, we should get new nominees this week.
1/30 – No hearing
2/7 – Hearing for the last batch
2/14 – Recess week
2/21 – Recess week
3/6 – Nominees announced this week
3/13 – Bye week
3/20 – Nominees announced over the next two weeks
3/27 – Recess week
4/3 – Recess week
LikeLike
If we get new nominees this week, the next hearing would be 2/28. It would be amazing if they could have 2 back-to-back hearings on 2/28 and 3/6 but I don’t have faith that they would do that.
LikeLike
I assume there must be a rule in the SJC preventing hearings in back to back weeks. I remember when we had more nominees than we could count before the 2022 election, progressives were pushing Durbin to hold hearings back to back weeks. I know Republicans did it under Trump but of course it hasn’t happened yet under Durbin for whatever reason.
LikeLike
First clue to Judge Ramirez’s jurisprudence on the 5th Circuit.. She voted w the liberals in dissent which granted TX’s motion for a stay in the Rio Grande floating barrier case
Click to access gov.uscourts.ca5.215588.131.0.pdf
LikeLiked by 3 people
Is the floating barrier different than the razor wire? The Supreme Court just ruled 5-4 to allow Border Patrol to remove razor wire.
LikeLike
A good sign regarding Irma Ramirez. All GOP appointees and Obama appointee Stephen Higginson voted to grant the stay.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I will maintain that the criticism of Ramirez, while valid, is likely overblown. She will in all likelihood be a consistent vote with the liberal bloc just like Costa was.
Her age is a concern, but 59 is not exactly deaths door either. She is only 8 years older than the judge she replaced.
I still gave her a C, but if she can be a well liked judge who can pave the way for the filling of future vacancies then there could be a good deal of good that comes out of her nomination.
LikeLiked by 4 people
I was out of town so I didn’t have a chance to respond to the conversation from yesterday, but I will now. I see no chance this administration would nominate a Republican or outright conservative to any circuit court seat while they have 51 Democrats in the senate. We have had 43 nominees & ZERO have been Republicans or conservatives. 36 of the 43 were nominated when Democrats had only 50 senators. It’s not going to happen in Tennessee or any other state no matter if there is on vacancy, two vacancies or any other number.
We have had some nominees I would not have nominated to their seats for any reason, but even the worst ones are not Republicans or conservatives. And they all have various back stories as to why they were nominated. Ramirez was nominated in a red state with 8 district court vacancies. Childs was a gift to Clyburn. Pan’s husband is influential in Democrat circles & was a former Obama nominee to the DC district court that never got a vote, something Biden has shown deference to when it comes to nominating again now that he is POTUS.
I know some say Gibbons could rescind if she doesn’t like her replacement but this administration has already shown on two occasions that they will not let a circuit court judge handpick their replacements in West Virginia & Nevada. I also know some keep bringing up Chad Meredith. Of course, he was a district court possibility which has blue slips in play. And as I have repeated many times before he was never nominated anyway. Some say that’s only because of Rand Paul, but I don’t agree with that since the administration nominated Scott Colom AFTER Meredith without preapproval that both blue slips would be turned in. I think Dobbs was the main reason Meredith was not nominated.
LikeLike
I would consider it a win if one of the 6th circuit seats is filled by a solid liberal and the other is filled by a Ramirez type centrist.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A 59-year-old Ramirez replacing a Democrat that was 9 years younger than her gets a F in my book. The same Ramirez replacing Gibbons while getting a young progressive for the Stranch seat would bump her up in that scenario. Especially if it got Haggery & Blackburn to turn in their blue slips for both, despite me personally not caring if any Republican senator turns them in for circuit court nominees. I would happily take that deal.
LikeLike
Does anybody have the link that stated Jane Branstetter Stranch announced she was retiring? I never had a Twitter account so I can’t see it.
LikeLike
Here is the link.
John Doe is on the conservative side but he’s usually accurate on these things.
Wanted to touch on your one point because it goes to the overall discussion some folks have on this board about Biden.
There are valid things to call him out on (along with Durbin/Schumer.) when it’s come to some nominees, the pace of nominating/confirming them etc.
What annoys some of us is when people make statements like Biden will let a seat stay open forever (Kanne’s seat on the 7th) or nominate a conservative for an open Circuit Court seat.
Yes, we’ve seen where Biden has made deals to nominate folks like Doris Pyror or Irma Ramirez (my least favorite nominee due to age) but the notion we’re all of a sudden going to see a Frank Hull, Stanley Marcus, Julie Carnes or Richard Talman (all Republican Blue Slip specials) when we haven’t seen that with any nominee has more to do with frustration that Biden & Democrats don’t seem to care about the courts the way we do at times or are nominating the folks we want.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you for the link. And yea Biden nominating a Republican or known conservative for any circuit court vacancy post blue slips with 51 Democrats might be one of the funniest things I’ve heard so far this year. He’s not. Ramirez is the floor & she’s neither a Republican nor conservative despite her being his worse pick to date.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re welcome on that and my last thoughts on the fear of a certain type of nominee for now.
Look at Michael Delaney’s failed nomination to the 1st Circuit, which was sunk due to his handling of a sexual assault case.
Republican hypocrisy aside, there was enough outrage from many on the Democratic side to sink a nomination strongly pushed by two centrist Democrats for a seat flip yet we’re supposed to believe an anti-choice or anti-LGBT etc. hack will get nominated and Senate Democrats, especially those in tough races will just vote yes?
If I’m wrong, I’ll apologize but I’m pretty sure I won’t have to.
Would be nice to see a nominee this week for that seat though…
LikeLiked by 3 people
I agree, Ramirez is probably the floor. And even in that case there were 4
8 district seats in consideration plus both home state senators on SJC. In Tennessee, there are two appellate openings and only 1 district. I see the floor here as more in the Kolar/Pryor/Douglas vein.
LikeLiked by 3 people
For a preview of what to expect in the Senate this week, Chris Murphy did mention the text of the border/Ukraine bill being released this week. Some Republicans want a 72-hour notice before voting on it so any vote won’t likely happen until next week, leaving this whole week to be dedicated to nominations. The schedule this week is largely set in stone with the exception of Thursday, so be on the lookout for a cloture filing, possibly on another appeals court nominee, on Tuesday. My betting would be on Aframe as the next in line.
I know House Republicans have all but said the bill will be dead in the House, but I wonder if a discharge petition could get the bill through (assuming all 213 Democrats vote yes, which is far from a given, you’d need 5 Republicans). Although we’ve been shown to never trust a “moderate” House Republican, once the money’s on the table they become indistinguishable from the Freedom Caucus.
The math would become more interesting if Democrats win that special election for the George Santos seat, it’d narrow the majority to 221-214 if they do.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I certainly hope Aframe is teed up for the end of this week as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just looked at the Trump judges for the sixth circuit and wow, doesn’t look like Trump nominated a single judge over 50 for these seats.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John Bush was 53 at the time of his confirmation in 2017, but he had a crazy enough record that I guess the Republicans thought it was worth it.
More noteworthy than their age is the extremism of the Trump CA6 judges – none of them are anywhere close to moderate or center-right. Whereas of Biden’s CA6 judges, Davis and Mathis seem slightly more to the right of their predecessors. Bloomekatz is fantastic and (as a young, accomplished lawyer with a progressive record) should be the model for Biden nominees. I’d love to see at least Stranch replaced by a similar nominee, but that would require more faith in Biden than I’ve had in a long time.
Looks like the NYT is also covering the slow pace of nominations (though not without some obligatory fawning over the red-state nominees) – you’d think this would kick Dems into gear a bit, but looks like they’re too busy selling out Hispanics/immigrants in their eagerness to roll over and surrender to the GOP on the border.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NYT article: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/28/us/politics/biden-senate-judicial-confirmations.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here is The NY Times article without the paywall in case some of you don’t have a subscription
(https://archive.is/siy5O)
LikeLike
John Bush, an actual birther, is a perfect example of the Discipline you’d expect from republican senators and can only dream Dems would show.
Despite Bush’s absolute wackiness, “sane” Republicans like Collins and Murkowski still supported him. Republicans know you don’t vote against the nominee from your party leader’s state.
The next time Senator Kennedy cries down shame on Biden’s nominees for not sharing their personal views on any number of non-judicial matters, the nominee should repeat Bush’s response to him:
“My personal views are irrelevant to the position for which I have been nominated.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
The Federalist Society/Republicans learned how to play the long game on the courts a long time ago.
Edith Jones and Frank Easterbrook were put on the courts under Reagan in their 30’s, Sam Alito was put on the 4th Circuit when he was just 41 and Anthony Kennedy pre SCOTUS went on the 9th Circuit when he was just 39.
While Biden has put some younger nominees on the courts, there are also quite a few folks on the wrong side of 50 for my liking.
Nicole Berner, as good as she is needs to be the last nominee in that category .
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m curious, overall, how has Andre Mathis been as a judge? How do we think Camille McMullen would have been more liberal, more conservative, or about the same as Mathis in terms of rulings.
LikeLiked by 1 person
While I admittedly don’t follow judges rulings nearly as much as I follow pre confirmation, I am much higher on Andre Mathis than some others on the blog. He did pro bono work for the Innocence Project. I am very high on that organization, freeing people (Mostly of color) from prison for crimes they did not commit.
Yes he worked for a big law firm but as I’ve said I don’t hold that against any nominee as long as they have something progressive in their background too. People have to pay their bills, particularly after accumulating hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt after law school. Had I chosen to be a lawyer, I most likely would have joined a big law firm if I had the opportunity. That wouldn’t have made me one bit less progressive once I joined the bench had I been nominated for a federal judgeship.
Andre Mathis is over a decade younger than McMullin. Plus he didn’t require a Republican governor to backfill a seat like she would have had. Throwing Mathis is the only Black man confirmed to any circuit court in the past 10 years & I am very happy the administration fought & stuck with him.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Dequan, I think that Keystone’s question is how Andre Mathis been as a judge? Not on his nomination.
from what I’ve read on here, Mathis seems to be more to the right than what was expected.
Unfortunately, it sounds like my favorite, Holly A. Thomas, it also to the right of where we thought she’d be. I know it’s early days yet and that judges ideology sometimes change over time, but if true, it would still be disappointing.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I will definitely defer to the rest of you in regards to rulings once confirmed. I usually only follow the big Thornton cases. But I hope Mathis, Thomas, Freeman & Sung all end up being more liberal than the initial year or two seems to have started.
LikeLike
Andre Mathis and Stephanie Davis joined the conservatives in en banc case where they further limited the right to habeas corpus, this was over the dissent of Bloomekatz and other liberals.
However in another case they were part of the en banc dissent with the rest of the liberals.
Their cases have sparked only a few dissents from conservatives.
I would characterise them as moderate centre lefts. To the right of their predecessors but not significantly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mathis seems less liberal than Moore/Clay/Stranch (and less liberal than Donald) based on the en banc dissents he hasn’t signed onto, but he’s still a center-left judge (which is what we would expect from his career as a corporate lawyer with a bit of pro bono work). That’s why the controversy over his nomination was so idiotic – Blackburn couldn’t even find anything in his record to attack and had to resort to his parking tickets, and John Kennedy voted for him.
My guess is that McMullen would’ve been less liberal at least on criminal issues given her background as a prosecutor, but I haven’t looked through her record on the state court. Wasn’t there an en banc case about some criminal/habeas issue in which Davis joined the Republicans but Mathis and the other sane judges dissented? I suspect McMullen would’ve been closer to Davis than Mathis.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’ll never forgive Blackburn for saying Mathis had a “Rap sheet” for three parking tickets. One of which he was going 6 MPH over the speed limit.
I know it’s a lot to ask but I really hope Taylor Swift gets involved in this election. I can’t think of a better place to start than her home state of Tennessee. It will take a Herculean effort to defeated her, I know.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I may being incorrect, but I thought both Mathis and Davis joined that majority. It was Bloomekatz in the dissent
LikeLike
Click to access 23a0196p-06.pdf
It looks like Mathis and David both joined with conservatives over the liberals dissent. Not a good indicator.
However, I was wrong Bloomekatz did not participate in this specific case.
Thought I think I recall them ending up on opposites sides of another case
LikeLiked by 1 person
We don’t need to adopt the the practices that gave us the Republican Party of today. Why people think we ought be like them is beyond me.
LikeLike
Confirmation on Stranch going senior: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/6th-circuits-stranch-take-senior-status-creating-court-vacancy-2024-01-29/#:~:text=Stranch%2C%20an%20appointee%20of%20Democratic,three%20judges%20named%20by%20Biden.
I hope the WH is on top of this one – under no circumstances should the witch Blackburn be permitted to drag out the process long enough for this seat to remain empty next year.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, @Hank.
@dequan – how dare you. Taylor is from the keystone state. She’s a Pennsylvanian. TN is her adopted state. Hmmph.
But agreed. I hope encourages people to vote and maybe gets Jason K. to help with the Philly area voters and Travis K helping with Lucas Kunce’s MO campaign (long shot but I hate Hawley).
Re. Tennessee – a name I’ve been looking since Branch’s (maybe) announcement is James Mackler.
He was born ~1972/3. He was a helicopter pilot in army, he was a lawyer for the Labor Dept, he was a public defender in Nashville, he’s a JAG officer. He’s Jewish and his wife is a prominent Rabbi in Nashville.
He was a Dem Senator candidate in 2020 but there was a surprise upset in the primary. The end race was ultimately won by Hagerty. He recently joined Meta as Associate General Counsel.
His background is interesting but obviously has some potential dynamite. I also don’t know if he’d want to be a judge or if he wants to come back in 2026 to battle Hagerty in the general.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Haaaaa… My bad. I definitely am not up on my Taylor Swift knowledge. But if she can get out the vote I promise I will read up more… Lol
James Mackler sounds like an interesting possibility. I think a veteran with a progressive background might have a good shot at one of the seats similar to Frederico.
LikeLike
Texas should be contested, strongly think that Cruz is vulnerable for a lot of reasons. FL/MO are longshots but are worth putting in some investment. TN, there’s no chance, it’s too strongly GOP.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I would put Tennessee in the category of almost no chance. But if all the stars align, I wouldn’t say no chance. If Taylor Swift could get half a million people to register to vote, it’s not impossible. I’m not saying that’s gonna happen, just saying I wouldn’t completely rule defeating Blackburn out. But I agree Democrats should heavily contest Texas & also some investment in Florida. Missouri I haven’t been following so I can’t speak to that race. I’m not even sure who’s running against Hawley.
LikeLike
1: Last week we yelled at someone for going off topic, let’s not descend too much into electoral politics.
2: Marsha Blackburn v. Taylor Swift? Nothing new here, nor successful, for Swift: https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/tn-elections/2018/11/06/midterm-elections-marsha-blackburn-taylor-swift-us-senate-tennessee/1912920002/
LikeLiked by 2 people
I don’t think talking about the results of the senate is off topic when it comes to judges. I think the complaint was pages long rants about other issues related to Biden that had absolutely nothing to do with the judiciary. The winner of the Texas, Florida & Tennessee senate races has as much to do about judges as anything… Lol
LikeLike
If you try hard enough you can say almost anything is somehow related to the judiciary.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“You speak of delusions. (Putting aside the delusions of a “solid chance” of a blue Texas 10 years out, which was supposed to FINALLY happen every election cycle or so for the last 10-15 years.)”
This is your own comment above. Perhaps you should follow your rules before calling someone else out.
I’ve refrained from saying this so far, but nearly all your comments here are super aggressive or nasty. Suggesting that people are “delusional” for disagreeing with you is unacceptable. It’s no surprise that you were the first person to leap to defend aangren.
LikeLike
Hilarious that you went far enough to find that quote but not to the rest of the thread. When I say “You speak of delusions,” was I talking about myself? Or referring to someone else?
What’s also hilarious is your ripping that quote out of its context, which is entirely judicial.
And you think my words on a blog have been super aggressive or nasty? Simply pointing out a standard that is selectively applied? I hope it hasn’t been too traumatizing for you. Thank goodness you’re new here and weren’t around for Shawn. He’d know how to light you up. But as for me, I really don’t care. I get into discussions here, heated though they may appear. Heated, that is, as far as words on a screen can be.
And finally, should I be surprised that you take issues with my defense of aagren? Should I even care? Maybe, but I’m too busy being totally devastated about the other issues you pointed out above.
LikeLike