Robert White – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan

Federal prosecutor Robert White has been nominated to the federal trial court in Detroit, filling the last pending vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Background

Born in 1985, Robert J. White received a B.A. from the University of Michigan in 2007, and his J.D. from the Chicago-Kent College of Law at the Illinois Institute of Technology in 2010. White then spent four years as an Associate at Ralph E. Meczyk and Associates before becoming a federal prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas. In 2018, White returned to Michigan to be an Assistant U.S. Attorney at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan, where he currently serves.

History of the Seat

White has been nominated for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. This seat opened on August 1, 2023, when Judge Paul Borman took senior status.

Legal Career

White started his legal career at Ralph E. Meczyk and Associates, working in criminal defense at both the state and federal levels. However, since 2014, White has worked as a federal prosecutor, starting in the Western District of Texas and more recently in the Eastern District of Michigan.

Notably, White prosecuted a group of six individuals for a racketeering conspiracy related to their participation in criminal activities as members of the gang Young and Scandalous or YNS. See Melissa Nann Burke and Robert Snell, Biden Taps Prosecutor White for Federal Bench in Detroit, Detroit News, Jan. 10, 2024, https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2024/01/10/president-biden-taps-prosecutor-robert-j-white-for-federal-bench-judge-in-detroit/72165594007/. The case included allegations that the co-defendants engaged in a pattern of murder and violence in the Brightmoor neighborhood to intimidate the locals and thus enable them to carry out crimes with impunity. See 5 Young and Skantless Detroit Gang Members Indicted on RICO Charges, CBS News Detroit, May 17, 2017, https://www.cbsnews.com/detroit/news/detroit-yns-gang-indictment/.

As a member of the office’s Drug Task Force Unit, White prosecuted Savinder Singh, a Canadian truck driver, for trying to drive a semitrailer into the United States with over 300 pounds of cocaine. See id. See also United States v. Singh, 5:21-cr-20686 (E.D. Mich.).

Overall Assessment

At 38 years old, White would be, if confirmed, the youngest district judge not only in Michigan, but also in the Sixth Circuit (with only 2-3 younger judges across the country). That being said, White has been litigating for fourteen years and has experience on the criminal side on both the state and the federal level (albeit less civil experience). All in all, while White is unlikely to draw widespread support, he is nonetheless favored to be confirmed to the bench in due course.

200 Comments

  1. Dequan's avatar

    White seems to be another traditional nominee for Michigan. There are so many more progressive options but the senators don’t seem to want to rock the boat. He is well qualified & young so that is good, I just wish he had more of a progressive background.

    Like

    • Ethan's avatar

      Yeah, he wasn’t on my radar at all either. Usually when AUSAs are nominated for judgeships, it’s ones that hold some sort of leadership position within their US Attorney’s Office. It does not appear that White has held any such position. I wondered if he was 6th Circuit Senior Judge Helene White’s son but that does not appear to be the case.

      I just wish Eric Clay would go senior so that Jonathan J.C. Grey can be elevated to succeed him. Then Michigan Court of Appeals Judge Noah Hood could be nominated to succeed Grey, which would give him the seat that his mother (now Senior Judge Denise Page Hood) once held.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. Zack's avatar

    Even after RBG, it boggles my mind how any of the remaining Clinton judges aren’t taking senior status to ensure what happened there or a couple of other Circuit Court seats won’t happen to them as well.
    Kim Wardlaw and Eric Clay among others are very liberal so why do they want to roll the dice and be replaced by people who aren’t?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hank's avatar

      Short answer is their own egos – they like presiding over panels, being part of en bancs, and think they’re smarter/more liberal than any replacement. Clay at least has a decent argument that he’d be replaced by someone more conservative (though you’d think replacing him with a former clerk would mollify that concern), but it seems like an ego thing with Wardlaw.

      Liked by 1 person

      • keystone's avatar

        I think another reason might be that a lot of the remaining Clinton judges were barrier breakers.

        Wardlaw was the first Hispanic woman on a Circuit Court, Roger Gregory was the first POC on the 4th Circuit, Rawlinson was the first Black woman admitted to the Nevada bar, I’ve heard Gould talk about how he was the first Jewish partner at his law firm (in addition to his disability), Karen Nelson Moore was the first tenured female law professor at Case Western, etc.

        I think a lot of these judges really enjoy the job and had to overcome a lot of obstacles along the way and want to enjoy it a bit more. Of course, I’d put RBG in that same camp and we know how that ended.

        In her senior status letter, Rovner talked about the honor being the first woman on her court and of her love of the job and how she got to a point where she just realized that it was time to step aside to allow the next generation to move forward. A lot of these remaining judges have children who have followed in their legal footsteps, i.e. Wardlaw, Graves, Stewart, etc. I wonder if they will come to a similar revelation and, if so, hope they do it sooner than later.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Ryan J's avatar

        I think some of these trailblazers have concerns about their successors, as we can see what happened with SCOTUS trailblazers who did retire on their own accord. Sandra Day O’Connor was disappointed that her successor was not a woman. While Thurgood Marshall was succeeded by another Black man, Marshall’s successor has worked to undo everything that Marshall had accomplished.

        I think Rawlinson in particular has concerns about this as she tried to hand-pick a successor, though I can understand her wanting to have another Black woman to succeed her. I don’t know what Gould personally thinks about Jamal Whitehead, but if Gould conditions on a successor, it would be wise to pick someone who is either Jewish or disabled. Biden could easily find a Latina to succeed Wardlaw, in fact some of us on the blog would want Monica Ramirez Almadani to be elevated. Rovner’s successor will most likely be one or more of the following: a woman, a person of color, and/or an immigrant. I have also heard that Juan Torruella refused to take senior status because he was concerned about his successor not being a Puerto Rican (though both Trump and Biden nominated a Puerto Rican for the seat).

        Normally, I would not support considering race or gender in judicial nominations, but when it comes to replacing trailblazers, I think that they should be replaced by someone who retains their predecessor’s trailblazing trait.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. Hank's avatar

    Yet another former AUSA nominee to the Michigan federal bench – I think this is the fourth in a row? I can’t remember who said that the judiciary is meant to be more than just a retirement home for prosecutors, but I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment.

    Candidates like this are why youth isn’t everything – I would’ve rather gotten someone a decade older but with something progressive in their background, as White could now be making pro-prosecution rulings from the bench (not saying that he will, but that he is more likely to) until 2050.

    I have to say that the Michigan senators are probably one of the worst pairs of Dem senators in terms of picking judges. At least Booker/Menendez had a good pick for CA3 with Mangi, whereas Davis was (yet again) another former prosecutor. Given how Whitmer won decisively on a pro-Roe platform last year, the Dems senators could’ve at least picked someone who served on the board of Planned Parenthood or something. I would hope that Slotkin is better, but I’m skeptical.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Gavi's avatar

      The competition is stiff between the senators from NJ and MI. A broken clock is still right twice, which would account for Mangi. An optimistic person would argue that Booker was chastened and so learned his lesson and will henceforth make better recommendations. I’m not such a person.
      In terms of White, though, I don’t think his age would have mattered. The MI senators wouldn’t have gone with a 55–60-year-old non-prosecutors/progressive. Unless we’re saying that a 55–60-year-old prosecutor would be better since they’d leave the court sooner than a 30-something year old prosecutor type nominee.
      I also share your skepticism about the type of recommendations Slotkin would make. On the other hand, I think she has come out against the filibuster, at least in some cases. Maybe this indicates that she’d move away from Dems’ more traditional views on judges? Time will tell.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        I put Slotkin in the same bucket as Kim & First Lady Murphy. I don’t see any chance of her being worse than the senator she would replace when it comes to recommending judges. I very much think Michigan has been the second most disappointing blue state under Biden when it comes to judges so almost any change next year would be a good one.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Hank's avatar

        I don’t see anything noteworthy or special in Declerq or Grey – both are former big law lawyers/prosecutors with little in their record suggesting that they were particularly progressive (Declerq being head of the civil rights unit isn’t that meaningful when she was also head of the civil unit and the EDMI USAO didn’t consider the unit important enough to have its own head).

        Their selection suggests to me that the Michigan senators are just lazy in addition to being traditional in selecting judicial nominees – if racially diverse picks were so important, couldn’t they have at least looked outside of a single office?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Both DeClerq & Grey were on @Ethan’s list prior to them being selected. He & I usually have the same mindset when looking for potential nominees. But to your point, I’m just comparing Michigan judges to themselves. Had DeClerq or Grey been nominated in any other blue stat e other than Michigan or New Jersey, I probably wouldn’t be as high on them as I am now.

        Like

    • Hank's avatar

      Article about Slotkin: https://newrepublic.com/post/170799/elissa-slotkin-enters-race-michigan-senate-seat

      Relevant excerpt:
      Slotkin opposed student debt assistance on a vote supported by 93 percent of the caucus, voted against 85 percent of her caucus on whether the United States should even study the impact of its sanctions on other countries, voted to overturn locally enacted criminal justice and voting rights reforms in Washington, D.C., and even voted against 94 percent of her caucus to bar security clearance from anyone who has used cannabis.

      Slotkin also does not openly support Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, or abolishing the death penalty.

      Hardly seems like someone who’s going to go against the grain on nominations/nominate public defenders/even take much of an interest in judicial nominations (since she’s not a lawyer). She’ll probably defer to Peters and continue the same thing we’re seeing now.

      Liked by 2 people

  10. keystone's avatar

    It sounds like people have been generally underwhelmed by the Biden Michigan district judges. It sounds like a lot of this is based on their prior resume.

    Has anyone looked at how the Biden EDMI district judges have performed since being seated? Wondering if any of them turned out to be more or less progressive than anticipated.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Zack's avatar

    Michigan is a light shade of blue so it’s doesn’t surprise me that it’s senators and their nominees are centrist in the least.
    Heck, even Helene White was done as a favor because she was married to Carl Levin’s cousin at the time.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      As great (Or if your in my side of the political spectrum as horrible) if a job Trump did with his 54 court of appeal judges, there are some areas of opportunity for a second Biden term. Mark Bennett would be eligible for senior status the last year of a second Biden term. Micah Smith would still be young enough to be considered for the seat should all the stars align & that happened.

      Like

      • Zack's avatar

        Trump really didn’t have anything to do with the judges put on the courts under him, especially the record 54 Circuit Court judges.
        That was all McConnell/the Federalist Society, Patrick’s Leahy’s stupidity on blue slips and a combination of a lot of Reagan/George Sr/W judges taking senior status and a couple of liberal Carter judges(and RBG) not quitting when they should have and a couple of Clinton/Obama judges (not the Orrin Hatch specials) not caring about who replaced them, which happened on the 2nd and 3rd Circuit.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Dequan's avatar

        I would also add to that list Grassley for getting rid of blue slips for circuit court seats as well as Graham for doing a complete flip flop on not holding a hearing for a SCOTUS nominee in an election year. I’m not so sure I would give Trump less credit than most president’s when it comes to knowing which actual nominees should be named for lower courts. I guess maybe Obama & Biden knew/knows more than most since they were senators.

        I would love to know more of the backstories of how presidents of my lifetime were really involved in naming the lower court nominees. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn many people on this blog are more informed about potential nominees than the people who were president were in their day.

        Liked by 2 people

  14. Zack's avatar

    Under George W, a reason of a couple of his nominees were filibustered (one of them to a 6th Circuit seat in Michigan) is because the blue slip rule Republicans demanded Clinton obey suddenly didn’t exist anymore.
    If not for the filibuster still being in place, Henry Saad, Carolyn Kuhl and Miguel Estrada would all have been confirmed to various courts under W.
    It’s why Leahy bringing the blue slip rule back was stupid as could be.
    Republicans had shown under W they weren’t going to honor it, what made him think they would in the future?
    At least when push has come to shove with some nominees like Mathis, Bloomekatz etc. on circuit court seats, Democrats are finally playing the Republicans game.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. tsb1991's avatar

    One of the International Trade nominees should be confirmed Thursday and the other one will have cloture invoked on Thursday, in all likelihood. Right now, I’m thinking next week would be the week they vote on the border/Ukraine bill, so if that’s the case, the confirmation Tuesday would be the last nomination for at least a week.

    I saw Schumer pull out a pen before walking up to his desk and got a little excited, I knew based on the calendar numbers announced that they weren’t appeals court nominees (the magic number we’d want here is 460, 461, or 462).

    If you had to make a case for the International Trade nominees, maybe since they’re the two nominees with the longest wait time for confirmation? They have the same nomination date as Mehalchick, who looks like will be confirmed tomorrow.

    Tomorrow should be an interesting day on the judicial front: the possible confirmation of Mehalchick and Sherriff, a possibility of new nominees from the White House, and hopefully the previous batch of nominees get sent to the Senate so they’d be good to go for next week. If there are no nominees form the White House tomorrow, they could still get in nominees next week and still be able to have two hearing slots used when the Senate comes back for four weeks at the end of February.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      We may be getting to the point were sending the nominations from the last batch to the senate may be more important than a new batch. We could legitimately miss a hearing slot because of them not being sent to the senate.

      At this point if there is a problem with one of the six nominees, I wish the WH would just send the other five to the senate. It would be a complete dereliction of duty to miss a slot because of not sending the nominees to the senate.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Ryan J's avatar

        Time for some math here… there are 32 future vacancies and 58 current vacancies. Realistically, the Judiciary Committee will have an average of 1 hearing a month (accounting for their recess months in August and October). Each hearing has 5-6 judges. 16 unconfirmed judges have already had their hearings so that brings us to 74. There are 11 more months in 2024, so with 11 more hearings, we can expect that the committee will be able to hold hearings for 55-66 more nominees. Out of those, I would say they can confirm 90% of the 71-82 nominees, so that would be 64-74 more confirmations this year if there are no screw ups. That means there will be at least 16-26 seats unfilled at the end of the year. The actual number of unfilled seats will be higher because (1) I did not account for blue slips and (2) there will almost certainly be more vacancy announcements this year.

        I would guess the actual number of judges confirmed this year will be closer to 40-50.

        Liked by 1 person

  20. Joe's avatar

    Ryan, I did the math a few weeks ago and I think it was 15 possible hearing this year with a total of 75 nominees. We’ve already had one hearing and missed another date, so a max of 70. Then you subtract the last two possible hearings (because there’d be no time to confirm them in 2024) then it’s more like 55-60 additional nominees (plus the nominees that have already had hearings)

    Obviously, this is all subject to change if the senate postpones some sessions, which is likely. If I get time later to is week I might do a deeper dive. But needless to say the pressure is on the WH to land the ship here.

    Liked by 2 people

  21. Mike's avatar

    Saw the votes for tomorrow and it’s so discouraging when I see we can’t have two good weeks of votes.

    I’m so amazed McConnell managed to confirm so many judges in basically 2 years, the man literally laid out a blueprint to pack the courts and Schumer can’t even follow it.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. Zack's avatar

    I’m happy with the confirmation today of Josh Kolar but also upset in a way because this flip should have given us control of this circuit but because Leahy was an idiot with blue slips and Ann Williams decided to be the Republican she always was and let her seat flip to a far right hack, we’ll still be 6-5.
    Still better then where we though but ugh…

    Liked by 1 person

      • Thomas's avatar

        I totally agree. Wasted energy to get enrage about decisions, who have been made decades ago and to blame a specific person that he has to know it better that time.
        From the other perspective GOP supporters could lament that Flaum went senior too late and the seat was flipped after the election, and Kanne won’t get senior under Trump and the same thing happened and there would have been two more FedSoc hacks on the court.
        It’s also the decision of the judge, when or if he intend to leave – if he won’t die or will be impeached – there might be a wishful moment, but he or she shouldn’t be blamed if they decide in another way.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      @Rick

      Thanks for the really good article. I’m sure after Berner & DuBose are confirmed, Biden will look to break the record for most openly LGBT judges by one President. Two of the people interviewed in the article you sent would be great choices to break the record with.

      Harper Seldin & Kristin L. Rosi (Who is currently a state court judge) would be great nominees. And there are currently multiple vacancies in Pennsylvania & California respectively. I am sure Schumer is well aware of Biden being one away from breaking the record so I would look for one of the New York vacancies to possibly be filled with the judge to hand Biden the record as well.

      Like

  25. Aiden's avatar

    I just don’t see Biden appointing a man, that would ruin any chance at a female majority SCOTUS. I think it’s really important for that to be a goal. Australia and Canada have done it. It’ll also be very good with some female voters for Biden

    Liked by 1 person

    • Aiden's avatar

      I think the lack of possible replacements for Sotomayor is a little concerning. It feels like Biden doesn’t have those heavy Supreme Court contenders that Trump has. Aka half the 5th circuit, Bibas, Thanatos. Half his ninth and 2nd circuit appointees. Britt Grant, Lagoa and Newsom

      Like

  29. Joe's avatar

    On second glance at the senate calendar it’s always possible that they elect to hold hearings on 3/6 and 3/20 instead of 2/28 and 3/13. Nothing would really be “missed” if we don’t get nominees today….but I’d certainly hate to delay things a week if nominees are ready. I guess we will wait and see.

    Liked by 1 person

  30. Joe's avatar

    If that is the case then we could see a SJC calendar that looks something like this:

    3/6
    3/20
    4/10
    5/1
    5/15
    6/5
    6/18 or 6/19 (Juneteenth holiday)
    7/10
    7/24
    9/11
    9/25
    11/13

    That’s 12 hearings whose nominees realistically could be confirmed this year. Assuming 5 at each, that’s about 60 nominees plus the 25 that are pending.

    There are two possible slots in December as well but those nominees wouldn’t have enough time.

    Liked by 1 person

  31. Gavi's avatar

    @ Dequan, “Geographical balance”
    That’s something that hasn’t mattered since the big bad days of southern political dominance in the senate.
    No one cares. Same for religion. There’s no justice west of the Rockies. There’s no justice from 8 of the 10 biggest states (KBJ in Florida doesn’t count: she’s “KBJ, from the District of Columbia, …”).

    @Joe, in my opinion, 38 is not too young. I would give my left liver to have Brad Garcia on SCOTUS at 38, especially if it means replacing Thomas or such. There’s been younger justices!
    People who think 30s is too young need to tell me what other experiences someone who is 38 could gain to make them just as qualified as a 43-year-old nominee. Would Edith Jones have been a better judge if she was appointed when she was older than 35? Would Justice Joseph Story at 32? This is simply arbitrariness.
    I don’t care about superficial identity politics stuff, but I know that probably a majority of my fellow Americans do. In that case, I think it would be highly unlikely that Biden would nominate a man to SCOTUS, especially to replace a woman. Maybe I should be more definitive and say, there’s no way. Biden simply would not give up the chance to create the court’s first female majority, and he surely wouldn’t lessen that number.

    But some of you have stumbled on a legitimate issue with finding a Sotomayer replacement, whether or not you intended to, since I think that anything short of fawning adoration of Biden’s judicial nomination record is heresy here, not that I am trying to traumatize anyone with my aggressive comment. Trump peppered the judiciary with potential SCOTUS candidates who’d still be viable years in the future. Just like Bush did for Trump. Just like Carter did for Clinton.
    Folks miss the point about Irma Ramirez. Not only is she the singular worst Dem circuit court nominee, her nomination is a big miss opportunity when the seat could have gone to someone who could be a viable replacement for Sotomayer. It’s not all about the here and now, battling Ho and Richman. It’s the long game that liberals, even the whip smart ones, simply cannot conceive of.
    Even after Carter’s outstanding record of circuit court appointments, 14 years later, Clinton still had a hard time deciding on decent SCOTUS nominees. Where Bush, Sr. took 4 days to name Thomas to Marshall’s seat, Clinton took 80+ to name RBG. How many of Biden’s circuit court appointees, particularly those of certain identity backgrounds, can hold up to the test of time to still be viable 8-12 years in the future?

    Like

    • Dequan's avatar

      @Gavi

      Yup, geographical diversity doesn’t matter anymore. I agree. That’s why I said Sanchez would be my third pick, waaaay behind my first two but did want to point out it would bring geographical diversity, despite it not mattering.

      We would have to agree to disagree that Biden wouldn’t name a man to replace Sotomayor. I do agree he wouldn’t pass up the chance to name the first female chief justice should Roberts step down. But the closer to the election that Sotomayor announced, I could definitely see him considering Garcia & Sanchez who would probably get two Republican votes over Perez who would probably get none.

      AMEN about the missed opportunity with Ramirez. It’s not just about NOW, it’s also about building a future bench for elevation. Too many just don’t understand that. The fact that (Despite Mangi being a spectacular nominee) the administration did not consider the solicitor general of New Jersey for the 3rd because he was 35 was one of the most disappointing things I’ve seen come from them.

      I would like to amend one thing. Right now Gabriel Sanchez would be third in my list to replace Sotomayor. The more time de Alba sits on the 9th, I believe she would pass Sanchez in my list.

      Like

  32. Joe's avatar

    My point of contention with Garcia is that he doesn’t have enough experience as a judge. If he had been a state judge for several year I could probably get on board. But for now, his only real experience is less than a year at the DC Court of Appeals. In five years, I think he’d be perfect, but not now. Just my opinion.

    As far as Biden lining up potential scotus picks in general, I think there’s plenty of candidates. I named three Hispanic candidates who would be no brainer picks. If we expand our criteria beyond that I could easily list another 10 or 15.

    Like

  33. keystone's avatar

    Starting to get a little worried about the lack of new noms today…..

    I’m trying to think of (what blue state) noms should be nearing completion.

    Most Likely

    -SDNY (Gardephe) – He announced in June 2023 and went senior last Aug. This should be nearing the home stretch.

    – NDIL (Pallmeyer) – She gave notice on Sept 8 (although announced publicly Nov 30). Durbin/Duckworth released a list of candidates on Nov 17. Normally I’d say we’d need a little more time for background checks but they picked a named, Sunil Harjani, from that list for the last round of noms.

    Maaaaaaybes ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    – Arizona (x3) – Application cut off date was 10/31. If Sinema had a candidate in mind (a la Desai), I could see at least one of these being fast tracked.

    – CDCA (Wu) – He announced Sept 8 and went senior on Nov 3.

    – CDIL (Shadid) – He announced 10/31. Durbin and Duckworth conducted a new CDIL applicant search in May. No names were released nor has there been any word of a new search specifically for Shadid’s seat. Unsure if they have are at starting point or vetting point of the process. How big could the Peoria pool be?

    Long Shots

    MD, EDPA, MDPA, VT, MA, ME – all had application due dates from mid November or in most cases December.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      It’s time to really start getting worried on three fronts.

      1. It’s almost noon & no new nominees yet today. No EDWI, no South Dakota, nothing.

      2. The SJC site hasn’t posted any nominations hearing for next Wednesday as of yet. They must post a week in advance per committee rules.

      3. The nominees from 3 weeks ago still haven’t been sent to the senate.

      This is looking like it could be the most disappointing day judiciary related in quite sometime if we don’t get some new news in the next few hours.

      Like

      • Rick's avatar

        There is that hearing going on today at the SJC with the tech executives that is still going on so perhaps when that finishes they’ll list the schedule for next week

        But you’re right, we should have had new nominees today and the 6 from weeks ago should have been sent to the senate

        Liked by 1 person

      • Gavi's avatar

        The nominees announced but not sent are still qualified for hearings as of the date of the announcement, no? In other words, I think the clock starts at announcement, not necessarily when the senate receives the nomination. But those nominees still need to actually be sent to make it on the hearing agenda. At least they should be, that’s how it was under Republicans.

        While we’re at it, don’t tempt me into another anti-Durbin rant. Why doesn’t he allow back-to-back hearings like Republicans did? Is he lazy and doesn’t want to do the work two weeks in a row?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        @Gavi

        You’re correct about the clock starting once the nominees are announced. What I’m not sure s out (Since no other batch in the history of the Republic has ever taken 3 weeks to send) is SJC rules regarding the one week notice. I know the hearings have to be posted a week in advance per SJC rules. I’m afraid there may be a committee rule tucked away that says the nominees have to be officially pending once the one week clock starts.

        Like

      • Gavi's avatar

        I don’t think that’s the rule.
        I don’t have it in front of me right now, but I think the rule is the chair must give *members* a week’s notice for nominations, not that it must be publicly posted. In fact, haven’t there been weeks when nominees are posted only a few days before?
        So Durbin could technically inform members of his intention to hold hearings for certain nominees in anticipation that the official nominations will be formally sent to the senate before the actual meeting.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        I hope you’re right. But of course The WH could remove all doubts by just sending the damn nominations over to the senate today so there’s no worry about a back page corky SJC rule. I have a desk draw full of forever stamps if that’s what the hold up is…smh

        Like

    • tsb1991's avatar

      I saw that too, Democrats look to be at full attendance today, since Sherriff has the full 54 Yes votes that is typically the ceiling for most of Biden’s judicial nominees (51 + Collins/Graham/Murkowski).

      As long as there’s one Republican absence the VP shouldn’t be needed today even if Manchin votes no on everything else today.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Unfortunately we don’t even have the hearing posted on the SJC site as of yet. I have a feeling we will miss a hearing slot next Wednesday because the next two Wednesday’s the senate is on recess. No way in Hell there will be a hearing while the senate is in recess & the Democrats are in the majority. I wouldn’t rule it out if Republicans were in charge.

        Like

  36. tsb1991's avatar

    Manchin a no on Mehalchick. Was a little interesting on the end, was in a lengthy chat with Bob Casey and Brian Schatz (who I believe is one of the Democratic Whips and is in the leadership), thought they might have sweet-talked him into voting yes for a moment.

    Liked by 2 people

  39. Lillie's avatar

    Interesting point re: judges appointed by Biden that could be elevated to SCOTUS/appeals in future admins starting in say 2030 who would still be appropriate to consider.

    Here is who I think has an outside shot of being at least considered for something. It doesn’t mean that they would be the best pick or who I’d want, but for age/minority status or for whatever other reason might attract some interest.

    Anyone that would be an awful pick? Anyone I’ve left off?

    Candace Jackson-Akiwumi
    Holly A. Thomas
    Roopali Desai
    Andre Mathis
    Arianna J. Freeman
    Tamika Montgomery-Reeves
    Brad Garcia
    Rachel Bloomekatz
    Ana de Alba

    Margaret Strickland
    Lauren J. King
    Jamal Whitehead
    Tiffany Cartwright
    Jia M. Cobb
    Loren AliKhan
    Sarala Nagala
    James E. Simmons
    Mónica Ramírez Almadani
    Daniel Calabretta
    P. Casey Pitts
    Victoria Calvert
    Natasha C. Merle
    Cristina Silva
    Mia Roberts Perez
    Jamar K. Walker
    Julia Kobick
    Colleen Lawless
    Jonathan J. C. Grey
    Arun Subramanian
    Jessica G. L. Clarke
    Dale Ho
    Brandy R. McMillion
    Micah W. J. Smith
    Cristal C. Brisco

    Like

  40. Dequan's avatar

    Who hasn’t fired on Mehalchick yet? She’s currently down 47-49 according to the new vote tally at the bottom of the senate website. I hope it’s Democrats in the SJC that they are waiting on.

    Like

  42. tsb1991's avatar

    Random dumb thought from observing Senators vote over the last few years, you tend to catch onto how each Senator votes on the floor. Most either give a thumb (or even index finger) up or down, some will vocally say aye or no (I know Feinstein voted like that), several just vote from one of the doorways to the chamber (Fetterman does this so he doesn’t have to dress up, I know McConnell, Tester, and Hawley for example frequently vote from the doorways), but the most unique one I see is Moran (from Kansas). He appears to be the Senator who votes the old-fashioned way, where you’ll hear him vote from the other side of the chamber (his desk I believe is a couple of rows directly behind McConnell). Typically the only time you see a Senator vote from their desk is if they’re all seated and voting on something major (Obamacare, for example).

    Sinema did announce earlier that an agreement was officially reached, so decent odds the only cloture that Schumer files tomorrow is on that bill.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      I’m sure being from the president’s birthplace didn’t hurt her. I still wish with the exception of the EDWA nominee & Scott Colom (After reading in the New York Times article earlier this week that Durbin privately encouraged Biden to nominate red state moderate Republicans so he didn’t have to ditch blue slips), I would have liked to see the rest renominated.

      Like

      • Ryan J's avatar

        Any 2 of the following moderate Democrats can sink a nomination: Manchin, Tester, Sinema, Kelly, Carper, King (basically anyone to the right of the most conservative Judiciary Committee Democrat), or even Menendez (just ’cause). Manchin was almost certainly a no and thus any of the others could have sunk Edelman’s nomination. That being said, I wonder who the key senator was, maybe it’s someone unexpected. Unlike with Trump’s failed nominees, the senators who sank the nomination are not publicly revealing their opposition.

        Liked by 1 person

  46. Dequan's avatar

    I know there are a lot of new bloggers on here since 2022. Back then after Jabari Wamble missed several SJC hearings I started to speculate something was wrong with his nomination. Same thing with Colleen Holland. Both nominations ended up getting pulled.

    I know this would be a slightly different category but if the nominations from the last batch aren’t sent by tonight, I’m gonna go out on a limb & say there is a problem with one of the six nominations. I just can’t think of another reason it would take a record breaking 3 weeks & counting to send them to the senate otherwise. If true, what would make me most upset is why not just send the other names that are good to go & hold back in whoever had a problem.

    None of the nominees were from red or purple states so shouldn’t be any surprise blue slip issues. I don’t know what else the holdup could be.

    Like

  47. Ryan J's avatar

    With Manchin’s votes against Bloomekatz and Mehalchick, I think we can put to sleep the belief that Manchin’s good working relationship with any senator will lead him to vote in favor of that senator’s preferred judicial nominees.

    That being said, out of the 11-10 party line votes from the Judiciary Committee, this is what I think will happen on each, knowing Manchin’s patterns a bit better:

    Manchin will vote no on Berner, Mangi, Eumi Lee, Kasubhai, & Sarah Russell.
    Manchin and possibly Collins/Murkowski will vote yes on Aframe and Kiel (partially because I believe that Judiciary Republicans were rage voting no that day — the Judiciary Republicans will all vote no on the floor vote for those nominees to avoid exposing that they were rage voting)

    Liked by 1 person

    • keystone's avatar

      I mostly agree. The one thing I’d add is that I think there’s a chance that Collins and maybe Murkowski will vote for Berner.

      I’ve seen 2 or 3 articles come out in the past few days and Berner and DuBose being LGBT candidates. I think it’s the start of a PR campaign, similar to what the Right does against Mangi, et al.

      Last February, the WH did a sort of LGBT nom vote-apalooza. There was a week where they votes on Gina R. Méndez-Miró, Ana Reyes, Daniel Calabretta, Jamar K. Walker. Collins voted for all of them. Murkowski voted for 3 of the 4. Collins has a good track record of supporting LGBT candidates and Murkowski has on OK record.

      Additionally, even though it didn’t come up that much in the hearings, Berner does have her Planned Parenthood credentials. Biden is clearly trying to dial up Abortion as an election issue. Heck he just invited Kate Cox to be his State of the Union guest. If there’s opp to Berner, I expect them to play the planned parenthood card, which we know Collins and Murkowski are in support of.

      So I wouldn’t count those two out.

      Liked by 3 people

  48. Dequan's avatar

    The senate just wrapped up. No cloture motions for any judicial nominees filed. Today is officially a waste. No new nominees, no cloture motions sent & no nominations from the last batch sent to the senate. At least we got two district court judges confirmed or it would have been a complete waste.

    Like

    • tsb1991's avatar

      Yeah, I honestly don’t know what the hold-up for the unsent nominations are. I think I’m bad luck when I have the White House Press Release page up, every time I go to that website looking for an announcement like nominations they never come up. Don’t we have some reporter in the weeds that can follow up on that?

      Not surprised that no cloture motions were sent out, I would expect just one tomorrow for the Ukraine/border bill which will swallow up all of next week. Schumer did drop a hint of working past Thursday next week before their two week break which is how you threaten to get a bill passed by Thursday afternoon lol.

      Obviously disappointed in no new nominations either, if nothing is in next week that would be really bad, otherwise you won’t be able to use two hearing slots in March during that four-week period.

      Liked by 1 person

  49. Lillie's avatar

    This might be a dumb question, but is there a chance someone somewhere legitimately does not know the noms still need to be sent?

    Normally I’d say no, but with the general incompetence shown in the past in the senate in regards to confirming noms… I wouldn’t entirely be surprised if it was that and not scandal.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      Oh they know. There is a reason why they haven’t been sent yet. The question is if it is a GOOD reason. If the reason is because they are waiting on an ABA rating or because there’s an issue with one nominee, so they are holding back on all six, then the answer to that questions NO. Neither of those will be good reasons.

      Like

      • Frank's avatar

        Just a guess, but I think it is a ABA issue, which I totally agree is stupid. Biden hasn’t nominated anyone yet who received a majority or unanimous unqualified ABA rating, which makes me think that’s off the table with him. Despite what Hank tells you here, the ABA ratings are heavily based on the biases of those who are tasked with rating the candidate, which favor biglaw and other candidates from the traditional mold such as career prosecutors who claim me off from the same cloth and against candidates who come from an atypical background, even if they have plenty of relevant experience.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Yea I’m a big defender of Biden when it comes to judges outside of the occasional Ramirez, Childs, Pan & anything out of New Jersey but this is inexcusable. To miss a SJC slot because nominations were not sent to the senate is completely unacceptable.

        I don’t care if the ABA rated somebody NQ, they should still be pushed through just like the 10 Trump judges that had that rating. I am legit angry there is no hearing Wednesday for whatever the reason.

        Liked by 1 person

  50. keystone's avatar

    For the votes tomorrow, I wonder if there’s a chance they might waive cloture for Laroski at the last minute and just go straight into the vote for him. They’ve been doing that a lot with the republican nom for judicial pairs, e.g. Gretchen Lund.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a reply to Mike Cancel reply