Judge Sanket Bulsara – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York

A longtime litigator and federal magistrate judge, Judge Sanket Bulsara is poised to join the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Background

Born in 1977 in the Bronx, Sanket Bulsara graduated magna cum laude from Harvard College in 1998 and then attended Harvard Law School, graduating in 2002. Bulsara then clerked for Judge John Koeltl on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

After his clerkship, Bulsara spent a year at the Los Angeles office of Munger Tolles & Olson LLP before joining Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP. He stayed there, becoming a Partner in 2012, until 2015 (however, Bulsara also spent six months as a Special Assistant District Attorney at the Kings County District Attorney’s Office.

In 2015, Bulsara became Deputy General Counsel at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and subsequently became Acting General Counsel in January 2017.

In 2017, Bulsara became a federal magistrate judge on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. He serves on that court today.

History of the Seat

Bulsara has been nominated to fill a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. This seat will open on December 19, 2024 when Judge Joan Azrack moves to senior status.

Legal Career

Bulsara started his legal career by clerking on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. After a year at Munger Tolles, Bulsara then worked at Wilmer Hale for a decade. Among the cases he worked on there, Bulsara represented Viviana Vittori, who was defending against the forced return of her children to Italy, where her ex-husband had moved. See Ermini v. Vittori, 758 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2014).

Between 2015 and 2017, Bulsara worked at the Securities and Exchange Commission, where he was part of the legal team working on the enforcement actions brought against Charles Kokesh for misappropriation of funds. See SEC v. Kokesh, 834 F.3d 1158 (10th Cir. 2016), rev’d by Kokesh v. SEC, 137 S. Ct. 1635 (U.S. 2017). Bulsara also worked on enforcement actions against John Saad on misappropriation allegations. See Saad v. SEC, 873 F.3d 297 (D.C. Cir. 2017).

Notably, Bulsara was part of the legal team representing the SEC before the Supreme Court defending proceedings against Bassam Salman, who was indicted for insider trading for trading based on information received from his brother-in-law. See Salman v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 420 (U.S. 2016). The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed Salman’s conviction. See id.

Jurisprudence

Bulsara has served as a U.S. Magistrate Judge since his appointment in 2017. As a magistrate judge, Bulsara handles matters related to pretrial release, warrants, and discovery, handles cases by consent, and presides over settlement conferences. During his time as a magistrate judge, Bulsara has also issued over 300 opinions.

Among the opinions he has written, Bulsara has:

  • Dismissed a defamation claim brought by a solo practitioner alleging that a blog post written by opposing counsel was defamatory. See Wexler v. Dorsey & Whitney, 18-CV-3066-SJB (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (available at https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3064&context=historical);
  • Granted a motion to compel medical records of the plaintiff, finding that the plaintiff had put her medical condition at issue in the case. See Vargas v. United States, 401 F. Supp. 3d 346 (E.D.N.Y. 2018);
  • Granted a motion to compel arbitration of a Fair Labor Standards Act claim. See Vargas v. Bay Terrace Plaza LLC., 378 F. Supp. 3d 190 (E.D.N.Y. 2019);
  • Granted a motion to exclude a defendant’s expert witness for failure to make inadequate disclosures under the federal rules. See Piepes v. Nai Entertainment Holdings LLC., 394 F. Supp. 3d 315 (E.D.N.Y. 2019).

Political Activity

While at Wilmer Hale, Bulsara made a number of political donations, including to President Barack Obama and then Senator Hillary Clinton.

Overall Assessment

Despite his youth, Bulsara has built up a legal career with extensive experience in the law, including as a practitioner and as a judge. His confirmation should be relatively straightforward.

159 Comments

  1. Dequan's avatar

    Under Obama, there were a number of judicial nominees from Munger Tolles & Olson. Not so much so under Biden, but I see we have one here. There were so many more progressive options for the EDNY but this is a decent nominee.

    Like

  2. keystone's avatar

    Joan Azrack only gave notice in December. I was a bit surprised by how quickly this nom came. The NY Senators aren’t really known for having a backlog of candidates.

    Even though he’s a Brooklyn based magistrate, given Bulsara’s experience with the SEC, I kind of wonder if they were vetting him for one of the SDNY seats and then just moved him over when Azrack announced.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Ethan's avatar

    As much as I would love another Dale Ho type nominee, I’m fine with someone like Bulsara with only 9 months left till the election. His experience going after white collar criminals pushes him to a B/ B+ grade for me.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Zack's avatar

    I think the reality is we aren’t going to be seeing too many more progressive type nominees going forward as campaign season heats up.
    Still, I’ll take anyone Biden offers (sans Chad Meredith types) over a Federalist Society type anyday.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. star0garnet's avatar

    Given the strong possibility of Biden working with a GOP senate in a year, I was wondering if there was precedent for this congress confirming judges that would be commissioned next congress. TLDR: it seems like it would be feasible, at least in one instance.

    What brought this to mind was the fact that Dolly Gee on CD CA will qualify for senior status on January 4, 2025, when there will certainly still be a Democrat in the White House, but control of the senate may have flipped. I don’t see this becoming a major phenomenon, as the only only other judges qualifying next year before March are Sharon Gleason on D AK (also on 1/4/2025; doubt we’ll see a nominee in AK this year, although two vacancies would increase the probability) and Renee Bumb on D NJ (on 1/25/2025; a typically conservative Bush appointee), and I don’t see Democrats abusing this, at least without Republicans having done it first. Going back a century, I found 13 cases of judges being commissioned during the congress after the one that confirmed them:

    Nine Art. III judges:
    Ernest O’Brien, ED MI: con. 3/2/1931, com. 3/4/1931 (est. 2/20/1931)
    John Barnes, ND IL: con. 3/2/1931, com. 3/4/1931 (est. 2/25/1931)
    Luther Way, ED VA: con. 3/2/1931, com. 3/4/1931 (vac. 3/3/1931)
    Frederick Lacey, D NJ: con. 10/13/1970, com. 1/26/1971 (est. 6/2/1970)
    Mary Murguia, 9th Cir: con. 12/22/2010, com. 1/4/2011 (vac. 2/12/2010)
    Fernando Olguin, CD CA: con. 12/17/2012, com. 1/16/2013 (vac. 5/14/2012)
    Jon Tigar, ND CA: con. 12/21/2012, com. 1/18/2013 (vac. 3/23/2012)
    Kai Scott, ED PA: con. 12/7/2022, com. 1/18/2023 (vac. 3/15/2021)
    Tamika Montgomery-Reeves, 3rd Cir: con. 12/12/2022, com. 2/7/2023 (vac. 2/6/2023)

    Four others:
    Warren Madden, Claims: con. 1/2/1941, com. 1/7/1941 (vac. 5/29/1940)
    Curtis Gomez, D VI: con. 11/21/2004, com. 1/28/2005 (vac. 1/3/2005)
    Ronald Buch, Tax: con. 1/1/2013, com. 1/14/2013 (vac. 11/1/2007)
    Albert Lauber, Tax: con. 1/1/2013, com. 1/31/2013 (vac. 9/8/2008)

    Montgomery-Reeves is the only instance where the vacancy occurred solidly in the succeeding congress. I’m not sure whether that was at Montgomery-Reeves or Ambro’s request, but at time of confirmation, the senate wouldn’t have known that the vacancy would occur during the following congress. Gomez is a borderline case in this respect; his predecessor’s term was set to expire in ~July 2005, but he went senior on 1/3/2005, the day of the congressional transition, and I’m not sure if he announced that ahead of time (like most territorial court seats, it wasn’t listed in the archive of judicial vacancies). So in every instance, the judge could have been commissioned during the congress in which they were confirmed, but weren’t, likely at the request of the new judge. In this respect, replacing Gee this congress would be a new precedent (at least in the past century), but it would almost certainly happen during the same presidential term (Gomez and Lauber being the only cases where they were commissioned during the following presidential term).

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      @Gavi would probably be the perfect person to answer this one. If I had to guess, I would assume a president can sign the commission of confirmed judge anytime during their term regardless of if the senate changes hands. Now I’m not sure if the same can be said during a presidency. For instance, if a judge announces they are going to take senior status in 2026, Biden wins re-election but the Dems lose the senate, I’m not sure the senate can confirm them at the end of 2024 & Biden could sign the commission in 2026 with a new presidential term. I know for instance had the senate confirmed a judge in 2021 & the seat became vacant January 19, 2025 Biden could still sign that commission even if Dems lost the senate in 2022.

      But it’s a moot point regardless. At the snails pace the senate operates combined with their adherence to “norms”, we would never have to cross that hypothetical anyway.

      Like

  8. Joe's avatar

    Theoretically, once a nominee is confirmed by the senate, Biden can sign the commission as long as he’s president. Doesn’t matter if it’s January 4, January 19, 2025, or January 19, 2029.

    I’m less certain on what happens if there’s a change in President but I believe a future president could still sign it as long as the seat is open.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      Oh ok perfect. Thanks for clearing that up. I guess the worry would only be a change from Democrat to Republican president (Or reverse). I’m sure had Hillary won, Mitch would have opened the flood gates to confirmation in Obama’s lame duck, especially for Garland. He probably would have tether any lame duck Obama nominees than a possible 8 years of Hillary in which Democrats almost certainly would have won control of the senate at some point during those 8 years. So there wouldn’t have been any worry in that case had a judge been confirmed for a seat that opened up after January 20, 2017.

      Like

  9. Zack's avatar

    On a different note, Allison Riggs has made clear she is committed to running to keep the Supreme Court seat she was appointed to so she’s very likely out of the running for James Wynn’s seat on the 4th Circuit.
    As to other nominees, I hope we see at least one Circuit Court nominee this week along with district court seats so we won’t miss a hearing.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      Well that’s a little sad because Allison Riggs would have made a phenomenal 4th circuit court judge. I wish her well for the SCOT-NC however. Speaking of state Supreme Court’s, Alliance for Justice had a nice write up on the races this year in their weekly newsletter. I will copy/paste below…

      “Thirty-three states will hold elections for at least one seat on their state’s highest court. Over the past year, these courts defined rights for their states such as voting rights, reproductive freedom, environmental protections, LGTBQ+ protections, and more. AFJ is monitoring a number of these state courts.

      Three incumbent justices on the Nevada Supreme Court are up for nonpartisan re-election in 2024 and will all run unopposed to retain their seats. In Mississippi, four seats on the state supreme court are up in 2024, and all four incumbent justices will seek re-election. As the two West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals justices expire later this year, the incumbent justice and Senate Judiciary Chair will run unopposed in a nonpartisan election.

      Additionally, several state justice nominees have been named to fill several state supreme court vacancies. Governor Maura Healey nominated Massachusetts Appeals Court Associate Justice Gabrielle Wolohojian to serve on the state’s highest court to fill the vacancy from the retirement of Justice David Lowy. In Wyoming, Republican Governor Mark Gordon appointed Cheyenne attorney Robert Jarosh to fill retiring Justice Keith Kautz’s seat on the Wyoming Supreme Court. Lastly, Republican Governor Bill Lee nominated Shelby County Circuit Court Judge Mary Wagner to fill the vacancy due to Tennessee Supreme Court Justice Roger Page’s retirement later this year.”

      Like

  10. Zack's avatar

    Gabrielle Wolohojian’s nomination is bad for a number of reasons but her ties to Maura Healey are too close to a conflict of interest for my liking and I hope her nomination fails.
    I know Republicans don’t care about stuff like that but IMO, this is one of the few things (unlike blue slips etc.) where you don’t cross that line just because the other side did.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      I honestly don’t think a close personal relationship with the person appointing somebody should be a deal breaker in itself. It’s not fair to somebody who is qualified to not be considered for elevation just because somebody they know is also successful. We have seen it done from both parties.

      This nomination should be rejected because it is a bad blue state nomination PERIOD. The idea that after the entire state Supreme Court had Republican appointees (I don’t care how moderate governor Baker was) to now have two vacancies & fill one with somebody so old, they can only serve for 7 years is ridiculous. And now I’m reading she’s barely left of center. This is simply an outright bad pick. I know they will use the relationship as an excuse & to be honest I’m perfectly fine with whatever excuse is needed to sink this nomination, but they really should take a stand & say they are rejecting her outright regardless of the relationship.

      Healy is a new governor & just like Hochul, she needs an early wake up call. Hochul had to be embarrassed into making good picks. I don’t care how it’s done but the same needs to be repeated in Massachusetts.

      Liked by 1 person

  12. Gavi's avatar

    Re: Future date judicial commission
    I don’t know if I read all the responses, but from what I read, Joe’s is correct. An announcement of an Office of the United States vacancy decades in the future may be processed now, ending in the signing of the commission to take effect when the vacancy actually opens up. But of course, this is just not done, so totally academic. You’ll need to have 1: a willing office holder 2: a willing senate, and 3: president, and it would be earth-shattering. A signed commission cannot be revoked by a future president, at least in theory.
    Also, overlapping congresses have no impact on a confirmation/issuance of a commission. It might sound like a lot of unnecessary fluff, but the words of a senate motion matter. Immensely.
    The maker of the motion (usually the Maj. Leader) has to say the following:
    “Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that… if any nominations are confirmed, the motions to reconsider be *considered made and laid upon the table* and the President be immediately notified of the Senate’s action.”

    Upon confirmation, the presiding officer affirms this language in the moment, which forever closes the possibility of a future senate undoing confirmation:
    “Under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the President will be immediately notified of the Senate’s action.”

    In plain English, since every action of the senate can technically be reconsidered, and theoretically be changed, this motion makes the reconsideration done immediately and considered settled (laid upon the table). So a future senate may no longer reconsider the confirmed nomination to withdraw it. Again, very academic.

    Thomas
    The Oliver thing isn’t illegal. You can’t be held to ethical standards if you are no longer on the court. Judges leave the bench for high paying jobs all the time. We could consider this a “job.” Would it be considered ethical? No, but I wouldn’t care, since it’s Thomas we’re talking about. I’d make a donation to help Oliver get to 1 million. But of course, Oliver was being tongue in cheek.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      @Gavi

      Absolutely spectacular explanation. Completely understood from what you wrote… On a side note, am I the only one that gets all giddy inside when I hear Schumer or any senator standing in for him start to say what @Gavi just wrote on the senate floor? With federal judges being my number one issue, I may not have a full understanding of what ” made and laid upon the table” means, I just know that means somebody is getting confirmed… Haaaa

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Haaaaaaa… Ah yes. The quarterly “We will stop at nothing to confirm judges even if that means working weekends & cancelling recess” letter. He usually sends it right around the time they add a recess day or before taking off earlier than usual on a Thursday so shouldn’t be too much longer now.

        I’d actually be fine with them taking a four day weekend if that meant us getting nominees for all three vacant New York seats. Maybe this time tomorrow my wish will come true but I doubt it. And can we please get a nominee for the EDWI tomorrow for God’s sake. I’m in the mood for another Senator Johnson excuse as to why he’s can’t turn in his blue slip for a nominee he recommended.

        Like

  13. Zack's avatar

    On what is going on in Massachusetts and how it compares to Hochul in NY with court picks, the giant elephant in the room in NY was how Janet Difiore screwed over Congressional Democrats in the redistricting hearing.
    Hector Lasalle was viewed by many as someone who would do the same thing and that is what sunk him in the end, not because he wasn’t viewed as progressive enough.
    I’m glad his nomination failed and that Hochul made better picks while being humbled a bit but IMO, the dynamics of what is going on in MA is different, thus the outcome might be as well.
    Have to wait and see.

    Liked by 2 people

  14. Dequan's avatar

    I know there’s still ten days left in the month, but February is coming close to not having any vacancies announced. I don’t believe we have had any month so far under Biden without at least one vacancy announced. We had six in January so I was hoping for at least one or two this month.

    Like

    • keystone's avatar

      I noticed that Jane Branstetter Stranch’s senior status notifications still hasn’t registered on the US Courts site.

      I seem to recall that when Rebecca Pallmeyer announcement appeared on there, the vacancy notification date was listed as being several weeks to a month earlier.

      I wonder if there are a few other senior statuses that have been filed on the backend but not yet broadcasted to the public.

      Liked by 2 people

      • star0garnet's avatar

        Certainly possible. But in the closest corollary we have (Obama with a GOP senate), in addition to Scalia dying and Restrepo being elevated, we saw 67 Art. III judges notify of their intent to resign/retire/go senior from November 2014 to October 2016 (so, when the CW was a Hillary presidency):

        11/2014: 1 (1 Bush Sr. district)
        12/2014: 2 (1 Clinton circuit, 1 Reagan IT)
        01/2015: 8 (1 Clinton circuit, 7 district: 2 Reagan, 1 Bush Sr., 2 Clinton 2 Bush Jr.)
        02/2015: 2 (2 Clinton district)
        03/2015: 4 (1 Clinton district, 3 Bush Jr. district)
        04/2015: 2 (2 Bush Jr. district)
        05/2015: 1 (1 Bush Jr. district)
        06/2015: 0
        07/2015: 2 (1 Clinton district, 1 Bush Jr. district)
        08/2015: 3 (3 Bush Jr. district)
        09/2015: 2 (1 Carter circuit, 1 Clinton district)
        10/2015: 2 (1 Clinton circuit, 1 Clinton district)
        11/2015: 0
        12/2015: 1 (1 Bush Jr. district)
        01/2016: 3 (1 Bush Jr. circuit, 1 Bush Sr. district, 1 Bush Jr. district)
        02/2016: 6 (1 Clinton circuit, 5 district: 1 Carter, 2 Bush Sr., 2 Clinton)
        03/2016: 3 (1 Bush Jr. circuit, 1 Reagan district, 1 Clinton district)
        04/2016: 1 (1 Bush Jr. district)
        05/2016: 4 (3 Clinton district, 1 Bush Jr. district)
        06/2016: 5 (2 Clinton district, 3 Bush Jr. district)
        07/2016: 2 (2 Bush Jr. district)
        08/2016: 3 (1 Obama circuit, 1 Bush Sr. district, 1 Clinton district)
        09/2016: 5 (2 Reagan circuit, 1 Reagan district, 2 Bush Sr. district)
        10/2016: 5 (5 district: 2 Reagan, 1 Bush Sr., 1 Clinton, 1 Bush Jr.)

        For totals of:
        Circuit: 1 Carter, 2 Reagan, 4 Clinton, 2 Bush Jr., 1 Obama
        District: 1 Carter, 6 Reagan, 9 Bush Sr., 18 Clinton, 22 Bush Jr.
        IT: 1 Reagan

        That two-year span saw two months without a single announcement. We’re currently set to have the following unannounced judges eligible for senior status before 2027:
        SCOTUS: 1 Bush Sr., 2 Bush Jr., 2 Obama (1 newly qualified next congress)
        Circuit: 5 Reagan, 4 Bush Sr., 9 Clinton, 18 Bush Jr. (2 new), 11 Obama (8 new), 2 Trump (1 new)
        District: 6 Reagan, 5 Bush Sr., 17 Clinton, 61 Bush Jr. (12 new), 58 Obama (36 new)
        IT: 1 Obama (1 new)

        Plenty of both liberal and conservative newly qualified judges would go senior, as would some tired conservatives satisfied that they did their part to try and prevent a liberal successor.

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        I always go by the Vacancy notification date on the judicial vacancy site. That shows January 31st for the last date. It’s kind of like new batches. The president can announce new nominees one day, but the official day is when they are sent to the senate. That’s why I used the January 31st date.

        And I definitely agree with Ryan J. The 41-day gap record definitely is in danger absent a senate miracle.

        (https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/judicial-vacancies/future-judicial-vacancies)

        Like

  15. Zack's avatar

    I will say for the EDWI it’s a reminder of how the blue slips for district court seats work both ways.
    The nominee Johnson wanted for that seat is a far right theocrat who stated on the record he believes LGBT people and women who get abortions will burn in hell.
    Not upset at all that he got blocked from a lifetime seat by Tammy Baldwin.
    Same in NDNY.
    Anne M. Nardacci’s was going to be filled by an anti-choice judge until Gillibrand stopped it with her blue slip.
    So as much as we don’t like it right now, it has been used for good on our side too.

    Liked by 3 people

  16. Joe's avatar

    Blue slips can be a good thing as long as both parties are willing to make reasons recommendations (as most senators have done the past 7+ years.)

    I think keeping them for District seats but not necessarily circuit seats makes sense when you consider that circuit decisions affect the entire circuit (and often the country) while most district court cases are limited to that particular state.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      The reason why I am against blue slips is for the very reason that I don’t think both sides are fair. Under Trump, almost all blue states at least had a deal in the works at some point.

      Washington state had three nominees until Trump railroaded them for the 9th vacancy. New Mexico had two pending nominees until blue slips were pulled after the ACB flip flop. Even in New Jersey where no judges were confirmed, that was mainly due to the way Trump shoved the judge down Booker & Menendez throat for the 3rd, only allowing them to interview the nominee a couple days before being announced if I remember what Booker said.

      On the other hand we have multiple red states that I genuinely see no chance of getting nominees for the entire 4 years of Biden’s first term. Without a Chad Meredith type as part of a package deal, there’s absolutely no chance for Alabama. Missouri is right behind. Arkansas only has one vacancy so no package deal there. And even a purple state like Wisconsin probably has little chance of getting a judge confirmed despite the Republican senator recommending possibilities on two different occasions.

      So to me both sides are not playing fair. I would rather just scarp them altogether at this point unless you’re willing to simply have two different justice systems. Plus as I have said in the past Democrats have won the popular vote 7 of the last 8 presidential elections so I am willing to take my chance on those odds in the future even with the electoral college.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Ryan J's avatar

        I think part of this is that Biden is more cautious than Trump when it comes to making nominations. I think Trump made some of those nominations w/o knowing whether Dem senators would return blue slips. Maybe Trump didn’t even know about blue slips because I feel like he would push to get rid of them if he knew about blue slips during his presidency

        Just imagine Trump tweeting something like “Thomas Marcelle, a great Trump judicial nominee, just withdrew his nomination because RADICAL LEFTY Kirsten Gillibrand said she didn’t like him! Why is the Senate allowing the RADICAL LEFT to block these amazing Trump judges? They support blue slips because they are WEAK. They need to grow a spine and stop letting the RADICAL LEFT block Trump judges!!!”

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Correct, the popular vote doesn’t decide the election. That’s why I said I would take my chances despite the Electoral College. And yes Democrats don’t have to turn in blue slips if they don’t like them. The problem is they do. That’s why we got far right judges in blue states like New York & Illinois under Trump. Which brings be back to my original point which is Republicans benefit much more with blue slips in play than Democrats if Democrats play fair much more so than Republicans do.

        Like

    • Ryan J's avatar

      I recall someone on this blog suggesting to pass a law that would keep blue slips in place so that the GOP can’t just bail on them once in power. However, that could mean judicial vacancies being open for decades if the president remained the opposite party of a state’s senators. So my tweak of this proposal would allow for a 60-vote threshold to override a blue slip (in cases where one senator is obstructing to the point of a judicial emergency). Unless one party gets 60 Senate seats, I believe that the obstructing senators’ party will only allow for a 60-vote override in judicial emergencies.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Gavi's avatar

        This whole construct is impossible as things now stands because of the simple reason that there’s nothing statutory/rule-binding about blue slips. As much force as it as, it’s still simply a tradition that could easily be dispensed with.
        The closest example is the filibuster. This is written in black and white in the senate rules. So things like the Congressional Review Act and the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 anticipated the filibuster.

        A much simpler proposal would be to codify the blue slip tradition in the senate rules. Then only UCs could surmount it, which I’d venture would almost never be agreed to. This is not to say that I am in any way advocating for this approach. Just giving you better options.

        Liked by 2 people

  17. Gavi's avatar

    @Zack Jones
    Anne M. Nardacci’s predecessor, Senior Judge Gary Sharpe, died a week ago.
    The Sharpe vacancy, from 2016, showed the good and bad side of Dems’ approach to the courts. On the one hand, Gillibrand (not Schumer!) blocked Thomas Marcelle with her blue slip. On the other hand, they allowed Trump to nominate Ryan McAllister, who was only a smudge better than Marcelle, and in exchange for Trump also nominating Jennifer Rearden to another vacancy!
    In the end, the Amy Coney Barrett SCOTUS nomination saved us when the NY senators withheld their district court blue slips in protest.

    I will rely on liberal judges having the sense to not retire under Republicans. In that case, I lean more toward keeping the blue slip for district courts. I can’t imagine little James Hos on SDNY.

    Liked by 3 people

  18. Lillie's avatar

    Saw per wikipedia (take that for what that’s worth) Wilhelmina Wright went inactive senior.

    Probably not really a surprise, but still a bummer. Hopefully it’s just a short-term illness and she gets better soon and can hear cases again if she wants to. Or she can retire and live her best life.

    I am not at all suggesting this is the case here and I highly doubt it, but I wonder if the certified disability system is ever used for strategic or not entirely honest reasons? Or how stringent is the verification?

    Again, please know I’m not suggesting or saying anyone has or should do this. To the contrary it would be awful for so many reasons. But I’m also curious.

    HOpefully that makes sense.

    Liked by 1 person

      • Lillie's avatar

        But is it a system that could be hypothetically used to time retirements by judges themselves if they wanted to take senior status/continue to take advantage of the ability to serve on a court when they may not otherwise be able to take senior status due to not fitting the rule of 80? Is that or has that ever been an issue or loophole that needs to be addressed?

        I was dancing around the question earlier because I didn’t want to suggest in any way that anyone did anything wrong by taking senior status if that made sense.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Oh I was answering your question with my answer. I was saying just like us regular people, I’m more than sure a federal judge could in theory lie in order to get certified for a disability to retire early. I was trying to say it would probably be just as easy if not easier for them to do it than us. I mean how many doctors are going to question a sitting federal judge that walks into their office & says they have (Fill in the blank) disability & give them a harder time than if you or me did it. So whatever the protocol is (Again that I don’t know), I’m sure it would be easier for them to get away with it if they tried.

        Like

  19. tsb1991's avatar

    While we’re all waiting for the Senate to return next week, the only thing to possibly look forward to is the possibility of new nominations tomorrow, so do whatever ritual you may do on the eve of a day of possible nominations.

    And speaking of inactive judges, apparently there’s still an inactive 97 year-old senior judge appointed by Nixon on the First Circuit.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      I hope they don’t make us wait all day tomorrow. Hopefully we know by 11ish in the morning.

      The last two batches we got a heads up on at least one nominee. The last batch we got a heads up on both South Dakota nominees. The batch before that we got a heads up about the Rhode Island nominee. No heads up for tomorrow.

      Liked by 1 person

  20. Zack's avatar

    @Gavi
    Sad to hear the news about Gary Sharpe, as he was a fair and impartial judge and how things used to be.
    As for Thomas Marcelle, that was the second time a blue slip was used to block him, the first time was back in 08 when Schumer used it on him.
    IMO, if he been in his 40’s instead of his late 50’s, he likely would have been a 2nd Circuit nominee.
    Glad he’s not on the bench at all.
    @Lillie, In regards to Wilhelmina Wright (or any judge in general) they could fake it a disability to take senior status early I suppose but if they get caught, they would be subject to prison time etc. so I don’t imagine it happens very often.
    As to coming back from inactive service to active, from what I’ve read there’s nothing to stop someone from doing but as far as I can tell, inactive more or less means retirement so I think Judge Wright is unlikely to be in active service of any kind ever again.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Gavi's avatar

      Hey folks,
      There’s a difference between faking a disability to optain early senior status and having a weak case for disability-related senior status. The latter might be done, but I would be surprised if the former is done to any measurable extent.
      First, there hasn’t been many takers for this.
      Second, this isn’t just “cough, cough. I am disabled. Can I go on early retirement with full pension please?”
      The disability has to be certified by the court’s chief and I think the SCOTUS chief as well.

      So there’s a verifiable process.

      Of course, a judge with a qualifying disability may still game the system to time their senior status. For example, Judge X found out that they have a qualifying disability in 2030. Judge X isn’t a fan of the current president and doesn’t want this president to name their successor so they decided to suffer through their disability and wait out this admin in the hope that a new president will be elected in 2032.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      Well looks like the front runner we all pretty much guessed for the 7th for it over my personal wish. Still an A & I’m happy the 7th will finally get a Hispanic judge. Also good to see they moved quick on one of the six circuit court vacancies.

      Looks like two fine picks for Arizona. Certainly happy two old Obama picks retired when they did so we can get two young judges to replace them. I have to look more into the DC judge. I’m happy we got a full batch today.

      Like

  24. Gavi's avatar

    The elevation announcement of Maldonado is more confirmation for my theory about naming an obvious candidate early in the process, not late (sucks for Camille McMullen).
    The WH must have been in a hurry to post these. The statement, still uncorrected at the moment, has Maldonado’s announcement for Georgia Alexakis.

    Liked by 2 people

  25. keystone's avatar

    Seems like Sooknanan is a sort of Jones Day whistleblower…

    “Sparkle Sooknanan, one of the [Jones Day’s] young stars, also spoke up. Born in Trinidad and Tobago, she had set out to New York at age 16, paid her way through college and law school and landed clerkships for federal judges, including Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Sooknanan had become a Jones Day partner earlier in the year at age 36. Now, on the call, her voice trembled as she denounced the firm’s work in Pennsylvania. “This lawsuit was brought for no other reason than to deprive poor people of the right to vote,” she said.

    Liked by 1 person

  26. Mike S.'s avatar

    Kudos to the White House Counsel’s Office. We are (finally) consistently getting between 4-6 nominees for every hearing. They seem to finally understand the urgency to fill these positions, let’s hope it continues with the circuit court nominees!

    Liked by 1 person

  27. Hank's avatar

    Wow, didn’t expect the Maldonado announcement so soon – is this the fastest the WH has ever announced a nominee for a vacancy? Rovner only went senior last month.

    Good on Durbin/the WH for moving quickly and picking her. I never thought Martinez was a realistic pick, and given how many employment discrimination cases the federal courts have, it’ll be great to have an employment law expert/former plaintiff’s lawyer on CA7. It’s also noteworthy that all the judges of color on CA7 will be Dem appointees (and all but one of the Dem appointees will be a person of color) while the Republicans are all-white. Could lead to some interesting en banc decisions/dissents on racial discrimination issues.

    Hopefully this means they’ll move quickly on Maldonado’s replacement on NDIL. I assume Alexakis is nominated to fill the Pallmeyer seat, so I’m hoping Karyn Ehler gets the other seat.

    Liked by 1 person

    • star0garnet's avatar

      This admin’s quickest times from public announcement of vacancy to announcement of nominee:

      0 days – Pan vice KBJ (for district court)
      0 days – Lawless vice Myerscough (though she’d notified four months earlier)
      12 days – Garcia vice Rogers
      14 days – Cunningham vice Wallach
      33 days – KBJ vice Breyer
      40 days – Maldonado vice Rovner

      Liked by 1 person

  28. Joe's avatar

    Just seeing the news on the other nominees. This is great news indeed. Glad they’re moving at lightning speed to nominate Maldonado. She seems like a no brainer and this one required little vetting. This demonstrates the importance of making good district nominations so that if necessary you can easily pluck a quality replacement.

    Liked by 1 person

  29. Gavi's avatar

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/02/20/judge-political-party-president-trump-marcus/

    1: I 100% agree with the practice of identifying the party of the president that appointed a judge. In fact, I get annoyed when this identifier is not included in news articles.

    2: A few weeks ago, I had a discussion on here with star0garnet (I think, sorry if incorrect) about the horrendous pick that Irma Ramirez was for me, but also a huge missed opportunity in less personal and more practical terms. star0garnet said the pick gets a 50/100. One of star0garnet’s biggest argument was that a moderate judge on a conservative court was more likely to persuade the conservative judges than a flaming liberal. This, as it turns out, isn’t what the data shows. star0garnet is the statistics whiz among us, so I am sure the study reference in this article will be appreciated:

    — Among other interesting findings, the impact of a panel composed of nominees of both parties was not symmetrical: “A lone Republican judge on a panel with two Democratic judges has a stronger ‘moderating’ effect on the panel majority than does a lone Democrat on a panel with two Republican judges.” —

    If a counter argument is that this might only be true for panels and not for en banc reviews, I’d love to hear why and the evidence that suggests that. En banc reviews were excluded from this study.

    It sucks that Dem appointees are so unilaterally deferential to Republican judges on panels. This is why we need more and more progressive judges.

    Liked by 1 person

    • aangren's avatar

      You couldn’t have said it better gavi putting irma ramirez on the court was an absolute disgrace a right of center nearly 60 year old nominee to replace someone nearly a decade younger was a disgrace. When the other side nominates open charlatans and bad faith actors like james ho and kyle duncan you dont appease them nor the bad faith senators who supported their nomination by a milquetoast nominee like irma ramirez, ted cruz must still be laughing till this day.
      This new batch was a solid one you can always rely on eleanor norton holmes to put up good candidates for the district courts.

      Liked by 3 people

    • star0garnet's avatar

      I refuse to give money to this disgraceful version of WaPo, so I’m lacking context here. No intention of getting back into an argument, but I’d just clarify that I rate Ramirez a failing 50/100 as a job applicant on a scale of James Ho to Nancy Abudu, and I don’t put a lot of effort towards contextualizing a nominee’s score for the sake of the administration.

      Liked by 1 person

      • star0garnet's avatar

        Interesting study, thanks.

        I’m not how the study would be pertinent to determining the influence of a centrist vs. a flaming liberal. The study doesn’t make an attempt to classify the ideology of specific judges, so there’s no way to control for conservative Dem appointees or liberal GOP appointees, let alone something more subtle.

        Every 20th-century president drew a significant portion of their circuit court appointments from the other side of the ideological spectrum (except perhaps Harding, who only made a handful). A major issue, however, thanks largely to Southern conservatives, was that Dem presidents generally appointed conservatives at twice if not triple the rate that GOP presidents appointed liberals. With a dataset from 1985 to 2020, I’d guess at least 3/4 of the 2 million sittings included were by judges appointed by 20th-century presidents. That on its own I believe explains most of the disparity (e.g. you can infer from their data that among “ideologically salient” cases where a RRR and DDD panel would diverge, an RRD panel sides with the RRR panel 78% of the time, while a DDR panel only sides with a DDD panel 48% of the time). I’d be more interested in the study’s findings if it specifically excluded a few dozen judges’ cases. Or you could re-analyze in 20+ years when the Helene Whites and Julie Carnes are so rare that they barely impact the data.

        The study also doesn’t analyze rulings beyond which side won. My argument before was more along the lines that I expect Ramirez to be more successful at getting Ho to moderate a horrendous, nationally-damaging, precedent-setting decision into a run-of-the-mill bad decision than a firebrand liberal would be, not that she’d change his mind on the winner.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Gavi's avatar

        Then I guess I just don’t understand what’s the argument for having a Ramirez-type nominee over a Dale Ho-type on a conservative court. Sure, the Ramirez-type as a minority on a panel won’t change the winner. Nor, per this study, would the Ramirez-type as a minority on a panel “moderate” the James Ho-types.

        Your argument, if I understand it, seems to be that the Ramirez-type judges moderate the James Hos, even if the Ramirez-type judges can’t persuade the James Hos to pick the weaker party as winners. The study contemplates your argument and disproves it. In that case, why should we think that Ramirez is anything other than a huge missed opportunity? We should just go with the Dale Ho type.

        Liked by 1 person

      • star0garnet's avatar

        There is no ‘Ramirez-type’ in this study, only Dem vs. GOP appointees, so for their purposes, Ramirez and Dale Ho would be the same. The study also defines ‘moderating’ as flipping the panel’s decision, while I define it as causing a tangible movement towards a centrist’s POV between the first draft of a decision that’s distributed to co-panelists and the decision that’s handed down. I don’t think the study touches on true moderation at all; it simply picks up on the impacts of historical patterns of the ideological distribution of parties’ appointees.

        During this uber-conservative period on SCOTUS, I see one of the most important priorities regarding the judiciary as slowing the pipeline of democracy-endangering decisions from the 5th, 8th, and 11th to Alito’s doorstep. SCOTUS is often far more deliberate and slower at reaching those decisions when it has to come up with them scratch, requiring multiple cycles of litigation rather than one simple affirmation.

        I’d rather have Dale Ho on the 5th than Ramirez, but I don’t think the practical difference between them (provided they’re both replaced by a Democrat) is anywhere near what it would be on a moderate or liberal circuit. If the 5th gets more moderate in a decade or so, he’d be more of an asset. But until that point, I see it as distinctly possible that Ramirez would have a tangibly more positive impact on the courts’ decisions (their text and impact, not simply the winners). And my hope is that around that time, Ramirez will go senior and be replaced by a Dale Ho equivalent.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      Well Nancy Maldonado was my #1 seed (Despite me wanting Nico Martinez) so I already graded her as an A. Mostly taking off the + because we have to backfill her seat & we had younger possibilities just as, if not more progressive. But as long as we get the first Hispanic for the 7th I’m happy.

      Georgia N. Alexakis (c. 1978) was who I thought would be picked first after the new list of six got released. I’m very familiar with her. A good pick, I just felt there were two better out of the six. But she’s probably the most qualified out of the six… A-

      Krissa M. Lanham (c. 1980) – A good nominee. Her being involved in prosecuting human trafficking will likely glide her to confirmation along with the home state senator backing her. Her being in her low 40’s is very good… A-

      Angela M. Martinez – (c. 1973) – I’m familiar with her. A good pick but younger & more progressive possibilities, even if just Arizona Latinas… B+

      Sparkle L. Sooknanan (c. 1980) – A whistleblower, progressive Democrat that clerked for liberal judges & is married to a civil rights attorney. Oh yes & she’s in her low 40’s… I’ on the fence with this one. I’m gonna say A right now but teetering on an A+.

      Liked by 1 person

  31. Joe's avatar

    If my math is correct, if we assume that all of Biden’s nominees will eventually be confirmed that would mean a total of at least 208 Article III judges confirmed (1 SCOTUS, 44 Appellate, 161 District, 2 International Trade) during his first term.

    If you include all of the vacant circuit seats (1st, 4th, 6th, 6th, 11th) and all of the blue state district judges (19 total if my math is right) then that would be 232 total. Right now, there’s no reason they couldn’t get to at least that number.

    On top of this, there is also the possibility of additional seats in circuits/blue states opening up and the possibility (however rapidly diminishing) of another red state package.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Hank's avatar

      Not surprised that the TN seats are taking longer than the IL seat.
      I suspect that Stranch going senior likely pushed back the timeline for filling the Gibbons seat – the WH may be trying to see if they can get a deal with Blackburn/Hagerty to return blue slips for both circuit vacancies. For their part, Blackburn/Hagerty are likely using that as a pretext to draw out the process in hopes of leaving both these seats unfilled until after the election.

      I honestly can’t imagine Blackburn making any kind of deal – she even voted against Ramirez. At best, maybe Blackburn would sign off on replacing Gibbons with an outright Republican and Stranch with an Irma Ramirez-esque Dem (which would move CA6 to the right since Stranch is pretty liberal). The WH would be stupid to accept such a deal. It honestly needs to just accept that both the TN seats are going to be tough confirmations (probably with Manchin voting against the nominees) no matter who they choose, so they might as well just name someone already.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Gavi's avatar

        “At best, maybe Blackburn would sign off on replacing Gibbons with an outright Republican and Stranch with an Irma Ramirez-esque Dem…”

        I included this very scenario as a likely possibility a few weeks ago but was told that the Ramirez nomination was a one-off that represents a standard deviation for Biden.

        Liked by 2 people

      • star0garnet's avatar

        It’s worth noting that this would still be relatively quick for this admin to name a Gibbons replacement. Their quickest red state circuit nominee after announcement was Pryor, at 174 days. Mathis took 183 days, and the next-quickest was Benjamin at 313 days. Gibbons is sitting at 187 days. I hope the admin will stick around the six-month mark for all of these red state circuit vacancies, but in TN, I’d happily settle for the average of Gibbons and Stranch being six months.

        Liked by 1 person

  33. aangren's avatar

    Yet i expect biden to fully do just that and negotiate and find every way to appease blackburn, he negotiated with a charlatan and demagogue like ted cruz who is even far more vile than blackburn so why would this be any different? I expect irma ramirez 2.0 for the gibbons seat.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Frank's avatar

      Let’s wait to see who the nominee is before we start complaining about them, shall we? Remember that in addition to the TN senators, Gibbons can choose to pull her senior status if the nominee is not to her liking, so even if Biden wanted to ignore the TN senators he still has to proceed with that knowledge. The Biden Administration also isn’t going to ignore that millions of people voted to elect the current TN senators, and as their representatives will consult with them on the vacant seats. You don’t have to like Blackburn (I for one detest her), but TN voters love her and that’s all that matters.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Frank's avatar

        That was under a different WHC and they got a significant amount of pushback from that. I don’t see Biden nominating anyone who doesn’t have both blue slips for a circuit court seat going forward, especially right before the election. At this point, it has been roughly 2 years since a nominee who didn’t get both blue slips was nominated.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Exactly what I was about to write @Frank. Biden can ignore Blackburn & Haggerty all he wants for both 6th vacancies but for one of them he can’t ignore Gibbons who is a lifelong Republican. Remember we are now less than 11 months away from the possibility of a Republican president being in office. Even if she was on her death bed, as long as she has breath in her body she can always rescind & if her heart continued to beat just wait out the clock.

        I think everyone on this blog knows I love nothing more than young progressives for all circuit court seats. But I’ve said before there are exceptions to every rule. This is one of those exceptions because doing so could lead to the judge withdrawing & staying on the bench. I’m fine with either of the U.S. Attorneys or McMullin for this seat. The administration should try to nominate somebody in that gain quickly for this seat & wait a few months for the other seat. Fast track whoever is nominated for this seat & once they are confirmed & Gibbons is officially retired, proceed to the Andre Mathis treatment once again if need be to get an A or A+ nominee.

        Liked by 2 people

  34. Joe's avatar

    Here is a list, as best I can determine from the US Courts site, of those blue state vacancies:

    D Massachusetts
    SD NY
    SD NY
    WD NY
    D Vermont
    ED PA
    ED PA
    MD PA
    D Maryland
    CD Illinois
    ND Illinois
    D Minnesota
    CD CA
    CD CA
    CD CA
    SD CA
    ND CA
    D Arizona
    ED Washington

    The senate will return after Easter on April 8, so I would expect to have the next SJC hearing on April 10 or 17. Which means the next batch should come March 13 or 20.

    Liked by 1 person

  35. Zack's avatar

    I know many of us wanted Martinez but besides the issue of how many years he had been practicing law, Judge Rovner made pretty clear in her exit interview about how she was the first woman on the 7th Circuit and how it was good to see those numbers increase.
    I don’t think she would have been happy with a man replacing her.
    Nancy Maldonado is an excellent choice and everyone should be happy with her.
    As to the article posted, the harsh reality is that Republicans control SCOTUS thus if a Republican Circuit court judge thus it’s not a surprise Democratic judges will defer to their Republican cohorts more often then the other way around, especially if it’s an issue they want a positive ruling on.
    Because you have to go with an argument that can get conservatives to go along with it.
    Stinks but that’s what happens when one side decides to sit out elections or vote third party in presidential elections (2000 and 2016) or in mid terms (14,10) while the other side doesn’t.

    Liked by 2 people

  36. Zack's avatar

    One more thing, Sparkle L. Sooknanan’s nomination makes it official, Todd Edelman’s nomination is done for.
    Sucks that he got denied a seat twice, especially since the second time was due to a smear job.
    Also shows we are unlikely to get too many more progressive nominees, especially if they have rulings or writings that can be used against them, as Democratic senators in tough races will be unlikely to go for them.

    Liked by 1 person

  38. keystone's avatar

    For the Gibbons seat, we’ve always talked about Camille McMullen and Kevin Ritz as being the likely successors. Are they good candidates or just good compromise candidates? If they aren’t negotiating with the Senators, who would be the preferred candidates for that seat (let’s try to focus suggestions on the Memphis area)?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Gavi's avatar

      “For the Gibbons seat, we’ve always talked about Camille McMullen…”
      I actually think it’s the opposite. Most here assume that McMullen will *not* by the likely candidate, between her (token) candidacy for the state supreme court and the long length of time it would have taken to name her, etc.

      Liked by 1 person

  39. IrvineOnlooker's avatar

    I do have problems with Judge Ramirez’s age on the 5th Circuit, but there is absolutely zero evidence she is a “right of center” judge. The 5th Circuit has published a few denial of en banc orders and every time Ramirez has sided with the liberal bloc on the court. Contrast this w Judge Ariana Freeman who joined the right-wing majority opinion on the 3rd Circuit regarding the 2A. In that case, even though Tamika Montgomery-Reeves also was in the majority, she joined the concurring opinion by the liberal judges.

    Liked by 5 people

  41. Zack's avatar

    @Dequan, 100% in your post about Gibbon’s seat.
    It’d be one thing if she took senior status outright but she didn’t and that IMO is the biggest reason we’ve seen a delay with her seat, with the Stranch announcement likely furthering complicating things.
    Because now it’s a question of do you nominate people to both vacancies at the same time or get Gibbons out of the way first so you can nominate a progressive/moderate candidate to Stranch’s seat down the line while telling TN’s senators to shove if need be without worrying what she (Gibbons) will do?

    Liked by 2 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      I would definitely fill Gibbons seat & fast. Whatever Thursday the nominee is voted out of the SJC Schumer should send their cloture motion to the desk the following Monday. As long as the other seats nominee is announced by June, confirmation should still be good of course barring any change in the senate completion or long term absence.

      Liked by 1 person

    • tsb1991's avatar

      Yeah, I didn’t expect a hearing next week, since it will only have been 3 weeks since the previous batch of nominations was announced. We should still be on track for two hearings, on 3/6 (for the last batch) and 3/20 (for today’s batch), during this upcoming four-week session.

      We should see a business meeting to be posted tomorrow. I expect the red state nominees from December to be voted on (wonder if any voice votes are on the table). Hopefully the nominees who had hearings on the 9th will at least be listed and held over to set them up for a vote on the 7th (it will have been three weeks since their hearings which should be plenty of time for questions to be answered and whatnot).

      While none of the red state nominees voted out of committee in January had voice votes (Florida, South Carolina, Indiana), I wonder if part of that was a gambit by Republicans to just force votes on everyone and run up against the two hour window for hearings, which nearly succeeded. That at least shouldn’t be on the table with a couple of red state nominees that they’re not going to fight over.

      Liked by 2 people

  43. keystone's avatar

    Another person who might be a good replacement Gibbons is Karen Hartridge.

    – Memphis native
    – Born C. 1977
    – Deputy Criminal Chief of the WDTN National Security and Civil Rights Unit.
    – Prior to that she was a WDTN AUSA for 9 years
    – Before that she managed a team of lawyers with the Dept of Veterans Affairs.
    – 2 donations to Obama

    Not a ton of information about her online, but she, her father, and her son did participate in a NPR interview discussing the impact on MLK Jr’s legacy on 3 generations.
    https://www.npr.org/2018/04/04/599361730/3-generations-in-memphis-on-martin-luther-king-jr-s-legacy

    She wouldn’t get Senator sign off, but she could be a solid candidate and wouldn’t freak out Gibbons, or vulnerable senators. Might be worth checking out.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      Karen Hartridge doesn’t seem bad but I would think if a Black woman gets it, McMullin is more likely to be the pick. But she does have a good life story. Perhaps her going to an all white school growing up could be a plus in swaying Blackburn & Haggerty to turn in blue slips for her to the district court if one of the U.S. attorneys or another White man is chosen as a package deal to replace Gibbons.

      Like

  45. Dequan's avatar

    Expect to see Sparkle Sooknanan get grilled at her SJC hearing on the Lee & Jackson statues work she did on behalf of the Charlottesville City Council. And great work she did down in Puerto Rico as well. I didn’t know she was involved in that important case until I just read this article below. She’s definitely a high A. I wouldn’t argue if anybody said she was an A+.

    https://www.mondaq.com/pressrelease/58894/three-jones-day-partners-named-2020-dc-rising-stars-by-national-law-journal#:~:text=Jones%20Day%20partners%20Shirlethia%20Franklin%2C%20Yaakov%20Roth%2C%20and,for%202020%20by%20the%20National%20Law%20Journal%20%28NLJ%29.)

    Liked by 1 person

  48. Joe's avatar

    It’s actually been three district judges so far, and as far as I can tell all three are Democrats

    Regarding Ramirez, it’s really been discussed ad nauseum. Yes she is 59, but there’s also really been no indication she’s to the right of the judge she replaced. It stinks but not really a loss unless she unexpectedly has to retire early under an R administration. I’d still probably give it a C, but far from the end of the world.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Gavi's avatar

      @Mike
      I can never forget it. Truly the worst Dem circuit court pick ever.

      Sorry, Joe, few would give her nomination anything other than a big fat F. You and your namesake must endure the shame of the nomination. Pace yourself, since she’s the most horrendous nominee, expect her name to be invoke a lot more.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        I might give Ramirez a C if she was picked for Gibbons seat. That’s due to it being a Republican judge, the effective date being upon the confirmation of her successor & there being less than 9 months until the election. I can’t think of any of the other 48 circuit court vacancies Biden has had that I would give Ramirez higher than a F+. It’s truly a historically bad pick. I’m sure Cruz & Cornyn are laughing with each new Texas-less batch.

        Like

      • Gavi's avatar

        Ramirez is an F given all the factors. Ramirez as a replacement for Gibbons would have involve different factors, not least timing and conditional retirement, like you mentioned. The only thing that could have made her an even worse pick was if she was a blue state nominee. Pace yourself, Joe.

        Liked by 1 person

  49. Zack's avatar

    Sparkle Sooknanan sounds like a great nominee and I expect she will get attacked over some of the work she did but I don’t think they will have the same impact as you released someone on bail and he killed a child smear that worked on Edleman.
    I expect she’ll be confirmed, albeit by a party line vote.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      Speaking of Tood Edleman, I do feel bad for him. He deserved to be confirmed in both 2016 & December 2023 when numerous Republicans were out. But I will stand by my comments I made after the governor Hochul debacle.

      When progressives fight against bad nominations, we almost always get a better nominee. Hochul was embarrassed into making two good picks. Seth Arame is much better than Michael Delaney. Richard Federico is better than Jabari Wamble (Despite me wanting more Black men on the circuit courts). Sparkle Sooknanan is both young & progressive, borderline A+.

      I expect a better nominee from the EDWA. With Butler & Padilla in charge, I fully expect at least as good if not better than Gaston. Now we just need the same scenario to play out on the SCOT-MA.

      Like

      • shawnee68's avatar

        In California we have the two worst Senators. Neither of them belong there.

        I think Gavin Newsom will pay for placing Padilla and Butler in the Senate.

        Butler doesn’t live in California and she rarely comes back here. This guy Padilla did not bother find at least one black man for the 9th Circuit.

        I am not a fan of racial identity politics or in staffing the federal judiciary. But, there are 50 judges on 9th circuit and not one black guy.

        A few blocks away the California Supreme Court has 2 black women and one black guy on a 7 member court.

        I think I will reach out to his office and remind him of that.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment