Judge Camela Theeler – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota

As part of a package of nominees with Sioux Falls attorney Eric Schulte, the White House has nominated state judge Camela (“Cammy”) Theeler to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota.

Background

A native of Pierre, South Dakota, the 48-year-old Camela C. Theeler received a B.A. from the University of South Dakota in 1998 and a J.D. from the University of South Dakota School of Law in 2000. She subsequently clerked on South Dakota’s First Judicial Circuit before joining the Morgan Theeler law firm.

In 2003, Theeler shifted to Lynn, Jackson, Shultz & Lebrun, where she stayed until 2012, when she became an Assistant U.S. Attorney with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of South Dakota. In 2018, Governor Dennis Daugaard named Theeler to the Second Judicial Circuit in South Dakota, where she currently serves.

History of the Seat

Theeler has been nominated to replace Judge Jeffrey Viken, who took senior status back in October 1, 2021. The nominations of Theeler and her co-nominee Eric Schulte happened after extensive negotiations with South Dakota’s Republican senators, which lasted years and resulted in several candidates rejected, including U.S. Magistrate Judge Veronica Duffy and former Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (who took herself out of consideration).

Legal Experience

Theeler started her legal career with a brief stint at Morgan Theeler and then at Lynn, Jackson, Schultz & Lebrun, where she defended Ethicon Endo-Surgery against a suit brought based on alleged discrimination against a pregnant employee. See Reynolds v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, 454 F.3d 868 (8th Cir. 2006).

Between 2012 and 2018, Theeler worked as an Assistant U.S. Attorney with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of South Dakota. At the office, Theeler primarily worked on civil cases, defending the Postmaster General against an employment discrimination suit. See Robinson v. Donahoe, 957 F. Supp. 2d 1119 (D.S.D. 2013). Theeler also defended the U.S. government in tort suits, see, e.g., Gates v. Black Hills Health Care Systems, 997 F. Supp. 2d 1024 (D.S.D. 2014), as well as suits under the Administrative Procedure Act. See, e.g., Middlebrooks v. United States, 8 F. Supp. 3d 1169 (D.S.D. 2014).

Political Activity

While Theeler has been identified as a Republican and her father-in-law, Jack Theeler, is a frequent Republican donor, Theeler’s own political history is fairly limited, and includes donations to both Democrat Jim Abbott and Republican Dusty Johnson.

Jurisprudence

In 2018, Governor Dennis Daugaard named Theeler to the Second Judicial Circuit of South Dakota to replace Judge Joseph Neiles. In that role, Theeler serves as a primary trial judge. Among her notable decisions as judge, Theeler sentenced 21-year-old Dantrez Isaac to three years in prison for his role in a burglary that occurred during May 2020 riots in Sioux Falls.

On the civil side, Theeler dismissed a suit brought against the City of Sioux Falls brought after the plaintiff was injured by an apartment wall collapsing during demolition under a city permit. See Fodness v. City of Sioux Falls, 947 N.W.2d 619 (S.D. 2020). Theeler dismissed the suit under the “public duty” rule, which prevented any duty of care attaching to municipalities merely through the issuance of permits. See id. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed.

Among her decisions appealed, the South Dakota Supreme Court reversed Theeler’s grant of a motion to compel allowing plaintiffs in a medical lack of informed consent case to review non-party patient records from the defendant. See Ferguson v. Thaemert, 952 N.W.2d 277 (S.D. 2020). The Supreme Court found that the request to look through the records of other patients of the defendant violated South Dakota statutes, and were not reasonably calculated to produce relevant evidence. See id.

Overall Assessment

With the strong support of both the White House and her home state senators, Theeler should be a relatively uncontroversial choice for the federal bench and should be confirmed comfortably.

120 Comments

  1. Frank's avatar

    Seems like an uncontroversial and traditional nominee who will be confirmed with relative ease. Can’t imagine her facing any attacks from Republicans in the hearing, unless there’s something rotten in Denmark that none of us are finding right now.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      This should be the model red state package deal. While Camela Theeler is a Republican, she’s barely to the right of multiple New Jersey district court Biden judges. She even has donations to both Republican & Democrat alike.

      There’s two things I will look out for. First, will she get a voice vote. Second, will her or Eric Schulte move their duty station as both seem to be from the same part of the state despite the two seats they are filling being far apart.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Zack's avatar

        Based on what I’ve seen, if one person has to move, it will likely be Schulte, as Theeler’s husband is a VP of a local bank branch and I don’t see them moving to Rapid City.
        Susan Bazis’s upcoming confirmation in a similar situation will tell us more.
        If she has to move due to the vacancy being in a different area then she does, it stands one of the two SD nominees will too.
        Also, as Dequan said, look for a voice vote here.
        If she doesn’t get one, then it’s clear Republicans are dragging things out to stop liberal/moderate nominees from being confirmed, in which case all the Republican one should be moved to the back of the line.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Ethan's avatar

    We’ve seen a lot of discussions about whether any more red states will get their vacancies filled before the election. But we haven’t mentioned Ohio much. Even though it’s technically a purple state based on Senators, Vance is far less likely to negotiate than Portman was.

    One current vacancy in Cleveland (Northern District) and and one future vacancy in Columbus (Southern District).

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      I believe Vance still has his hold on the US attorneys. One of them is his own. If he isn’t reasonable enough to let his own pick get confirmed then he’s entered Ron Johnson territory. When I see Johnson turn in his blue slip for either of the two men he recommended then I’ll look to Ohio next. I’ll believe either one when I see it in an election year.

      Like

    • keystone's avatar

      Brown did launch a selection committee for these seats at the end of last year. I believe the application due date was Dec 1. I have a hard time believing that Vance would cooperate.

      I think it’s unlikely we’ll get a nominee. However, what if Brown were to just issue a statement saying he was recommending someone like Traci Timko.

      Traci Timko is the lawyer who the defense lawyer in that horrible case last year where the state was trying to prosecute a woman who experienced a miscarriage at home.

      Timko’s locale doesn’t line up perfectly with the openings and I don’t know that she’d be at the top of my list, but if this recommendation isn’t going to go anywhere, then why not openly recommend her forcing Vance and Brown’s challengers to all have to start commenting on Reproductive rights.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Oh I definitely agree with this strategy. I mentioned something similar a couple months ago on here. For some of these seats that we know aren’t getting filled, Biden shouldn’t nominate a young woman’s right (Or fill in the blank for any election issue) attorney. This should particularly be done in some of these senate races that are going to be tough for Democrats.

        Let the nominee know ahead of time there’s no expectation of them getting confirmed this year. Make sure the nominee is young & good enough to nominate to circuit court vacancy should one arise similar to Scott Colom. That can be their reward in the end.

        Like

    • star0garnet's avatar

      Vance and Daines could see new counterparts next year, which would place them just above AL, AR, and MS for least-likely blue slips to see with current/future vacancies. In a scenario where Trump wins, it would be interesting to see whether any of Cogburn, Marbley, or Christensen revoke their senior declarations.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Gavi's avatar

    Ordinarily, this would be a decent red state nominee. But putting things into perspective, Theeler will be the first Republican federal judge in SD since at least the Reagan administration, if I am not mistaken. That’s a long stretch for a traditionally conservative state, despite the state’s former history of sending Dems to the U.S. Senate.
    While Theeler probably isn’t the FedSoc type, it still sucks that that streak is ending. But that’s the price we pay for filling district court vacancies in red states, especially a state with the probable future Republican Senate leader. (Yes, obviously it’s better to fill this seat now with a normal Republican than allow a FedSoc hack to fill it in the next Republican admin.)

    —
    I agree, Ethan. Despite others’ optimism, I put Vance in the same category as Hawley, Hyde-Smith, and Tuberville in never allowing Biden to fill district court vacancies in their state with anyone left of Chad Meredith, no matter how many vacancies they have or how overworked the remaining judges are.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Joe's avatar

    I also don’t see any nominees coming from Vance. Perhaps in a second Biden term maybe.

    I think other than Maine we may be done for the year from red states. The other possibilities might be WDTN, Texas, or Florida, but I have my doubts there too.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Gavi's avatar

    We now know that Schumer recommended Sanket Bulsara for the EDNY vacancy.
    I wonder if this means that Gillibrand will get to recommend someone new for the Geraci vacancy in the WDNY. As we already know, Schumer originally recommended Colleen Holland for that vacancy before she bowed out.

    Once light years apart, Schumer’s and Gillibrand’s recommendations have now come to look very similar.

    https://brooklyneagle.com/articles/2024/02/14/schumer-nominates-bulsara-for-eastern-district-of-new-york-bench/

    Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        I think it’s more so another example of Democrat senators not picking progressive nominees period. New York, especially the EDNY has PLENTY of young progressive possibilities. Even if you wanted an immigrant South Asian nominee Schumer had plenty of other picks. There’s no lack of diversity picks so this is just a case of Ron Klein not advising Schumer on a nominee like he did with Dale Ho more so than putting racial diversity over professional diversity.

        Like

  6. keystone's avatar

    Wilhelmina Wright (MN) steps down from active duty today.

    When she announced a few month ago, there were some questions as to whether this was a retirement or a move to senior status.

    I just noticed that her bio on the FJC site says:

    “Assumed senior status due to certified disability on February 15, 2024.”

    https://www.fjc.gov/node/1394826

    Hope it’s nothing too serious.

    Sen Klobuchar’s committee is collecting applications for Wright’s replacement. Due date is Feb 29

    Liked by 2 people

      • Frank's avatar

        I mentioned this to you already, but the age requirement can be disregarded for senior status and the judge can still hear cases for as long as they want depending on what the disability is, even though it came before they turned 65. Some judges have kept hearing cases for years and in some cases decades after taking an early senior status, it really just depends on what the issue is that prevents them from hearing a full caseload in the first place. All that being said, I wish the best to judge Wright.

        Liked by 2 people

  7. Zack's avatar

    I will note the defendant that she sentenced to three years in prison was also facing federal charges in a different case so that likely played a part in her choice.
    She is a Republican but nothing to suggest she’ll be a hand em judge or a federalist society hack, which is the best you can hope for from a red state.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. dawsont825's avatar

    Biden’s total currently is 177 with the chance at 180 hopefully coming within the next two weeks. (Becerra and Rubio’s donor’s nephew… along with the MDFL nominee or whoever Schumer decides to prioritize). That puts Biden 20 away from reaching a robust 200. With 14 judges currently waiting for a cloture vote in the Senate and another 8 waiting for a committee vote, the total *should* be 202 by sometime in the early to middle summer. All depending on how much Schumer prioritizes judicial nominations with the election coming up, etc.

    Along with the 6 recent nominees waiting for their committee hearing and the few nominees that Biden will make over the next few weeks/months, that’ll put 210 within reach by the end of the summer leading up to the pivotal months right before the election. In addition to the remaining CCA vacancies (1st, 4th, both 6th seats, and the 11th seat) along with the low-hanging fruit in the blue-state vacancies (NDGA, Arizona, EDPA, MDPA, EDNY, MN, CDCA, SDCA, EDWA, etc.,) and the gettable vacancies in (fingers crossed) red-state/mixed senate delegation nominees (EDWI, Maine, Alaska, NC, LA, TX, FL), should put Biden at 220 AT MINIMUM at the end of his term. What Schumer and Durbin decide to do during the lame duck will be important to the final total of Biden’s 1st term. If McConnell can push through 13 nominees even after Trump lost, I see no reason to not confirm any CCA nominee or district court judge regardless of the outcome of the election.🎶Anything you can do; I can do better🎶

    If after 4 years of complaining and writing long messages about Biden’s nominees, he ends up with 220 individual judicial appointees (Not counting duplicates/elevations in Pan, KBJ, and de Alba) that would be a HELLUVA haul, and I would sleep better at night knowing that they actually prioritized and accomplished rebalancing the judiciary while keeping those seats out of FedSoc hands.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      I feel a lot more confident at Biden reaching the 220’s today then I did before 5am Tuesday. Schumer not adding extra recess time at the end of next week’s recess to me shows he can see the urgent of the moment. As @dawsont825 said, the lame duck will be essential assuming either Biden or senate Democrats lose the election.

      Like

  12. Mitch's avatar

    In Senate news, Joe Manchin announced that he’s thinking of running for President as a third party candidate. He says he wants to move the U.S. to the sensible center.

    That could give him motive to oppose more of Biden’s judicial nominations.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ryan J's avatar

      I swear everything is going wrong for Biden these days. Centrists think he’s too leftwing and progressives accuse him of genocide. Last week, the Robert Hur report discussing Biden’s forgetfulness could hurt him more. And now Manchin is thinking of entering as a spoiler candidate.

      Unless Democrats are able to correct course in the next 8-9 months, Trump will win and stack the courts with more Federalist Society hacks who want to ban abortion nationwide, put guns in the hands of domestic abusers, and allow Trump to use the National Guard to put down peaceful protests.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ryan J's avatar

      After Manchin announced he would not run for re-election, he started voting against Biden judges at a higher rate, which I saw was a worrisome sign that the reason he is distancing himself from Biden might be so he can run as a spoiler candidate for No Labels, an organization that takes money from Harlan Crow and wants Trump to win despite claiming they want a “centrist” candidate to win.

      Red-state senators are also reverting to working in bad faith, seeing that Trump is leading in the polls, they hope to hold seats in their state open to allow Federalist Society hacks to take office (more right wing judge shopping). Although getting reasonable judges in office is crucial to protecting democracy, there always runs the risk that Trump succeeds in violating judges’ rulings (if he gets a second term, he will try — he tried to violate SCOTUS’s DACA decision but his officials said no). And SCOTUS has showed that they will immediately halt a ruling if liberals try to judge shop Dale Ho in the same way that conservatives do with Matthew Kacsmaryk, Drew Tipton, Reed O’Connor, and other extremists.

      Ok I’ll stop there for now — am I starting to sound like @aangren?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Hank's avatar

      It would be news if Manchin actually announced he’s running as an independent. This “thinking” about it is just more of the Senate’s second-biggest drama queen (Sinema still has him beat) wanting to get back in the spotlight – after his decision not to run for reelection rendered him irrelevant, he’s got to find some way to flatter his ego.

      Manchin’s has already been opposing every other nominee at this point, so I can’t imagine this will change much.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Ryan J's avatar

        That’s true. I’m anxious about Sinema’s re-election announcement, I feel like she might start opposing more Biden nominees (maybe even publicly) if she does run for re-election. I feel like just to get the left motivated, Biden should nominate an unqualified far-left extremist, have the Judiciary committee advance them with no recommendation (they did this with Clarence Thomas after splitting 7-7 on reporting him favorably), and then let Tester, Brown, Sinema, Rosen, Casey, and other vulnerable Dems vote against confirmation. Even better if they hold the vote to defeat this hypothetical nominee on the same day that they confirm Adeel Mangi.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Lillie's avatar

      I’m still on Newman’s side. Both ageism and ableism are definitely in play here.

      Also admittedly biased because I was essentially forced out of a job because of needing short-term FMLA because of a broken leg, but I’d like to think I’d come to this decision regardless.

      This situation should make people feel deeply uncomfortable, no matter how they feel about it.

      With that said, I also agree that there need to be better protections in place for law clerks for this and many other reasons. But the quote from the law clerk advocacy group feels kind of in bad faith. I’m not sure how to explain.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Dequan's avatar

        I’m fine with a process to go the route that has led to Newman’s suspension. I just don’t think this process was the right one. The court the judge sits on shouldn’t be the court to make the decision. It should be another even level court. So in this instance, any of the other 12 circuit courts should be making the decision, not the Federal Circuit themself.

        Like

  15. Zack's avatar

    On Pauline Newman, the outcome doesn’t surprise me at all.
    Sad to say, there are no easy answers here.
    With people living longer and longer, age related issues are going to pop up, especially with life time appointments and there is no easy way to force someone who can’t serve off the bench.
    I think the biggest issue for me is even if you do judges from other circuits, how do you try and remove someone who is no longer fit to serve while not allowing the process to be abused?
    One could easily see where a group of right wing judges (or liberal ones) decide for political reasons or a personal dislike (though they won’t say that) that a judge needs to go so they’ll declare him mentally unfit to serve and that will be that.
    No easy answers here.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. Joe's avatar

    I think Newman is a complete egotist and most likely has some severe signs of dementia. That being said, I dont really think you can remove her without setting some really dangerous precedents. Removing someone should only be reserved for extreme medical emergencies.

    With this many federal judgeships you’re bound to end up with a few weirdos that just can’t let it go. Unfortunately I don’t see any way around it

    Liked by 1 person

    • Gavi's avatar

      “… most likely has some severe signs of dementia.”
      What evidence do you have to back up this extraordinary opinion? A few weeks ago Newman’s interview with David Lat was posted. There wasn’t a single moment of non-lucidity. Not one. She spoke for over an hour in a manner that Dems can only dream that Biden could speak for in 5 minutes. Do you think Biden has some severe signs of dementia?

      “With this many federal judgeships you’re bound to end up with a few weirdos that just can’t let it go.” I.E. making use of the Constitution’s life tenure provision? If you don’t like it, amend the Constitution. It’s nothing new or noteworthy that some people like their jobs and don’t want to give it up, even on the judiciary. This is precisely the reason that led congress to institute senior status. You cannot go around claiming that someone had a heart attack then try to force them to prove that they didn’t. That’s so pretextual. May I accuse you of something and shift the burden of proof to you?

      While we’re on Newman, I don’t take issue with the Federal Circuit conducting this review like some. This is contemplated by the statute. Instead of taking issue with the court doing something that is entirely lawful, advocate for a change of the law. I personally think that the law should mandate that these kinds of review should be transferred out to another circuit. But until congress take my opinion in consideration, I won’t blame a court for doing what it is allowed to do.

      “I think Newman is a complete egotist.” Hey, if you were a PhD scientist slash groundbreaking female attorney slash patent expert slash federal appeals judge, chances are you’d be an egotist, too.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Joe's avatar

        Of course I’m not her doctor and I’ve never even interacted with her (and almost certainly never will). But it’s very easy to read between the lines here. When her counterparts are almost unanimously begging her to step aside that should be the clear tell.

        I don’t think she should be removed from office and if she wants to punish herself and everyone around her she’s certainly within her rights to stay in her position. I agree with you there. But she should’ve seen reason a long time ago and stepped aside.

        Liked by 1 person

  18. Joe's avatar

    Regarding Manchin, I would not be surprised if he runs for WV Gov or even jumps back into the senate race (perhaps on the pretext that “the country needs him” or whatever other lesson he wants to pretend to have learned from exploring a third party run).

    Manchin is a smart guy and career capital D Democrat, so I was always skeptical he’d actually follow through with a third party run. Glad to see he didn’t do so.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. Dequan's avatar

    A couple of things…

    @Gavi

    Yes I was advocating for a change in the law with regards to suspending judge Newman. I was in no way accusing the judges on the Federal Circuit doing anything wrong based on current law. I think the law should be changed so an even level court other than the court the judge is sitting on makes the final decision in the future.

    On Manchin, I am super happy he made the right choice & decided not to lose a third party presidential election. I hope No Labels finds a dedicated conservative to run at the top of their ticket.

    As for the comment Manchin may. Is jump back into the senate race, I thought about that for about 10 seconds. That would be great but I doubt it will happen. He still would be the underdog, similar to Larry Hogan after he changed his mind & jumped in the Maryland senate race. Plus I remember reading Machin is close to Justice. I don’t know if he wants a bitter battle against him. But I would love to be wrong & Manchin jumps back in.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      That’s great to see the WH pushing back. There’s four weeks the senate is in session when they return. I truly hope they knock out all three circuit court nominees in that time. Does anybody know what’s on the agenda when they return? I’ll list what I know below, please add anything I’m missing;

      The budget resolution that runs out next month

      The Mayorkis impeachment

      Non judicial nominees

      Any House bill passed

      Judicial nominees

      Like

      • tsb1991's avatar

        Does the government funding really run out March 1? If that was the case you’d think there’d be more urgency. The earliest the Senate could work on a bill when they get back is probably Wednesday, 2/28. I knew government funding was up in March but I thought it was later on in the month.

        Liked by 1 person

  24. Zack's avatar

    At this point, I’m hoping that Nico Martinez will get the nomination, as he’s young enough for SCOTUS down the line and will be a solid addition to replace Judge Rovner.
    I’m sure she would prefer a woman would replace her but I think he’s liberal enough to where she’ll be okay with him as the nominee.

    Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        I just don’t see how the 12 years of legal practice can be a deal breaker. Bradley Garcia is a year younger & was nominated a year sooner than Nico Martinez would be if he’s the nominee. Plus Garcia was nominated to the second highest court in the land.

        I know the issue was brought up as the reason the New Jersey Solicitor General didn’t get the 3rd vacancy that went to Mangi but if the chairman of the SJC wanted Martinez, I just don’t see that being an issue to stop it. Particularly in the case of just like the DC circuit, it would be putting the first Hispanic on the court. To me the bigger issue is if Durbin doesn’t recommend a bland and/or older pick. I’m much more worried about that than the 12 years of legal experience.

        As for Jabari Wamble, the 12 years experience was the least of his problems. His office was involved with a small scandal which is what ultimately sunk his nomination.

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        The following Biden nominees have received at least partial NQ ratings from the ABA;

        Anne Nardacci
        Margaret Guzman
        Araceli Martinez-Olguin
        Orelia Merchant

        I know two of the four (Guzman & Martinez-Olguin) needed the VP tie breaking vote to get confirmed but there were three Democrat senators out at that time.

        Like

      • Frank's avatar

        I know that, but they were still rated as qualified by the majority of the panel. I’m doubtful Biden would’ve stuck with any of those nominees if the majority rated them as NQ, which would’ve been a shame for all of those candidates. Look at what happened to Holland, who I also believe would’ve made a fine federal judge.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Dequan's avatar

        Do we have any articles Colleen Holland received a majority rated NQ? I have seen that speculated here on the blog but couldn’t find even one article to back it up.

        Even if she did, my initial point would remain the same. I don’t think Nico Martinez would receive a majority rated NQ. He has argued (And won) some major cases. If Bradley Garcia practiced 9 years out of law school, I don’t know if Martinez having 2 less years would be a deal breaker for the majority of the ABA.

        Like

      • Frank's avatar

        I remember reading a twitter post (maybe from John Doe, or someone else who gets reliable intel) saying as such, but can’t find it now.

        You’ll love to hear this Dequan, let’srun just nominated the Amir Ali wiki article for deletion. Even someone with such a distinguished legal record apparently isn’t ‘notable enough’.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        @Frank

        Haaaaaaa… I forgot all about the Let’s Run idiot since it’s been so long since I quit Wikipedia. Harsh is considering allowing us to start our own Wikipedia like site here on The Vetting Room just for judges. I truly hope he allows us to. I refuse to participate on wasting my time updating anything on Wikipedia knowing they have an idiot with nothing better to do with their lives except take down pages roaming the site.

        Like

  25. keystone's avatar

    Garcia began practicing in 2013 and got nominated mid 2022 and was confirmed ~ a year after that. So he had ~9-10 years of experience.

    Tiffany Cartwright began practicing in 2012 and got nominated in 2022 and confirmed the following year. So she had 10-11 years.

    Nico didn’t go directly to law school after college. He started practicing in 2016 and would be confirmed in 2023, which means he’s ~7 years, granted, they’ve been 7 very impressive years.

    So there seems to be some flexibility around the 12 year guidance but Nico would definitely be pushing it a bit more even beyond some of the younger nominees.

    Liked by 1 person

  26. Hank's avatar

    Frank (whose every other post is pure Republican drivel) calling something else BS is the height of irony. That being said, I agree that there are serious problems with ABA ratings – for one thing, they definitely overvalue biglaw experience and underrate public service. None of the four Biden appointees who got partial NQs should’ve had those. But even a broken clock is right twice a day, and the negative ratings were spot-on for Trump nutjobs like Mizelle and VanDyke.

    Martinez is accomplished enough that he could get a Q rating from the ABA despite his years of experience. It’s more likely that Republicans will use his short time practicing to claim that he’s unqualified and make his confirmation vote a close one that lacks the Collins/Murk/Graham support. I suspect that Durbin, the biggest fan of blue slips to have ever lived, may want to go with a candidate that is easier to confirm given the tight timeline and other nominees who will require full Dem attendance.

    I’m also not convinced that this WH cares that much about this seat being filled by a Hispanic/Latino person – if it is, my money’s still on Maldonado. I wouldn’t underestimate the probability that they’ll go with one of the other district judges or some boring prosecutor/law firm partner that no one has mentioned (it’s Chicago, so there are plenty of those).

    Liked by 1 person

  27. keystone's avatar

    This is all a bit moot, right?

    I’m a big Nico fan and he’d be a phenomenal judge. Like it or not, he’d also be a bit outside of the normal guidelines. From what I’ve seen of Durbin, who is the home state senior senator, he is a big fan of abiding by the rules. I don’t see him stepping outside the lines here.

    On the plus side, Nancy Maldonado seems like a likely candidate for elevation. I just revisited the vetting room post about her and was kind of blown away by home many of the comments are about how how she should have been the nominee for the 7th over Lee and people hoping she’ll get to be on the 7th. It’s not like she’s a bad option.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      That’s an amazing feat considering Biden only had 2 circuit court vacancies when he entered office. And that’s not taking into account a 50/50 senate his first two years. And despite some bad picks such as Ramirez, Childs & Pan, we have gotten some phenomenal picks that should be on the SCOTUS short list for the next decade or so. I truly hope Democrats can pull off a senate miracle again this election.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Zack's avatar

        If they can pull off a senate miracle, I think the remaining Clinton/Obama judges who are eligible to do so will take senior status.
        Also not to be morbid but the few remaining George Sr/Reagan judges still in active service are in their mid 70’s or older.
        How many of them are going to be able to hang until the next Republican president?

        Liked by 1 person

      • dawsont825's avatar

        I think the consensus worst two circuit judges during Biden’s term are Judges Ramirez and Childs. In my opinion, I think Judge Chung hasn’t been as liberal as we hoped.

        I am surprised to see you think so negatively about Judge Pan (who basically filled every vacancy created by the elevations of KBJ). Would you mind explaining your rationale for considering Pan one of the worst? If not the 3rd worst.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Sure, for me there are several factors that lead me to name Pan as my third worst Biden circuit court judge…

        1. Her age. She was in her late 50’s when nominated. I’ve said plenty times before any circuit court judge that can’t be considered for the SCOTUS through the next presidential term (Assuming Biden is re-elected) is a wasted opportunity. So far only Beth Robinson & Nicole Berner (Once confirmed) would still be good enough (Both are progressive & would be the first LGBT justice if elevated) to still be considered for the SCOTUS despite their age. Both Pan & Childs are over 15 years older than Trump’s youngest pick to the same court. They are only two years younger than Obama’s youngest pick.

        2. If there were better options for the seat than that makes the pick worse. Beth Robinson was probably the best pick we could get from Vermont despite her age. However there were PLENTY of better options for DC. Even if you only considered local DC attorneys there were better picks but of course you can consider the entire country for the DC circuit.

        3. We had to backfill Pan’s district court seat. I only want wasting valuable senate floor time to backfill district court seats if the nominee is that good of a pick.

        4. Even if you wanted an AAPI judge, there were better picks. Dale Ho & Jennifer Nou both would have been rock star picks over Pan.

        Like

  29. Mike S.'s avatar

    I was disappointed (and a bit surprised) when I saw Rosendale was dropping out of the MT race after just one week. Tester can still pull it off, but not running against Rosendale makes it more difficult. We obviously need both Tester and Brown reelected to keep a Dem Senate and keep confirming judges.

    Question for the group: can a senior judge come off of inactive senior status and resume hearing cases after a certain time? I believe the answer is yes… assuming Judge Wright went senior early for health reasons, I am hoping she can recover from her affliction and resume hearing cases at some point on a part time basis. She is only 60, and could easy remain on the bench another 20+ years…

    Finally, more what it’s worth, I think this blog is best when the comments avoid personal attacks on others and stick to judicial nominations or related news, or politics related to the judicial process. Just my two cents!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      As to if a senior judge come off of inactive senior status and resume hearing cases after a certain time, I think it depends on what you’re asking. If you’re asking can they hear cases like a senior judge can then the answer is yes. Of course they can’t go back to full time active status but no reason they can’t take on the same role as a senior judge has.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      Yea definitely not common at all. Hopefully we get a phenomenal judge to replace Wright so she can sit back in peace knowing the district court of Minnesota is in good hands.

      Speaking of Minnesota, I believe last I cheered the Supreme Court had two vacancies there. Since the governor is term limited, hopefully we get two great picks there on his way out of office. He can reach out to New Jersey governor Murphy if he needs help.

      Like

  31. Dequan's avatar

    Here’s a great article @Ethan sent me. It talks about everything from blue slips, the 5th circuit to James Ho positioning himself as the next Supreme Court justice. It even has a picture of his swearing in which I didn’t know was held in Harland Crow’s home. Of course Crow flew Clarence Thomas out on his private jet for attend as well.

    (https://archive.is/hcx5O)

    Liked by 1 person

    • dawsont825's avatar

      That was an excellent article. Thanks for sharing.

      Makes me shutter when I think about the possibility of a Justice Ho *barf emoji* replacing Thomas for the next 35+ years. At the risk of going down another hypothetical slippery slope, we really need to put in the work to make the 5th circuit like how the 9th circuit is now. The chance to flip the circuit won’t come around for at least 15 more years, but to balance it out and have a ratio of: 9 GOP appointees to 6 Dem appointees would go a long way to taming some of the hackery coming from that circuit.

      I need a Justice Brad Garcia or Justice Alison Nathan more than anything. Plz God!

      Liked by 1 person

  32. Joe's avatar

    If it makes you feel better, James Ho is already 51 so if Biden is re elected that probably takes him out of the running of ever getting on SCOTUS. Although, I’m sure there are plenty of other hacks ready to take his place.

    Like

  33. Zack's avatar

    Fitting that the article on the 5th Circuit starts off with Reagan judge Edith Jones, who IMO was the canary in the coal mine for Republicans/conservatives plan to move the law to the far right.
    Put young far right hacks on courts at young ages so they will be entrenched for decades and thus can move the law to the right.
    In Jones cases, she was put on the 5th in 1985 when she was just 35 years old and built up a reputation so bad in a short amount of time George Sr was told not to even think of nominating here.
    Also, after eight years of Reagan and four more of George Sr, the 5th Circuit was already far right to the point there were articles written being written in the 90’s about how extreme they were, so this article, while bad isn’t a new thing, folks just weren’t paying attention as much.
    Also, when a chance came during the W/Obama years to fix some of the damage, Democrats dropped the ball and IMO continued that with whom they put to replace Greeg Costa.
    Frustrating as heck.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      Correct. We will need a new batch this week not to miss a hearing. And then after that it won’t matter if we have another batch two or three weeks later, it will be the same hearing due to recess weeks. So I would expect the administration to wait three weeks after this one for the following batch.

      Like

      • Rick's avatar

        I wish we could get one batch with over 10 nominees why can’t we EVER get a large batch.

        And they need circuit nominees to. I sure as hell hope they are not trying to play nice with GOP senators, because you know if Trump gets another term (heaven forbid) and the GOP controls the senate (heaven forbid) they are not going to worry about asking CA, NY, PA, senators thoughts on Circuit court nominees..They are just going to nominate people whether Democratic senators like it or not..

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Yea a double digit batch would definitely be great. Seems like those days are left in the Summer of 2022 sadly. I expect we will start to get circuit court nominees by April. I don’t see much chance before then maybe with the exception of the 7th if Durbin already had somebody teed up like Maldonado who recently has been vetted.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Hank's avatar

        The Dems are definitely playing nice with the GOP on circuit nominees – but this is partly (maybe largely?) because Dems really only have 49 votes + Sinema for confirmation (because Manchin has now started voting like Collins). We could’ve gotten much more progressive picks than Kolar and Pryor out of Indiana, for example. And given that both KS senators signed off on Federico, I’m curious if he will turn out to be more conservative than his record as a PD would suggest. On the other hand, the WH has also moved forward with Freeman/Bloomekatz/Johnstone over the objection of the GOP senator from those states because of strong support from the Dem senator.

        I imagine that the Tennessee seats (and maybe the Florida seat) will be the biggest indicator of the WH’s competence – I suspect that they are trying really hard to get the TN senators’ approval this time, but does anyone actually think that Blackburn is ever going to cooperate rather than obstruct the process? Maybe Rubio and Scott will be more cooperative, given that they’ve signed off on district court nominees, but I wouldn’t hold my breath. We’ll just have to see if the WH is bright enough to realize when the senators are just playing games and obstructing.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Joe's avatar

        Rick, they don’t do double digit batches because the admin prefers to have as few nominees “out there” at a time as possible. This minimizes the chances of blowback on any nominee and also gives them more time to vet nominees

        The only reason they broke this MO in summer 2022 was because of public pressure

        Liked by 2 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      @Rick

      I would give Nico Martinez a 5% chance of being the pick. I would give Nancy Maldanado a much higher chance, maybe 20%. But Nico Martinez would be a clear A+. He’s a decade younger & we wouldn’t have to backfill a district court seat for him. But knowing Durbin, he would likely go with her (Who I would give an A to) over Martinez.

      What I’m really afraid of is a lackluster nominee. John Lee was good but there were so many younger & more progressive possibilities. I’m afraid in an election year, Durbin may recommend somebody he may think can get confirmed earlier. My biggest fear would be Lindsay C. Jenkins or Jeremy C. Daniel. I truly hope he goes for a homerun.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Rick's avatar

        @ Dequan

        We here at Vetting Room are passionate about the courts, but I don’t think judicial nominees plays a big role for most voters. The people who view the courts as issue #1 or #2 are already safely in the D or R column. So I feel that even controversial nominees can still get confirmed, especially lower court ones.. Now maybe if the Democrats expanded the size of SCOTUS that would trigger a massive backlash, but not far left circuit or district court nominees…

        I’d bet Sen Brown doesn’t lose any votes because he supported Rachel Bloomekatz, and f he votes AYE for every remaining controversial nominee.. In my opinion, the people in OH who vote against Brown are already set no matter which judges he supports..

        Of course things would be easier if we had Obama’s senate majorities from 2009-2014, but even if Manchin continues to be a hard ass, Sinema has been very reliable to her credit (voting NO on Crews) and Schumer can schedule multiple controversial nominees when VP Harris is around..

        Liked by 1 person

  37. keystone's avatar

    Is there anything controversial about Nancy Maldonado? I don’t recall anything coming up during her hearing and during confirmation she got yeas form Graham, Collins, Murkowski, and Tillis. Have any of the cases she’s overseen as a district judge been questioned or criticized?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      No, nothing controversial about Nancy Maldonado. She’s progressive & would be a good pick. We would just have to waste time backfilling her district court seat & Nico Martinez is probably slightly more progressive, a decade younger & wouldn’t need a seat backfilled. But nothing bad to say about Maldonado.

      Like

  38. keystone's avatar

    Sorry, I was asking more because of the comment about “Durbin may recommend somebody he may think can get confirmed earlier”. I was trying to figure out if there was a Maldonado red flag I wasn’t seeing or if there was a recent case she’s was involved with that caused an uproar.

    Back filling is gonna be annoying… but keep in mind Durbin has already screened and vetted a list of candidates so he’s already may ahead of most of the current searches to fill openings.

    Liked by 1 person

  39. Hank's avatar

    I agree with folks that judicial nominees are not going to sway any swing voters, but the fact that Gaston/Edelman couldn’t get confirmed suggests that senators believe otherwise. They probably are worried as being attacked as soft-on-crime, and the GOP knows that – which is why they repeatedly use that tired attack on every other nominee.

    Martinez doesn’t strike me as any more liberal than Maldonado – despite his pro bono work, his day job is still at Bartlet Beck (which has historically been a pretty conservative law firm) and the vast majority of his time is spent representing/defending corporations in lawsuits. By contrast, Maldonado’s firm (which was Obama’s old law firm) focused mostly on plaintiff-side litigation, and Maldonado herself represented employees who had faced discrimination/mistreatment. They’d probably rule the same in 99% of cases, and I suspect Martinez would be more inclined to rule in favor of corporations.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if one of the names Durbin/Duckworth sent for the NDIL vacancies ends up being selected for CA7. Georgia Alexakis, the current chief of appeals at the NDIL USAO, seems the most likely of any of them. I’d prefer Karyn Bass Ehler since she seems the most progressive (and is the only one to have clerked on CA7) – even more so than Martinez. Magistrate Judge Heather McShane also fits the profile, but would be a disappointing pick for a blue state.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      @Hank

      I would love for you to be right that Durbin is considering some of the NDIL recommendations for the 7th. Especially Karyn Bass Ehler who like Nico Martinez, would be an A+. I could see them consider Georgia Alexakis like you said as well.

      Don’t sleep on Nico Martinez. He has had some pretty hot button cases including Rose et al. v. Raffensperger.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Aiden's avatar

        I think on the big button cases even Ramirez would join the liberals as she has so far in the en bancs polls.

        However majority of cases are not about the hot button issues. The majority of cases involve things including; the ordinary worker stuff like personal injury, negligence law suits or strong anti trust or whistleblower protections. It would seem to be more likely protected that Maldonado, would side with more the liberal position on those low profile every day cases. I think Is a genuine concern.

        Liked by 1 person

    • keystone's avatar

      Grayson Sang Walker would also be great. I was looking at him the other day when we were talking about Bar grade rules and bc he’s so young (b. 1985). He started as an EEOC trial Attorney in 2010 so he has over 12 yrs experience. He’s been an AUSA and has worked extensively at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Plus he’s Asian and, I’m pretty sure, LGBT.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Yea Grayson Sang Walker would also be an A+ along with Karyn Bass Ehler. I just don’t think they will put two AAPI men on the 7th while passing up the chance to replace Rover with another woman and/or putting the first Hispanic on the court. He very much should get one of the vacant NDIL seats if Ehler doesn’t.

        Like

      • Hank's avatar

        Walker’s EEOC experience is good, his stint as an AUSA less so – I’d say he’d be preferable better than Alexakis, but not as great as Ehler even if he is younger. I also agree that another Asian nominee from Illinois seems unlikely right after Lee. The CA7 seat is probably the easiest of all the circuit vacancies to fill since it’s the only one with no R senators, so I hope they pick a nominee and get him/her confirmed quickly.

        Liked by 1 person

  40. Ryan J's avatar

    Ever since Aiden talked about how Biden judges on the 9th circuit were taking longer to make their mark, I’ve been on a mission to find how much influence Biden judges have had on the 9th circuit.

    Last night, I looked at PFAW’s blog. It used to be about how Trump judges were causing wreckage but as of recent it has shifted to talking about cases where Biden judges had a positive effect. Even though Biden judges are still not making much of a mark, the 9th circuit still reaches a liberal result with the votes of its older liberal/moderate judges.

    Yesterday, I found a 7-4 en banc decision from November 2023 that temporarily struck down Idaho’s abortion ban due to its lack of exceptions. I had to do some digging, as PFAW only talked about Koh and Mendoza, but I finally found who was on the panel. 7 judges (Murguia, Gould, M. Smith, Owens, Forrest, Koh, Mendoza) voted to temporarily block the ban while 4 judges (Callahan, Miller, Bress, VanDyke) voted against it.

    As the 9th circuit moved rightward, its longer-serving judges, such as Murguia, Wardlaw, Gould, & M. Smith, have moved to the left, or at least have the perception of having moved to the left since the court has moved to the right. I remember looking at cases from a decade ago and back then, Murguia and Gould signed on to some conservative dissents, something that almost never happens today.

    Most importantly, this abortion case showed that even the moderate judges on the 9th circuit are willing to find a workaround to soften the blow of the Supreme Court’s decisions such as Dobbs. Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court let Idaho’s abortion law go into effect (the 9th circuit’s decision caused a circuit split with the 5th, which upheld an abortion ban w/o an exception for emergencies).

    For this, I would describe the 9th circuit court in this way: a moderate court that is willing to liberally embrace workarounds to moderate the Supreme Court shifting the law to the right. In John Roberts’s words, “the cases have swung” so far to the right that the 9th circuit takes the liberal side as much as it did back when it was a liberal court.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      @Ryan J

      Thanks for doing the digging into the cases. Owens was almost a true centrist initially so I’m happy to see him seemingly move to the left. Gould I believe is the most conservative Democrat appointee on the 9th so I hope he truly is moving to the left. I’ve long said with Whitehead now a district court judge, I hope he would consider senior status knowing there’s a good chance there won’t be a net negative on openly disable judges.

      Forrest is conservative but she wasn’t the first Trump pick for the seat so she’s definitely more to the left than who Trump initially wanted. Seeing M. Smith vote in the majority almost made me fall off my chair. He solemnly said in an interview he will die in his boots so I figured he would go down a hard right conservative the rest of his life so this was a pleasant surprise to read.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Ryan J's avatar

        Gould has made a number of recent notable liberal votes (this abortion case, upholding ban on conversion therapy, granting trans prisoner the right to gender reassignment therapy, voting to rehear a case that upheld a ban on gas stoves). He seems to be solidly liberal on social issues like abortion/LGBTQ+ rights as well as the environment. He’s historically been more conservative on immigration, criminal justice, & the death penalty but has joined a few of Berzon’s “statements” in the past year regarding those topics. I think Gould started out as a true moderate or even moderate conservative but now Gould is a moderate liberal.

        I would consider Gould to be left of Rawlinson and Owens. Rawlinson is pretty liberal on qualified immunity/4th amendment cases, socially conservative on LGBTQ+ rights, and difficult to ideologically identify on other issues. Gould joins liberal dissentals or “statements” more frequently than Rawlinson or Owens.

        Not as much data on Owens but he took this liberal vote on abortion and has also voted in favor of gun control. Owens is more conservative on criminal justice, death penalty, & 4th amendment cases (he was the only Dem to dissent from the 4th amendment case Egbert v. Boule, which SCOTUS reversed).

        M. Smith has a boatload of cases where he has taken both liberal and conservative viewpoints. For example, he joined a liberal majority for the Idaho abortion case but joined a conservative majority in an abortion funding case. In the past, M. Smith was a moderate conservative but now I consider him a true moderate. Although judges of any ideology may wish to “die in their boots”, M. Smith has suggested he doesn’t want to willingly let either party pick his successor… if he were hard right he would likely be going senior as soon as the next Republican president takes office.

        Forrest’s vote is a pleasant surprise, she saw how extreme Idaho’s abortion law is and wouldn’t let it stand.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Aiden's avatar

        I don’t think Owen’s has moved to the left. I think there has being some hot button cases such as Gun Control, abortion and other major liberal policies where he is more likely to side with liberals or some moderate proposition. What negates that benefit is that often on a-lot of civil cases and even some criminal cases Owen is noticeably more likely to join a more conservative or at least moderate position compared to even most of the other Obama, Clinton era judges.
        I read in an article they assessed I Believe Rawlinson and Owen’s, I may need to find that article.

        Liked by 1 person

    • CJ's avatar

      I don’t know if Bennett is moving towards the right or M. Smith is moving towards the center, but recently I’ve been seeing Bennett take much more conservative votes, while M. Smith join the liberals more often. I thought that Bennett was more moderate, but if this trend continues, M. Smith will become the most moderate conservative/GOP nominee on the 9th CCA if he hasn’t already.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Ryan J's avatar

        I would argue that M. Smith is the most moderate GOP appointee on the 9th. The only others who come close are Bennett, Miller, and Forrest. Bennett and Forrest join conservative en banc dissentals much more than M. Smith. Although Miller almost never joins en banc dissentals, his vote to keep Idaho’s abortion law in place cements his position to M. Smith’s right.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Aiden's avatar

      There was a comment underneath article I need to find where someone went through a painstakingly long process and did graphs and averages for everything from time been confirmation and decision, confirmation and first arguments, first disposition and I think first en bancs. In which they compared some of the first Biden appointees to Trumps. This supported the articles I’ve read and what I’ve seen that, do suggest less influence.

      I must say I hate having to wait to so long for them to make an influence or even hear cases. De Alba still hasn’t heard her first cases, Federico won’t till at least march either. So this months long period were they aren’t hearing or deciding cases can hurt liberals in close en bancs. I think the 4th and 5th have seen this. They have had extremely close or tie en bancs, that would have likely changed if the Biden appointee was nominated. I don’t think the 10th has yet, but for the time that Motz was out and Moderate rate of the current judges. It could have likely happened if they had some big hot button issue.

      I think of the 3rd circuit in their Range v Attorney General, the case was heard in the week between Reeves’s and Chungs confirmations, so Judge Chung did not hear it. I just think of situations that could arise in similiar timelines. With more tight cases that are more pressing

      Liked by 2 people

      • Dequan's avatar

        This is one of the main reasons I get upset at the length of time it takes Schumer to schedule circuit court confirmation votes. I’ve said numerous times before, every Tuesday Schumer should be sending a circuit court cloture motion to the floor. That should be followed by a Thursday cloture vote & confirmation vote early the next week.

        This should be done until there is no pending circuit court nominees. The idea that any non judicial nominee that is not a cabinet Secretary should get priority over a circuit court nominee in an election year where that non judicial nominee might be out of the job in the year, is ridiculous. A large batch of district court nominees can be confirmed in quick succession so Schumer needs to up the urgency on the three circuit court nominees. The deck needs to be as clear as possible with six vacancies with nominees coming in the next few months.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Aiden's avatar

      Thanks very much for this analysis! Love hearing people’s takes on different things. Would also like to say that in some cases those long waits I discussed are likely not different to the Trump Judges.
      Though I think it’s fair to say Biden Judges there is at least some disparity having being a bit slower.
      Yet I also think they are more collegial if that’s the appropriate word.

      I remember when Collins was first appointed, quite a number of 9th circuit judges spoke out about his aggressive en banc use despite not beginning to hear cases yet and his lack of judicial etiquette.

      Perhaps there is more restraint my Biden Judges.
      I also think they are less likely to use en banc poll dissents to call for the Supreme Court to take up the case for obvious reasons.

      Liked by 2 people

  41. Zack's avatar

    Some solid suggestions for the 7th, have to wait and see who the nominee is.
    As to the other Circuit court vacancies, the biggest issue with the 6th will be Gibbons and her senior status.
    Fairly certain we won’t get a Chad Meredith type nominated for her replacement but it’s also a safe bet that he or she isn’t going to be uber liberal either, as Gibbons likely won’t step aside if that is the case.
    One final point, folks on the Democratic side may not care about judges but Republican voters do, as 2016 among other years showed and by the few failed nominees we’ve had, I do expect that there will be a lot more centrist types in the final months then many of us will like.
    Even then, the soft on crime attacks will continue, Democrats will just have to hold firm on them.

    Liked by 1 person

  42. Lillie's avatar

    Something that I think might be underappreciated is that while probably not perfect all of the time, we are all very fortunate to have Murguia as chief of the 9th. Since in all cases where en banc is done on that court there are 10 randomly selected active judges and the chief by default.

    Just think how much worse off we’d be if it were a far right or even center right judge in that position.

    Liked by 3 people

  43. Zack's avatar

    It should be noted that after George W was able to put seven conservative judges on there that the 9th was nowhere near as liberal as people remember it, with hacks like Callahan moving the law to the right and openly talking about how she and other conservatives like to do SOS to the SCOTUS hacks on laws they wanted overturned.
    Sans the last two Carter judges Harry Pregerson (though he bought into Federalism) and Stephen Reinhardt (who was revealed to be a sleaze), none of the conservatives put on the 9th under Trump’s flipped seats, they simply entrenched the right wing viewpoint that were already on there, though it is annoying we will be dealing with many of them for the next 30-40 years.
    It’s why (though it won’t happen at this point) you want to see Gould, Warlaw etc. take senior status.
    This could be the last shot to replace them for a while.

    Liked by 3 people

Leave a reply to CJ Cancel reply