Judge Rebecca Kanter – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California

In a second attempt to fill a long time vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, the White House has nominated state judge Rebecca Kanter.

Background

Rebecca S. Kanter received a Bachelor of Arts from the University of California, Irvine in 2000 and then a Juris Doctor from UC Los Angeles School of Law in 2003. Kanter subsequently clerked for Judge Harry Hupp on the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Kanter subsequently joined O’Melveny & Myers LLP as an associate and then in 2006 became a federal prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California. She held that position until she joined the San Diego County Superior Court in 2023, where she currently serves.

History of the Seat

Kanter has been nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, to a seat vacated on August 1, 2021, by Judge William Hayes’ move to senior status. Kanter’s colleague, Marian Gaston, had previously been nominated to fill this seat by President Biden, but withdrew her nomination after sitting on the Senate floor without a vote for over six months.

Legal Experience

Kanter started her legal career as an associate at O’Melveny & Myers, where she worked on civil and criminal defense. Subsequently, Kanter spent sixteen years as a federal prosecutor, where she rose to be deputy chief in the Major Crimes section, civil rights chief, and an ethics adviser in the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Throughout her career, Kanter has tried around twenty-five cases and has argued six appeals before the Ninth Circuit.

Kanter has focused most of her career on financial crimes and public corruption cases. For example, Kanter prosecuted Joseph Bentley and Eugene Cloe, who, it was alleged, conspired to defraud the U.S. Navy. See United States v. Bentley, Case No. 15cr0195 JM (S.D. Cal.) (Miller, J.).

Among other notable cases that Kanter has been involved with, she was part of the legal team in an en banc Ninth Circuit case where the court ruled that the termination of a defendant’s state probation “nunc pro tunc” by a state judge retroactively to the date before a federal crime was committed doesn’t alter the defendant’s status as a probationer when the federal crime was committed. See United States v. Yepez, Case No. 09-50271 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (per curiam).

Jurisprudence

Since 2023, Kanter has served as a judge on the San Diego Superior Court. In this role, she presides over trial court matters in criminal, civil, family, and other state law matters. Previously, Kanter served as a volunteer judge presiding over small claims court.

Statements

In a 2022 interview when she was running for the Superior Court, Kanter elaborated on her judicial philosophy, noting that she wanted to be mindful of the humanity of all individuals who appeared before her and the ability of a judge to affect real-world outcomes. She also discussed how her views of criminal prosecution had been shaped by the death of George Floyd, noting that it emphasized that prosecutions are ultimately about ensuring accountability for individual’s actions. See 2022 Election: Q&A With Rebecca Kanter, Candidate for Superior Court Judge, Office 35, San Diego Union Tribune, Apr. 12, 2022, https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/commentary/story/2022-04-12/opinion-q-a-with-judge-candidate-rebecca-kanter.

Political Activity

Kanter has had a number of political donations over her career, all to Democrats.

Overall Assessment

In comparison to Gaston, who drew strong opposition for her work as a public defender, Kanter has a far more traditional background for a federal judge. While her jurisprudence is unlikely to be much different than that of Gaston, Kanter is nonetheless significantly more favored to join the federal bench.

107 Comments

  1. Dequan's avatar

    I’m surprised out of all six nominees from the last batch, she’s the only one not scheduled for today’s SJC hearing. She seems like a fine nominee yet doesn’t have any major issues that should come up to have her repeat the issues that tanked Gaston’s nomination.

    Like

  2. Ethan's avatar

    Still one other vacancy on this court, the seat previously held by Judge Gonzalo Curiel.

    Identity isn’t everything, Curiel’s departure will leave this court with no active Hispanic/ Latino men (Curiel and crazy gun nut Roger Benitez remain on senior status).

    While I would prefer someone younger, given the time remaining before the election, I’m worried Magistrate Judge Lupe Rodriguez Jr. (born c. 1968) will be the nominee. Justice Jose Scher Castillo (born c. 1978) of the California 4th District Court of Appeal is another Latino I’d keep an eye on. I’d prefer him over Rodriguez but not sure if he’d rather stay on a state appellate court for now.

    Magistrate Judge Valerie Torres (born c. 1977) will almost certainly be elevated down the line but not quite yet since she she just began serving as a Magistrate Judge in December.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Gavi's avatar

    Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

    If Mitch McConnell can get his former lover a seat on the federal bench, so can a governor. This isn’t a problem for me.
    The big problem for me is Governor Healey nominating someone who is so old that she can only serve for 7 years, with the state’s mandatory retirement age of 70! This is criminal in a state where Republicans regularly win the governorship, and who have appointed 5 of the 6 current justices. I don’t care how non-conservative those Republicans claim to be. Why can’t most Dems at any level get this right?

    Is Gabrielle R. Wolohojian even a good liberal?:

    https://apnews.com/article/massachusetts-judge-governor-former-romantic-partner-95c2b8cbc5ccb38ad27f68cb5a871023

    Like

    • Dequan's avatar

      @Gavi

      EXACTLY. I have no problem with the governor nominating somebody she had a relationship with in the past as long as they are qualified. Gabrielle Wolohojian seems more than qualified. I remember when the governor of Wyoming recommended his wife (Who recently retired) to President Obama along with two other names. He said her being married to him shouldn’t stop her from being recommended since she’s so highly qualified. Senator Bunning’s son was confirmed to the district court in Kentucky under GW Bush. It happens.

      But a Democrat governor nominating a 63 year old to the states highest court in a blue state is almost a crime. I’ll be taking Haley off my list of governors who are solid on picking judges. This is an atrocious pick by age alone for all the reasons Gavi mentioned.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Aiden's avatar

      I often pay a lot of attention to state court nominees.

      The two Mass SJC vacancies had me very excited for future oral arguments and decisions with progressive Healey appointees.

      I have being waiting and waiting for the next nomination to the Mass SJC, Healey really had a chance to make an ideological change to the court. I was pretty happy with Dewar’s nominations but was hoping for a better nominee this time around.

      I have serious issues with this nomination. This was Healey’s long term partner of 8 years. I just don’t think it’s an appropriate nomination. Based on that perceived conflict of interest and nepotism.
      I don’t think two wrongs make a right, and republican ethics shouldn’t be followed my democrats.

      However, even ignoring that. This nominee was above even a remotely acceptable age for a SJC nomination. I think in state Supreme Court in solid blue states there is some more leeway with age than federal courts, this blew that.

      Now on top of the concerns with her age.
      Every indication of her ideology based on her appellate rulings, her job history and her clients she previously represented. I see absolutely no indication of her being this progressive change that Healey has called for in the state. She actually doesn’t even seem that centre left. She could have being appointed by Charlie Baker.

      I was hoping for someone with Abortion advocacy, public defender or progressive interest ties, this is an extremely disappointing nominee.

      With a couple 4-3 rulings coming out of the court, many which the Cypher and Lowey were in the conservative minority for. This was a real chance to leave a lasting progressive stamp, as I’ve already said.

      Ned Lamont 2.0

      Liked by 1 person

      • Gavi's avatar

        @Aiden
        Yeah, I 100 percent disagree with you on the conflict of interest bit. People keep forgetting that judges may recuse should the obligation arises. No one should be disqualified for who they know. This isn’t a “Republicans do it so Dems can, too” thing.
        That said, I hope that there are MA groups that will tank this nomination.
        In fact, with your quick review of her resume, I’d advocate for her rejection on any means necessary, even on the bogus “conflict of interest” grounds. Whatever it takes to kill this nomination.
        It’s almost as if Healey is atoning for her previous awesome pick of Dewar.
        I’d like to tell Dem govs: it’s OK to pick TWO or more awesome justices. Just ask NJ’s Phil Murphy and OR’s Katie Brown!

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lillie's avatar

        I agree with you.

        Unless they are included on a list of names that someone else independently decides or a commission or something recommends them I’m against it.

        Granted I’m a social worker by training and have worked in the claims fraud/provider investigations space at an insurance company for several years so realize my boundaries could be obnoxiously rigid lol

        Liked by 1 person

  5. Zack's avatar

    I’m surprised Kanter isn’t having her hearing today given that her seat is a judicial emergency and the others aren’t.
    As to Wolohojian, I hope her nomination fails, as IMO she will simply have too many conflicts of interests to be one of the top judges in the state, and that’s before mentioning the fact nominating someone who will have to retire in six/seven years is absurd.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Dequan's avatar

    In the middle of the SJC hearing, senator Graham showed up late because he was working on the border bill. He then went off on his concerns with the bill in the middle of the hearing.

    Then Senator Kennedy started his questioning. He asked Melissa DuBose if she is still a Marxist because of an article she contributed to in college. He accused DuBose of not turning over the interview to the committee & they had to find it. He then begin asking her if she has any experience in federal trials. He then begin to grill her on some legal terms to which she was able to answer each one. Senator Kennedy yielded back 6 seconds.

    Liked by 1 person

    • keystone's avatar

      I’m kind of impressed by Ali. There’s been a lot of talk about the fact that he’s been able to work with organizations and people across the political spectrum.

      At the start of Josh Hawley’s questioning, he made reference to the fact that he needs to disclose the fact that he’s a 49ers fan. I think it kind of threw Hawley for a loop. Hawleys questions seemed tough but fair imo. At the end of the questioning, Hawley even made reference to the fact that he was surprised by how nice he was in his questioning towards Ali even though his Chiefs were going to win in the Super Bowl.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        I loved that exchange. I am no fan whatsoever of Hawley but I thought his exchange with Ali was genuine & his questioning then back & fourth was fair.

        Now here comes Senator Blackburn. Of course she found a way to name drop Seth Aframe in her questioning. My God why can’t Schumer just file cloture & get the three circuit court nominees confirmed already. The longer they sit out in limbo the worse it is.

        Liked by 1 person

      • keystone's avatar

        @dequan

        Did they even ask White anything?

        I thought the point where Sen Whitehouse pointed out that the DuBose “marxist” comment was from so long ago that it was prob from the same time when Senator Kennedy was still a Democrat was great line. You could hear the audience go, “ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh”. And then it got weird bc Kennedy seemed to be pissed by it.

        The fact that Graham came in to defuse the situation by saying, that we could all agree that Kennedy was not a Marxist and by then getting DuBose to state that she didn’t submit the decades old article bc she didn’t know about it gives me hope that maybe Graham will vote for her.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        What a great response from Senator Whitehouse remarking Kennedy was probably a Democrat when that article came out. Senator Kennedy was pissed in part because his hypocrisy was called to the carpet. Of course anybody’s views can change over the span of three decades & that’s not even confirming those were DuBoise views back then.

        I usually defend Senator Kennedy when it comes to his questioning. I think overall he’s fair. I say that because not only does he do it regardless of if the nominees were appointed by a Republican or Democrat but also because I do believe all nominees should know basic legal terms & precedent. I think he goes a little over board with legal questioning that most attorneys haven’t visited since they passed the Bar, but I still say he’s fair. In particular he’s fair to Black men compared to many of his Republican colleagues.

        I think the article angle today was off however. I usually agree with senators who attack nominees for leaving out important documents from their past that makes them look bad but not in this case. DuBoise said she didn’t even know the interview was for publication so how could she know to include it in her SJCQ.

        Like

  7. Aiden's avatar

    I didn’t mean to suggest she necessarily should be barred from being nominated. Just the fact she appointed by her ex partner, to a lay person would not improve trust in the judiciary and in my opinion should be avoided at all costs. I think in Wyoming with such a small legal community and the wife’s amazing credentials sure, there may have been more of an argument. I don’t think it would necessary be fair for the Governors Council to base a rejection on this factor.

    Even so she’s too old, too moderate and this could have been avoided and isn’t worth the pushback.

    If I have some time today, I will do more research on her previous appellate opinions and any other writings. Nothing jumps out as even that liberal at the moment.

    Even Dewar was not A+ nomination. She wasn’t LGBT or a POC. Her work as the solicitor general involved I guess a lot of good but also a lot of the standard supervising of criminal prosecutions.
    Her two years at the public interest centre was good.
    For me she was extremely well qualified and was the liberal mould all judges should be. However she certainly doesn’t seem to be some trailblazing progressive. At a bare minimum Healey’s 2nd appointee should have been in this mould.

    I get perhaps for diversity of thought, for Governors to nominate people of ideological backgrounds. I think in Utah this is done with the appointment of 1 or 2 liberals on a conservative court, thus not changing the courts overall ideology.

    So perhaps in solidly liberal state Supreme Courts, moderates or conservative appointees could serve a purpose. Yet due to Charlie Baker the Mass SJC is no beacon of progressivism. Some of its decisions that were liberal have being 4-3. So this moderate appointee should never have happened.

    I will pray for the rejection by the governors council. Almost as strongly I pray Alito is replaced by a Biden appointee. Rikelman, Perez Desai…..

    Liked by 2 people

    • Gavi's avatar

      You can’t say one standard should apply in one state but not in another. Like, what’s the impartial threshold? A state should have X number of people/lawyers for this standard to apply? That would be quite arbitrary, no?

      What is important, however, is that we ultimately agree that this nomination should be defeated. Please continue to pray hard!

      Liked by 1 person

    • Aiden's avatar

      @Ryan J

      I agree that Wyoming was also materially different because it was Obama that ended with the final say. Here the situation is obviously quite different.

      However I also think Wyoming was different because just population wise the law field is probably quite small. So it would be easier to stand out etc.

      In this case we don’t know if the names that were recommended to her had just the nominee or had many others.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. Gavi's avatar

    People who in the past have said that Sen. Kennedy’s questions are tough but fair really need to explain to me what’s fair about twisting a common colloquialism to make it out that a nominee is a Marxist. How does a Rhodes scholar not understand this? If I’m reading books about dictatorship and casually say that I’m in my dictator phase, does that mean I’m a dictator? Someone listening to jazz for a period can be said to be in their jazz phase. This is literally the concept of Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour, where fans associate with an “era’ (i.e. phase) of her music. God forbid if DuBose said she was in her Midnights phase/era. Kennedy knows this, he’s just playing his tired role as a folksy dolt.
    Shocker! Republicans disingenuously attack Dem judicial nominees!

    I’m also shocked that some of the nominees would even answer some lines of questioning that are entirely based on policy. Defunding the police is a policy question, not a judicial one, so I would decline to answer those questions, since it could make its way before me as a judge. Simple. Republicans who the traps they are setting.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. Ben's avatar

    For those following along, the Senate passed cloture on the motion to proceed to the border-less military aid package with 67 votes. Apparently there will be amendment votes coming at some point. Schumer says they’re staying in session until this is done.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Zack's avatar

    One other note from the committee hearing, Marsha Blackburn once again lied about Seth Aframe and a case he worked on where a sex offender was given a lesser sentence at the request of the victim’s family so the victim wouldn’t have to testify.
    Clearly, Blackburn is trying to do to him what she did to Gaston, Edleman etc.
    Have a feeling it will fail but still, Aframe looks like he will be a party line vote as well.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. keystone's avatar

    FYI-
    I just realized that Beth Labson Freeman (NDCA-San Jose) and Steve C. Jones (NDGA) hit senior status eligibility in the next few weeks. Freeman on Feb 26 and Jones on March 3. Both seem like there’s a decent chance of them taking it (based on vibes).

    CA Senators are interviewing San Jose lawyers to fill Davilla’s seat) so hope they can have more than one name on that recommendation list. The GA senators have only had a few chances at bat, but they’ve had some very good picks, so would love to see them have a chance to repeat their success (and haven’t been loving some of Jones’ recent verdicts tbh).

    Liked by 1 person

    • star0garnet's avatar

      Calendar of senior qualification dates for judges who haven’t announced, first half of the year:

      Feb 16: William Johnson (64, Bush, D NM)
      Feb 26: Beth Labson Freeman (70, Obama, ND CA)
      Mar 03: Steve Jones (67, Obama, ND GA)
      Mar 07: Mitchell Goldberg (64, Bush, ED PA)
      Mar 15: Philip Brimmer (64, Bush, D CO)
      Mar 31: Mark Hornak (67, Obama, WD PA)
      Apr 15: Debra Livingston (64, Bush, 2nd Cir.)
      Apr 28: Ralph Erickson (64, Trump, 8th Cir.)
      May 06: Cormac Carney (64, Bush, CD CA)
      May 26: Thomas Schroeder (64, Bush, MD NC)
      Jun 04: Bryan Harwell (64, Bush, D SC)
      Jun 22: Michael Simon (67, Obama, D OR)

      Michael Seabright, James Bredar, Jon Levy, Michael Urbanski, Douglas Rayes, and James Soto have already shrunk that list, and I’d expect it to shrink significantly in the coming months, including a few of the Bush district appointees.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Ethan's avatar

        @star0garnet,

        As a Georgia resident, I really hope Steve Jones goes senior, as he let the maps re-drawn by Republicans stand.

        I have full faith that Ossoff and Warnock will recommend someone excellent all of their other picks (Abudu, Calvert, and Geraghty) have been A or A+ picks.

        My top choice would be Assistant Federal Public Defender Sean J. Young (born c. 1980). He used to be Legal Director of the ACLU of Georgia and is AAPI.

        But given the amount of time they’ll have to work with, they may opt to nominate Magistrate Judge Justin Anand (born c. 1971). He is AAPI, a former AUSA, and has donated to the 2014 Gubernatorial campaign of Jason Carter (Jimmy’s grandson).

        I also wouldn’t rule out the re-nomination of Dax Lopez (born c. 1975), who Obama nominated but he was never confirmed. While he is more moderate as he was recommended to Obama when Georgia had two Republican Senators, he is a Democrat. His wife Zulma Lopez used to be a Democrat member of the Georgia General Assembly.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Dequan's avatar

        I have full aith & confidence in Ossoff & Warnock when it comes to judges. We have gotten three from them for the 11th & NDGA (2) so far & I give them an A+, A & A respectively. I may put them as my number 1 senate duo ahead of Hawaii, Washington state, New Mexico & all others.

        I like @Ethan’s AAPI choices. I wouldn’t be surprised if we got a Jewish nominee however. We got two Black woman & Geraghty so I could see Ossoff having some more say in the next vacancy. I don’t want Dax Lopez however. Anybody that is good enough for Obama a decade ago with a Republican majority senate & two Republican senators means we could do better now. I would imagine the first Hispanic nominee is very possible, but I would hope for somebody more progressive.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        @Keystone

        Prior to the last batch of Maryland nominees were announced, there were 3 young magistrate judges. 2 of the 3, Hurson & Maddox were chosen. I hope the third, Ajmel Quereshi is the choice.

        As for Arizona, the choices are endless. I’ll list some below;

        Ethel Branch
        Maria Elena Cruz
        Jessica Hernandez
        Jared Keenan
        Victoria Lopez
        Justin Pidot
        Laura St. John

        Liked by 1 person

  18. tsb1991's avatar

    As far as today’s meetings were concerned, they weren’t as bad as I’d expected they’d be. Hawley’s probably the most interesting Republican questioner in my books, since while he doesn’t vote for any nominee to the left of Alito, he’s not as combative in his questioning as say, Cruz or Blackburn. His questions are typically “Can you clarify X or Y”, which you saw with I believe Bazis at the last hearing as well.

    If they get held over on the 29th (which I hope they’re listed since it would have been three weeks from today), they’d be up for a vote on 3/7.

    -I think we all expect Ali to be a party-line vote (question is, does he get Manchin on the floor)
    -DuBose I think will probably be a party-line vote, since Republicans are acting all outraged at her saying the word Marxist 20+ years ago. Question is can she get a Manchin/Collins/Murkowski combo of support on the floor which would ease confirmation
    -I feel like White will be your typical 12-9 vote (every Michigan nominee has been, right?)
    -Yoon/Harjani have the best shot at getting the most votes of the batch (typically the Virginia and Illinois district court nominees have gotten decent Republican support in committee).

    Liked by 1 person

    • keystone's avatar

      Did they ask White any questions?

      I think there’s a chance that Graham could vote for DuBose. He’s the one who was like, “OK, you didn’t know about it, so that makes sense why you didn’t include it.” I’m still incensed by Kennedy’s “feminist press” comment. That felt like a jab at her being a lesbian.

      For Ali, all I can say is at least they didn’t go after his religion or ask him what his opinions of 9-11 are.

      Liked by 1 person

  19. tsb1991's avatar

    Schumer wrapped up. Voice vote on a State Dept. nominee, Senate will be back tomorrow with at least a vote on the motion to proceed to the supplemental at 7PM (which is when the 30 hours of postcloture time would expire), unless there’s any agreements for amendments beforehand. I’m sure any cloture filings won’t come until the bill is passed, but at least this helps will that two week gap for when the Senate returns…

    Liked by 1 person

  21. Mitch's avatar

    As of now, Rebecca Kantor is less controversial than Marian Gaston, whose writings about sex offenders was the main reason her nomination failed. Presumably, the White House combed through Kantor’s writings and speeches.

    I still expect Kantor to have some difficulty getting confirmed, but she’ll likely be confirmed.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Zack's avatar

      Gaston wasn’t wrong in what she said (residency restrictions do very little to curb most sex crimes) but she and Democrats should have known that was going to be used to attack her and they weren’t ready for it.
      They weren’t.
      I imagine with Kanter, Ali and others they have been more on the ball.

      Liked by 1 person

  22. Mitch's avatar

    In a separate issue, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments for Trump vs. Anderson, about whether states (including Colorado) can ban Trump from appearing on the ballot.

    It looks like Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, who filed the suit in the first place, is losing the case. It wasn’t just Republican-appointed justices who skeptically questioned the plaintiffs. Elena Kagan and Kentaji Brown Jackson also sounded critical of attempts to ban Trump from the ballot. Sonia Sotomayor asked hard questions to Trump’s lawyers, but it’s not certain that she’ll rule in their favor.

    Here’s a link:

    https://time.com/6692919/supreme-court-trump-v-anderson-oral-arguments/

    Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        For me, a person is innocent until proven guilty (Despite what I personally think of Trump). Since he hasn’t been convicted of insurrection, I don’t think you should be able to use that to keep him off the ballot. It certainly can be used in the future for nefarious reasons if the precedent is allowed here. Plus I would rather a federal court rule on such a matter for the presidential election versus a state court.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Aiden's avatar

      I agree that without a conviction I don’t find it appropriate for Trump to be kicked of the ballot.

      I also agree with Elena Kagans comments about this sounding and feeling like a national issue.

      I just don’t think this should be a power the states have. When one state does it, many will attempt to follow all trying to achieve partisan gains, with not a conviction required.
      I think this would be similiar to impeachment which may now be attempted by every congress. Just like republicans are doing now.

      Liked by 1 person

  23. Zack's avatar

    We’ll know something is up with Kanter if she isn’t at the next judicial hearing.
    I will say this, given the Republican pattern of late, I expect even the South Dakota nominees will have to do cloture votes, a way to drag out time.

    Liked by 1 person

    • rob's avatar

      I’m optimistic maybe foolishly that the 3 nominees from Wyoming,Utah and Nebraska will be voice votes.

      I also hope Schumer every week upon the senates return sets up the Florida nominees votes for Monday’s only as apart from one they should all be bipartisan votes meaning some Dem Senators can miss them.

      I would set up Circuit nominees for other days of the week once Schumer knows everyone and VP Harris are available and in DC.

      Liked by 1 person

    • keystone's avatar

      I’m not sure when but I wouldn’t be surprised if they bundled the Berner and DuBose votes sorta together.

      The WH previously kept Calabretta (2-23-23), Reyes (2-21-23) , and Mendez-Miro (2-24-23), and Walker (3-3-23) all within a tight period of time. I remember at the time thinking they’d vote on Pitts as well, but for whatever reason, they ended up holding off on him until the summer. I think some of this is timing but I think some of this is building.a narrative.

      I was curious to see how the GOP has voted on Biden LGBT noms. Biden has had 9 LGBT judges confirmed to date: Robinson, Nathan, Sweeney, Morrison, Calabretta, Reyes, Mendez-Miro, and Pitts.

      Collins voted Yea of all 9 of the LGBT confirmed Biden Judges.

      Graham voted Yea on 7 of the 9. He has a perfect score on the male noms. He voted against Robinson and Sweeney.

      Murkowski voted for 5 of the nominees: Robinson, Morrison, Calbretta, Mendez-Miro, and Walker. She wasn’t present for the Sweeney vote.

      Other than those three, Sen Kennedy voted for Nathan and Walker, Grassley voted for Walker, and Wicker voted for Mendez-Miro.

      We talk a lot about Collins and Murkowski breaking ranks with the GOP to vote for Rikelman, but I think I forgot that we had a similar situation with Beth Robinson.

      Also, I think the Sweeney vote is interesting bc Collins usually has a GOP voting buddy when she bucks the party, but that is an instance of her voting on her solo for the Biden nom.

      I’m more optimistic than a lot of of folk on this blog about Berner’s chance to get cross party support. I think there’s a lot of elements that would make me think that C & M would be open to her. Also, I don’t think the GOP has given C & M a real reason not to vote for her. If you asked me what the GOP agreement against Mangi or Aframe is, I could easily say that in a single sentence. The GOP hasn’t landed on a pithy attack against Berner and they can’t say the reasons they don’t like her out loud.

      As for DuBose, I’m curious to see how this “Marxist” attack plays out. Aside from the fact that stems form a glib comment in a college newspaper many decades ago, it’s just such a weird, wonky, old-timey thing to accuse someone of.

      Liked by 3 people

      • keystone's avatar

        While Clinton may not have nominated a lot of LGBT judges, he did nominate the first 2 openly gay judges, Deborah Batts and Martin Jenkins. There was an earlier appointed gay judge, Vaughn Walker, but he felt it necessary to remain closeted until only after he left the bench.

        While Johnson may not have nominated any openly LGBT judges, his most famous and important judicial nomination is probably Thurgood Marshall, who was the first Black justice on the Supreme Court.

        With regards to why diversity matters with regards to judicial nominees, I’d recommend listening to a recent discussion about the WDNY opening. The interview includes the heads of the Monroe County Bar, the Rochester Black Bar Association, and the Greater Rochester Association of Women Attorneys. They discuss the fact that WDNY has never had a judge who was not white and has only ever had one judge who was not a man. They discuss the importance of having visible role models to encourage the next generation. They discuss the importance of having people who can bring unique perspectives to the table. They discuss the importance of having people in place who can understand the needs of the communities they represent. They discuss the lack of transparency in a lot of cases that have historically ensured that only a certain type of individual would even get a chance.

        https://www.wxxinews.org/show/connections/2024-02-09/who-should-fill-the-federal-judge-seat-in-the-western-new-york-district

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        So we are down to 22 assuming both DuBose & Yoon are confirmed. Out of the vacancies pending without a nominee, I can see WDNY & WDNC likely to get the list to 20. The MDPA could get the list under 20. Unless Hurd changed his mind or leaves because of health reasons, the NDNY could be a possibility but down the road.

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        I’m not as much worried about Hogan winning as much as I am Democrats having to spend money & resources in Maryland that could be used somewhere else. For each day somebody like Obama, VP Harris or even governor Moore has to spend vesting Hogan, that’s one less day they are spending in Arizona, Nevada, Michigan & other places. Every dollar spent there is one less dollar being spent in other states. I want a victory, just not a pyrrhic victory.

        Liked by 2 people

    • tsb1991's avatar

      If this was an era from 20-40 years ago (when the Senate was loaded with blue state Republicans and red state Democrats), it’d be a concern, but it’ll be too tall of a task to win when Biden is going to win the state by 30 points and Trump is on the ballot. Voters have become more polarized when it comes to voting in federal races while being more flexible in statewide races (which is why you have a Republican governor in Vermont, and before 2022 in Massachusetts and Maryland, while Democrats dominate the federal races there, while you have Democratic governors in Kansas, Kentucky, and before last November, Louisiana, but it never translated into being competitive federally for Democrats there).

      If push comes to shove, aside from having to share a ballot with Trump, I’m sure the ads will be out reminding voters that Hogan is anti-choice, would make McConnell the Majority Leader, vote to repeal Obamacare and slash Social Security/Medicare, vote for another trillion dollars-worth of tax cuts for wealthy people, and that he’ll vote for every James Ho and Matthew Kacsmaryk that Trump nominates, in addition to whoever he nominates to replace Alito and Thomas.

      In the last 10 years or so you’ve seen popular ex-governors from a party that their state is hostile to run for federal office and not get close to winning (Linda Lingle in Hawaii, Phil Bredesen in Tennessee, Steve Bullock in Montana, and even ex-Senators like Bob Kerrey in Nebraska or Evan Bayh in Indiana).

      Word’s out that McConnell had personally recruited him to run too, I’m sure that’ll be in every flyer and TV ad to boot.

      Liked by 5 people

  29. Zack's avatar

    I know the media will hype it but as TSB said, there is a world of difference between state races and federal ones, especially these days.
    Linda Lingle lost the Senate race in Hawaii by 25 points while Phil Bredesen who won every county in TN in 06 during his reelection lost by double digits in 2018 in the race for senate.
    Steve Bullock was a two term governor of Montana and lost by ten points etc.
    There is nothing to suggest Hogan has magical powers to defy the trend the others didn’t, especially since it will be pointed out that he will vote to confirm anti-choice, anti-LGBT judges.

    Liked by 1 person

  32. rob's avatar

    Also on another side note Susan Collins is very close to breaking Chuck Grassley’s consecutive voting streak. He had 8927 votes before missing some due to catching covid in 2020. Collins is at 8884 currently. Hopefully she cast’s a few more ayes for some more Judges this year.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      Susan Collins got very luck a couple years ago. She caught Covid right when the senate was going on recess, I believe a two week recess if my memory serves me correct. I wondered would she have disclosed had the senate just got back from a recess instead of going on one.

      Like

      • rob's avatar

        I remember that and honestly think she would have found a way to make McConnell cancel votes. Senators have in the past been very accommodating for her and Grassley’s records.

        When she get to 9000 votes later this year the press will repost the stuff they posted at her previous milestones. From what I can remember She has had to miss meetings or fly back on a Sunday to make sure she doesn’t miss any votes.

        I wish some Democratic senators did that.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Lillie's avatar

        When has she not been primarily concerned with her own interests and image though?

        It’s disgusting that anyone would prioritize a streak like that–which ultimately means very little–compared to the health and safety of other people. Especially a group like the US senate who is in large part composed of older and probably at risk people.

        On the other hand though, at least she disclosed and voted for KBJ. Which is more than we can say for most other republicans.

        I think it was Harry Reed who said Susan Collins will show up precisely when she’s not needed. Perhaps a hot take but I always liked Olympia Snowe better, although she was no angel by any means.

        Sorry if this comes off as overly personal, this (and her behaviors in general) just irritates me the more I think about it.

        Liked by 1 person

  33. Zack's avatar

    My last thoughts on this for now but what happened with the Montana Senate race where the weaker candidate (Rosendale) was brushed aside by Trump was far more damaging in our chances of keeping the senate then the news from Maryland.
    Using the logic of some folks, Laura Kelly and Andy Beshear would be shoe ins if they ran for Senate.
    Yes, upsets can happen but as I said before, other governors who were the opposite of their state’s political party were able to win in part because folks knew the opposite party could keep them in check with their majorities.
    Not the case for the federal level, especially in today’s political reality.
    Will it be annoying if Hogan wins his primary?
    Yes but Maryland is still a deep blue state that hasn’t sent a Republican to the Senate since 1980 and that isn’t going to change this year.

    Liked by 1 person

  34. keystone's avatar

    On the plus side, maybe the Hogan announcement (even thought there’s little to no chance of him winning and who knows if he’d even get through the primary) will light a fire under Cardin’s ass and he’ll turn in his recommendation for Bredar’s seat.

    I know Cardin has previously favored magistrates for his more recent picks. Unfortunately, Ajmel Quereshi is in Greenbelt and the Bredar seat is in Baltimore.

    Of the Baltimore based magistrates who are young, (Abelson, Aslan, and Austen) most of them have been appointed fairly recently (Sep 2023, Dec 2023, Oct 2023).

    Not really sure who he’d go for.

    Liked by 1 person

      • shawnee68's avatar

        She has a documentary on Netflix and she talks about being a victim of sexual assault. She says that VAWA -Violence Against Women Act is a good law.

        All she has to do and it’s been done before is ask her 100 million followers on Instagram to register to vote.

        I know that many people are outside the USA but lots people turning 18 or those who aren’t registered can be reached.

        This would make a big difference in Senate races in places like Montana. The House will most definately go back to the Dems.

        It’s an uphill battle for Dems to retain control of the Senate so her support is crucial.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Aubrey's avatar

        Schumer is reluctant to make his vulnerable members take hard votes in an election year, so I bet Mangi won’t get a vote until after the election if he gets one at all. I wouldn’t be shocked if the White House isn’t already reaching out to Zahid Quraishi just in case. Mangi also might withdraw of his own accord if the attacks are too much for him and his family.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        There were a handful of recommendations that were reviewed along with Mangi. Zahid Quraish wasn’t one of them plus his only push back when he was nominated was by progressives, so I doubt he would be the back up. Here’s the other recommendations;

        New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum – He was not chosen apparently because the WH thought he was too young at 35 years old.

        U.S. Magistrate Judge Jose Almonte – I could see him getting the nomination if Mangi fell through.

        U.S. District Court Judge Michael Farbiarz – I would hope he’s not the nominee. He’s a good but not much of a progressive background, plus it would vacate another district court seat & we all know New Jersey has been the worst blue state of all under Biden in filling those seats.

        First Assistant U.S. Attorney Vikas Khanna – Another nominee that isn’t too particularly progressive.

        Superior Court Appellate judge Lisa Perez Friscia – I’ve read she’s barely left of a Republican. No wonder Menedez suggested her.

        New Jersey Supreme Court Justice Fabiana Pierre-Louis was who the WH apparently wanted but she withdrew from consideration. Perhaps she could be talked back into it if the election is looming & Mangi doesn’t get confirmed.

        Like

    • Gavi's avatar

      Thanks for bringing us back on topic, Frank. I always appreciate it. Lately it’s hard to tell if I’m reading the comment section of C-SPAN, CNN, or ESPN.

      The Judicial Crisis Network is one of my “favorite” judicial advocacy “organizations.” I don’t know if you folks are familiar with it. It started in the Bush, Jr. years as the Judicial Confirmation Network. It’s meant to be a war room that would promptly respond to any objections people had for any of Bush’s circuit court nominees. That’s when I found out about it (as a small nerdy kid). During the Obama years, it switched to Judicial Crisis Network, maintaining its abbreviation JCN. It’s thought that they’d do the switch between “Confirmation” and “Crisis” depending on which party is in the WH. Obviously, “Confirmation” would be for Republicans and “Crisis” for Dems. But they abandoned this when Trump got in and stuck to its current name.
      Not to mention that it’s one of the darkest dark money groups.

      If you think that Marsha Blackburn is batty. In my opinion, you should familiarize yourself with JCN’s General Counsel Carrie Severino and her husband.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Hank's avatar

        Yeah that hag Carrie Severino is complete and utter trash, and her corrupt shell of an “organization” has opposed pretty much every Dem nominee – their ads against Dale Ho worked out so well for them, so I’m really trembling in my boots at the thought of more ads. At the same time, it wouldn’t hurt Demand Justice/AFJ/etc to also air ads supporting Mangi like they did with Ho – Mangi’s record is super conventional, so it’s clear as day that this “controversy” is all about him being Muslim.

        Given how slowly the WH has moved, at this point it’s either they confirm Mangi or the seat likely stays open – I’m hoping the Dems aren’t stupid enough to risk CA3 flipping to an outright Republican majority, but they left a ridiculous number of appellate seats open when it looked like they were going to lose the Senate in 2022…

        Liked by 2 people

Leave a comment