Krissa Lanham – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona

Krissa Lanham, who currently serves as the appellate chief in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Arizona, has been nominated for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.

Background

Krissa M. Lanham received a B.A. summa cum laude from Yale University in 2002 and a J.D. from Yale Law School in 2007. Lanham subsequently clerked for Judge Robert Chatigny on the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut and then for Judge Barry Silverman on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Lanham subsequently joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Arizona, where she has served since, including as Appellate Chief since 2020.

History of the Seat

Lanham is being nominated to replace Judge Douglas Rayes, who has announced that he will take senior status on June 1, 2024.

Legal Career

Other than her clerkships, Lanham has spent her entire career at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Arizona. Lanham currently serves as Appellate Chief for the office and has handled many appeals before the Ninth Circuit. Among the cases she has handled, Lanham has:

  • Argued to affirm the district court’s sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice. The Ninth Circuit disagreed due to a lack of factual finding by the district judge and remanded for re-sentencing. See United States v. Castro-Ponce, 770 F.3d 819 (9th Cir. 2014);
  • Persuaded the Ninth Circuit not to quash a grand jury subpoena to Glassdoor (represented by now Ninth Circuit Judge Eric Miller). See In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 875 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. 2017);
  • Defended the United States in a Federal Tort Claims Act suit alleging that the Federal Highway Administration caused the plaintiff’s father’s death. See Booth v. United States, 914 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2019);
  • Argued before the en banc Ninth Circuit in favor of a mandatory life sentence imposed upon the juvenile defendant for his role in a robbery that ended in murder. See United States v. Briones, 929 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2019) (en banc);
  • Argued to overturn a grant of habeas relief for a defendant sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act’s residual clause (later struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutionally vague). See United States v. Orona, 923 F.3d 1197 (9th Cir. 2019);
  • Argued that a one-on-one communication can qualify as a “notice offering” child pornography under federal law. The Ninth Circuit agreed. See United States v. Cox, 963 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2020);
  • Argued successfully before the en banc Ninth Circuit to affirm that Second Degree Murder can qualify as a “crime of violence” under the Armed Career Criminal Act. See United States v. Begay, 33 F.4th 1081 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc);
  • Argued successfully to reverse Judge James Soto’s disqualification of the entire U.S. Attorney’s Office from a series of prosecutions based on allegations of potential misconduct against one prosecutor. See United States v. Williams, 68 F.4th 564 (9th Cir. 2023).

Writings

Starting with her time as a law student, Lanham has written multiple articles on the law, particularly in international law. For example, as a law student, Lanham wrote a paper discussing the standards of appellate review in the ad hoc International Criminal Tribunals. See Krissa Lanham, “Elusive Abominations”: Standards of Appellate Review in the Ad Hoc International Criminal Tribunals, Int’l Law Research & Writing (Apr. 20, 2007) (available at https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/17759/Krissa_Lanham___Standards_of_Appellate_Review.pdf?sequence=2). Lanham also co-authored a report on the failure of the judiciary in Indian-Administered Kashmir to handle human rights claims. See Manav Bhatnagar, Krissa Lanham, and Bidar Sharma, The Myth of Normalcy: Impunity and the Judiciary in Kashmir, Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic (April 2009) (available at https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/Intellectual_Life/Kashmir_MythofNormalcy.pdf).

More recently, Lanham has written to offer advice to advocates giving remote oral arguments during the Covid-19 pandemic. See Eric M. Fraser and Krissa Lanham, Remote Appellate Oral Arguments, Arizona Attorney (March 2021).

Political Activity

Lanham’s sole political donation of record is to Democratic Congressional candidate Lauren Baer in 2017, who was a classmate of Lanham’s at Yale Law School.

Overall Assessment

While Lanham’s entire legal career has been spent at the U.S. Attorney’s Office, she has racked up experience there on both the criminal and civil sides. Given this background, she will likely be comfortably confirmed to join the busy Arizona District Court.

87 Comments

  3. I’m not surprised she’s spent her career working in government. Born in 1980 and graduated law school in 2007, she’s the perfect age to have entered the work force at the exact moment of Obama’s “Yes We Can” movement.

    There were a lot of intelligent, idealistic young professionals, born late 70’s/early 80’s, who went into government around this time because they wanted to make a difference. I think we sometimes look at this group today and just write them off as being standard government types.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. She’s getting the Phoenix vacancy and Martinez is getting the Tucson vacancy. There is still one more Phoenix vacancy. It wouldn’t surprise me if we get a Latino man as Martinez is replacing James Soto, the only Latino man on the court.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. SJC meeting voting finished up. Klobuchar wasn’t at the meeting which was expected, but since none of the nominees were party-line votes her presence wasn’t needed.

    No voice votes were done.

    -Allen was a unanimous vote
    -Bazis was 18-3 (Cruz, Hawley, Cotton voted no)
    -Gonzalez, Schydlower, and Rankin were 20-1 (Hawley voted no)
    -Meriweather was 12-9 (Graham voting yes)

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Good news that the nominees advanced without Klobucher. I suspect that next week will be much more contentious.

    I actually disagree with the sentiment that these nominees should be put to the backburner. Personally I would take the opposite approach and push them through quickly. It may fall on deaf ears, but it sends a signal that the WH/senate takes these vacancies seriously and maybe they can get another handful of red state nominees this year (particularly in Texas where there’s still 5 vacancies).

    Liked by 3 people

  10. Business meeting posted for next Thursday, everyone held over today should be voted out tomorrow.

    Senate looks to pass the CR tonight. They’re doing a rapid series of amendment votes that end in the CR getting passed. Sounds like they’ll be back at it next week, we’ll see if any cloture motions get sent out at the end of the night.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Schumer sending cloture motions. The following were sent for positions I’ve never heard of before;

    Assistant secretary of defense nominee

    Federal mine & safety commission

    Merit systems & protections board

    Like

    • Since government funding is partially up I believe on the 8th, it sounds like they’ll do a last minute funding bill again? Which beats the alternative where they spend the entire week running a postcloture clock and not being able to do anything in between. I think it’s something like 6 appropriations bills rolled into one and would clear us for the rest of the fiscal year for those departments.

      Given that the remaining nominees on the calendar today are all expected to be party-line votes (since he can’t file cloture on the nominees voted out of the SJC today just yet), I’m guessing Schumer didn’t want to take a chance on an absence or two scuttling a vote so he went with whatever in the world those nominees are. At least they’ll be voting on nominees and not using up the entirety of the day running a postcloture clock on a funding bill.

      Best case scenario is cloture for an appeals court nominee to be filed on Tuesday. It could be the afternoon vote for Thursday if the Senate intends on doing another late-night session to pass the next funding bill.

      Liked by 2 people

      • I really hope they can get a long-term budget done this time. At least something that will bring us past the election. Hopefully next week they can clear everything out so at least the last two weeks before the Easter recess after an be dedicated to judges.

        The three circuit court nominees would likely take up the 3 day shorten week the full week could knock out most, if not all of the district court nominees. The deck really needs to be cleared as much as possible before the remaining 5 circuit court nominees rolls out.

        Liked by 1 person

  13. He should have filed cloture on at least one circuit court nominee. He prioritized 3 executive nominations over circuit court seats, and that’s difficult to grasp. Sure, if the executive opening was for AG or FBI director that’s one thing, but those 3 he filed tonight?

    And I bet he goes right to the 5 red state nominees who cleared the SJC Thurs next and skips the 7 really good nominees who been waiting for many months.

    I much prefer the nominee whose confirmed 51-50 w/VP Harris breaking the tie than an 85-15 confirmation, which likely means the nominee is your friendly neighborhood centrist.

    Liked by 2 people

    • The executive positions are necessary too or they would not be subject to the confirmation process.

      There are many positions in the executive branch that were left vacant from the Trump administration.

      There are plenty of judges on the courts but these executive positions are held by one person.

      I want to see the entire government running right. Thie last administration’s singular focus on the Judiciary crippled the nation when COVID hit.

      Liked by 4 people

  15. @shawnee68 Your reply hit the nail on the head.
    McConnell was able to do so much with judges because he and Republicans didn’t care if the rest of the federal government fell apart.
    Democrats are different so while I get the frustration at some of the other people brought up for votes, they have important positions as well and should be confirmed.

    Liked by 2 people

  16. Since the batch yesterday had all red state nominees, this should be a good backup plan for the week if any Dem senators out and they can’t vote on blue state judges because now they’ll have at least 2 REP home state senators who will vote for their approved person.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. @ Shawnee

    You make good points. I guess I can’t get past that judges are lifetime appts. A judge may sit on a court 30+ years, thereby making a lot of decisions that affect everyday Americans.

    And with the Democrats narrow majority and it being an election year, I just want them to fill all circuit openings and district court seats in blue states.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I know what you mean but you’ll never get 100% of judicial nominees confirmed.

      They don’t have to compete with each other but Executive nominees especially those who lower than cabinet level have to be acted on immediately.

      If an Executive nominee is confirmed today they will only have until 1/20/25 to serve. That is, if Biden doesn’t get re-elected. It’s a short window for Executive nominations.

      Like

  20. Wow, I hadn’t realized just how good they were doing on judicial emergencies. We’re down to 16, with Kiel, Gonzalez, Schydlower, Allen, Harjani, Theeler, and Kanter each potentially filling one. And we should get a nominee for Wu’s seat in LA soon. The next projected addition is a seat on SD IN on 7/1, or Maldonado’s if she’s confirmed earlier. So it could fall below 10 potentially. It got at least as high as 86 in April 2019, and the last time it was in this range was February 2015 (13). The only time it’s been lower since at least 2001 (and probably since the 1980s) was in August 2008 (12).

    Barring massive shifts somewhere, we’re set to end the year at somewhere from 11 to 19, depending on how filings shift this year: MD FL (3), SD FL (1), ED LA (2), ND TX (1), SD TX (2), WD TX (2), and potentially SD IN (1), WD LA (1), ND MS (1), ED MO (4), and/or ED WI (1). Of course, there are plenty of courts where a judge could create one without giving much notice.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thanks for the good info & data as always. Out of the emergencies left, I truly hope the WH uses the 11th vacancy as a bargaining chip. They really need to be hammering somebody like Benjamin Crump into the heads of Rubio & Scott.

      That way they can counter with a less liberal nominee along with filling all 4 district court vacancies. They already missed their chance to likely fill the SDIN seat with Pryor & Kolar already confirmed. They really should have insisted in Mario Garcia or somebody to that effect.

      Don’t get me started on the Texas vacancies. I won’t rehash my Ramirez feelings. I’m not sure what’s going on with the EDWI. I wish the WH would have just quickly nominated one of the two men Johnson recommended so they could finally call his bluff. The closer to the election the more likely he will pull the “It’s too close to the election so let the people of Wisconsin decide which president fills this seat” card.

      I’d like to think there is still hope for Louisiana. After the article that quoted Senator Kennedy saying the administration is sending him names of people that shouldn’t be judging a pie eating contest, I’m not so sure now.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I hope Braun’s got a moderate friend in Indy he wants to see on the the bench before he leaves. I also hope that Kennedy quote was just a negotiation tactic, and we get all three of those seats filled. And we’re on the same page with FL. I just hope we see another circuit nominee soon. Lot of hope, but I’m prepped for any disappointment short of leaving circuit seats unfilled.

        Liked by 1 person

  22. Yea…progressives shooting themselves in the foot once again with the anger over Sparkle’s nomination when they had nothing to say about other nominees.
    She’s going to get confirmed IMO, I don’t see any Senators on team blue sinking her nomination over a complaint from a magazine a lot of folks have never heard of.

    Liked by 2 people

  23. @Dequan: I didn’t read Kennedy’s remark as referring to candidates the WH was sending from LA, but candidates from other states who have appeared in front of SJC and failed his bar exam tests. In fact, I thought it was a shot to Bjelkengren, even though she’s not up for consideration any more.

    The sentences before his quote are “Some GOP senators made clear they’re open to approving Biden judges where they can but that some of the picks simply aren’t acceptable. Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a member of the Judiciary Committee, mocked some of the nominations Biden has sent to the Senate.”

    “Some of the nominations Biden has sent to the Senate” refers to the non-LA nominees who have actually been sent up, not prospective names that have been sent to him and Cassidy–at least that’s my reading of it.

    Still, I don’t put it past him to pause and wait out the election.

    Liked by 2 people

      • If the solicitor general was the runner up, I would be fine with the plan B. Maybe even Fabiana Pierre-Louis would change her mind she would be a good plan B, particularly with governor Murphy getting to name another phenomenal replacement to the New Jersey Supreme Court for her.

        Unfortunately the administration thinks Jeremy Feigenbaum being 35 is too young. And Pierre-Louis doesn’t seem to want to go through the confirmation process just to leave the powerful court she’s already in. So I fear who the plan B runner up.

        Jose Almonte would be good but not as good as Mangi. Michael Farbiarz isn’t progressive enough & it would five Menendez & Booker another district court seat to backfill with another lackluster nominee. Vikas Khanna would not be a good pick & Lisa Perez Friscia is almost a Republican. I am all in for Mangi. I hope Schumer & Durbin can get him over the hump.

        Liked by 1 person

  25. @Dequan.
    Sad to say but given how some district court nominees were sunk over being perceived as weak on crime or supportive of criminals by some swing state Democrats, I think someone linked to a group that was run by someone actually convicted of felony murder for her role in the killing of a couple of police officers is going to be a bridge too far for a lot of Senate Democrats, who might have been overwilling the attacks on other groups Mangi was a part of but not this one.
    Also, in 2022 NY Democrats got clobbered over being viewed as weak on crime/supportive of criminals.
    Not sure Schumer wants to give more ammo to that.
    One can only hope Jeremy Feigenbaum is given a second look, because I honestly believe that after Michael Delaney, this is going to be the 2nd Circuit court nominee to fail.

    Liked by 1 person

  26. Oh my gosh…. y’all gotta calm done. It’s good to be aware of this attack, it’s good to discuss it, it’s good to plan for it, but the level of bed wetting is a bit much.

    I don’t think we’re helping the situation by labeling him “controversial” or yelling about the need to boot him for a plan b.It’s just giving fuel for some c-list right wing reporter to write a hit piece about how “left leaning grassroots judicial activist are starting to panic and are calling for senate to boot nominee”.

    My reaction to that article to that article was, oh, the right sees that the Islamaphobic smear campaign they’ve been throwing at Mangi for the past few months hasn’t been working, so they’re now trying to throw other stuff at him to see what sticks.

    Did this attack come out at all during the hearing? The Rep Judicial committee goes deep in their opposition research. Look at the obscure college alt weekly quote they dug up for DuBose. If this was a real concern, it would have come up then.

    The article itself is kinda suss. Did you notice that they never actually attempt to mention what the organization does? The first thing I did was go to their website where I was greeted by a picture of actor Danny Glover, who sits on the board. Is kindly old actor Danny Glover a terrorist? Are the police suggesting we should protest the “Lethal Weapon” movie series? The Alliance of Families for Justice is an organization working to end mass incarceration.

    They article mentions that one of the other founders was member of the Weather Underground. The GOP need s some fresh material b/c this is an old playbook. They tried linking Obama to the Weather Underground and that went nowhere.

    The article also mentions that the group supports Mumia Abu Jamal. This is a case from 1982 and its a case that has taken lots of twists and turns over the decades. It’s a case where the verdict and way the case was handled by the police and DA have been debated for decades. For anyone who’s grown up or gone to school in the Philly region over the past 40 years is familiar with the Free-Mumia movement. I actually think that the the Free-Mumia movement may be larger today than the people who think he’s guilty. If the GOP wants to open up those old wounds, I think there’s a possibility it could help to cause black and young voters in Philly to come out to the poles in November.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Yeah and other than the fact that the Free Beacon is a Republican rag publishing total drivel (so naturally what we would expect the likes of Frank to read), they already reported on this “shocking” development all the way back in December – https://freebeacon.com/biden-administration/historic-biden-judicial-nominee-sits-on-board-of-group-founded-by-cop-killing-domestic-terrorist/. If the Republicans really thought this attack angle would be effective, they would’ve raised it at the confirmation hearing.

      These conservative cop groups also opposed Choudhury, who was much more involved in addressing police abuse and violence than Mangi has been. And unlike with Edelman/Gaston, Mangi himself (rather than someone else in an organization he was on the board of) hasn’t said or done anything the Republicans have been able to attack.

      I do agree that Schumer should prioritize Mangi over Berner and Aframe just to see if the votes are there. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the old white guy moderates (and apparently now also that hag Jacky Rosen) are too Islamophobic themselves to vote for a Muslim appellate judge. Given that filling this seat would erase CA3’s current Republican majority, it’s more important to get Mangi (or someone else) confirmed than it is even to fill any other judicial vacancy – and certainly more important than some BS executive branch nominee whom Trump will fire next year if he wins anyways.

      Of course, if Biden abandons the first Muslim appellate nominee in light of Islamophobic attacks (that even the ADL has condemned), that would not be good for an administration that’s looking at steep declines in support among Muslim voters. This, on top of the administration’s slavish devotion to the far-right Netanyahu, would be adding insult to injury to Muslim voters like the 100,000 that voted uncommitted in the Michigan primary. It may even one of the few judicial nominations that might get through to voters (in this case, Muslim voters) because Muslim voters are already so angry at Biden as it is.

      Liked by 2 people

  29. I wonder how likely it is that the nominee for Gibbons’ seat will be from eastern Tennessee so that Memphis, Nashville, and either Knoxville or Chattanooga have at least one seat on the Sixth Circuit.

    I also think it’s possible her seat gets moved to Nashville since Nashville has surpassed Memphis in terms of population over the last few years.

    I don’t know about Hagerty but I have no confidence that Blackburn will work in good faith.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Interesting. You make a good case for why the seat should be moved, but I think it will prob remain in Memphis.

      For all the talk on here about Gibbons rescinding her senior status if she doesn’t like the nominee’s ideology, I there’s also the chance of her rescinding if the seat is moved. I’m not saying it’s likely not there’s a non zero chance.

      The other reason is that I’ve been scouring Tennessee lawyers to get a sense for who could be a good nominee for the 2 seats who would also be able to get at least 50 Democrat votes in an election year (I’m also not counting on the TN Senators being cooperative). I suspect the nom will be someone in the vein of Andre Mathis, Richard Federico, Josh Kolar, etc. Ideally, one or two of the nom would also be a woman for reasons discussed in other posts. I’m also guessing they aren’t going to want to elevate any existing district judges since that’s gonna create another backfill they won’t be able to fill.

      IMO, Memphis seems to have a robust roster of good, youngish, left learning lawyers who would be able to get through the nomination hearing and get the votes e.g. Camille Mullen, Mary Hale Morris, Jennifer Hagerman, Kevin Ritz, etc.

      I’ve been really struggling with the Nashville talent pool. Magistrate Alistair Newbern oversaw a case a few years ago that was similar to the one that derailed Edelman so I think she’s out of the running. I thought the Vanderbilt General Counsel could be good but I’m not sure if she’s actually had much court room experience. Tricia Herzfeld would be incredible but her history running the ACLU is full of landmines. Gerard Stranch has the TN Democratic party as a client so that’s gonna be problematic. James Mackler is interesting but the fact that he’s currently in the Meta legal Department could cause some major grandstanding and freak outs at a confirmation hearing. There’s always Henry Leventis, the current MDTN Attorney, or Jerry Martin, MDTN Attorney under Obama. Judge Ana Escobar is progressive and could potentially be confirmed, but she is 54.

      I’m less familiar with the Eastern TN talent pool. I’m really struggling to name one realistic nominee from Nashville let alone two.

      Liked by 2 people

      • My dream pick for the Nashville seat would be Lauren Sudeall – she’s a current Vanderbilt Law professor, former staff attorney at the Southern Center for Human Rights (where Biden appointee Sarah Geraghty also worked), former SCOTUS clerk for John Paul Stevens, and a black woman probably born around 1977: https://law.vanderbilt.edu/bio/?pid=lauren-sudeall. No way Blackburn/Hagerty return a blue slip, but she’s great enough to be worth the hassle.

        Another possible Vanderbilt law professor is Tracey George – she’s older (graduated college in 1989, so I would guess born in 1967), a white woman, and her background seems less clearly liberal (though Blackburn would probably object to her service on the board of Planned Parenthood): https://law.vanderbilt.edu/bio/?pid=tracey-george

        My point is that the pool in Nashville isn’t that limited.
        There’s plenty of options just from the Vanderbilt faculty alone. The problem is that the WH needs to decide whether it is going to (1) waste time chasing a blue slip that Blackburn will never return, or (2) accept that this will be a close vote and just pick someone great like Sudeall.

        Liked by 1 person

      • According to her CV on Vanderbilt’s website, Sudeall moved from Georgia State to Vanderbilt in 2023 and is listed as a professor (not a visiting professor). I also doubt that being the “Director of Vanderbilt’s Access to Justice Initiative” is a visiting professor gig.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Maybe the Gibbons seat could move to East Tennessee, but there’s no chance it moves from Memphis to Nashville (for one thing, I doubt Gibbons would be pleased with the move – nor would Steve Cohen, the only Dem from Tennessee in Congress now that the Republicans gerrymandered Nashville). If McDonough on EDTN wants the promotion, he’d be heavily considered – Blackburn might even sign off on it (to the extent that she would sign off on anything) because she could keep the district seat vacant until a Republican administration.

      I’d be surprised if they aren’t considering Lisa Schulz Bressman for the Nashville seat. She was considered last time before the nomination went to Stranch and, at 58, she’s old enough that Blackburn might tolerate the nomination (especially if the WH threatens to go with someone younger and more liberal like Newbern or Stranch’s son).

      Ana Escobar would be up the WH’s alley as the first Hispanic/Latina judge on CA6 (and I don’t think 54 is too old for this administration when they were fine with Ramirez on CA5). I just think going from state trial court to federal appeals court is too much of a jump, and Blackburn/Hagerty would likely argue that she’s not sufficiently qualified (it doesn’t look like she’s practiced much in federal court from what I can tell).

      Liked by 2 people

      • We have talked a lot about the two vacant 6th seats but one thing I haven’t seen mentioned much is how much influence Rep. Steve Cohen will have. He recommended Andre Mathis to the WH over the objections of Blackburn & Haggerty. If the WH goes this route again, we may get two really good picks again.

        Now of course things are different this time with one of the two seats being Gibbons so close to the election. But I still can see a good nominee even for her if The WH is letting Cohen take the lead again.

        Like

      • Cohen will probably get to have some input with the Gibbons vacancy (and is likely focused on keeping that vacancy in Memphis), but not so much with the Stranch vacancy – if anything, the WH might look to longtime Nashville representative Jim Cooper (who the Republicans gerrymandered out last year) for thoughts on that one.

        Also, this post from the Tennessee Bar Association indicates that Blackburn/Hagerty were accepting applications for the Gibbons vacancy back in September and set the deadline for October 2: https://www.tba.org/?pg=LawBlog&blAction=showEntry&blogEntry=96252

        Given that it’s now March, it’s pretty clear that the senators are trying to run out the clock – I wonder how many more months the WH will waste playing along.

        Liked by 2 people

      • On the topic of Mathis, just cam across this article from back in September 2023 that quotes him: https://www.law360.com/pulse/articles/1724495/judging-is-a-lonely-job-federal-jurists-say. The most interesting part is below:

        Want to Be a Judge? Here’s How.

        Judge Mathis said lawyers who want to become judges should have a well-rounded practice — judges deal with many different issues, and lawyers interested in becoming judges should likewise practice many different types of law.

        He also said politics and community involvement matter, explaining that his path toward becoming an appellate judge began when a member of Congress called him and said, “Hey, you know anyone interested in being a Sixth Circuit judge?”

        He recalled his response: “I would be interested in being a Sixth Circuit judge!”

        “So that’s how the process started,” Judge Mathis said. “But the congressman had my telephone number, right?”

        The reason: He had interacted with that congressman in the past.

        Liked by 3 people

  30. One other curveball this week for the Senate scheduling is that the State of the Union is on Thursday. Probably the best day of the week to have it if you’re concerned about the schedule. I think last year it was on a Tuesday or something and then Senators gave themselves the Wednesday off. Does that give them any incentive to finish the first of the funding bills Thursday afternoon, or do they pass it and head off to the House chamber for the SOTU? If it’s the latter there would still be a chance of getting cloture filed on an appeals court nominee Tuesday setup for a Thursday vote.

    Liked by 2 people

  32. Warning: long post — don’t read if you’re in a hurry. Today, I’m having election anxiety intense enough that it’s affecting my ability to get my work done. As I know my audience on here, the comment will of course tie back to judges.

    Biden voters who are frustrated with Kamala Harris typically don’t realize how many judges have needed Kamala Harris’s tie breaking vote at some point in their nomination process . They think Kamala Harris is unqualified and useless. To counter this, Kamala Harris should make a list of all Biden judges who needed her vote to be confirmed and take credit for it. Biden also needs to talk about how Harris has been breaking ties to confirm judges. Some of these judges include Jennifer Sung, Loren AliKhan, & Natasha Merle.

    If Mangi is confirmed with VP Harris’s tie vote and Harris repeatedly takes credit for it, it could help Biden/Harris’s support amongst Arab American voters (though this is risky given the police union backlash — Harris taking credit for confirming Ali or Kasubhai could also do this but not to the extent that confirming Mangi would).

    Technically, Harris also played a crucial role in confirming KBJ (and technically any Biden judge in 21-22 that Minority Leader Turtle voted against), but sadly most Americans still wouldn’t understand that even if Harris directly explained why she was crucial in getting KBJ confirmed.

    Because of Biden’s age, convincing people of Kamala Harris’s abilities is more crucial than ever. A year ago, Biden was considered a much stronger opponent to Trump than Harris (Trump trailed Biden and Harris trailed Trump by about 5 points). Now, the Biden-Trump and Harris-Trump polls are much more in sync, with Biden trailing Trump by 2-3 points and Harris trailing Trump by 3-5. I suspect this is largely because many people believe (perhaps correctly) that Biden’s re-election would result in Kamala Harris becoming president before 2029.

    If Kamala Harris were to make confirming judges part of her campaign strategy, I wouldn’t mind Schumer deliberately risking screw ups or holding a vote open for hours so that VP Harris can cast tie breaking votes. I would NOT recommend this but we could even deliberately stage a VP tie breaking vote by letting a couple Dem senators purposely miss the vote.

    After the Dobbs decision and Matthew Kacsmaryk’s attempt to ban the abortion pill nationwide, Democratic voters are waking up to the importance of the courts. If the next GOP president were to succeed in banning abortion nationally, judges and juries could provide a key wrench in the administration’s ability to prosecute abortions. If this were to happen, Trump judges would strike any juror who gives the slightest hint that they might be pro-choice, while Biden judges might keep a juror despite the juror being forced to reveal under oath that they are pro-choice.

    There is a legitimate risk that Trump could succeed in defying judges’ rulings. But just like the Republican SCOTUS and Trump judges delayed Biden policies (even when they ruled for Biden in the end), Biden judges can delay Trump policies and perhaps save democracy.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Let me start with this, the same failed polling and pundit industry that told us that 2022 was going to be a red wave is selling us on Trump winning in 2024. TBH I’m not really interested in the predictions of people who predicted a red wave in 2022 because they have no value. For example, the Crystal Ball put their thumb on the scale on PA and GA Senate races because they wanted to get the GOP to 51 seats in their predictions. 

      We’re doing all of this because we believe the Republicans are at least small favorites in the Senate, and so we wanted to get them to at least 51 in our ratings. Georgia and Pennsylvania, in addition to the other Republican-leaning races that we are not changing, is the path we’ve chosen, based on our best intel. And, to be honest, we think it’s probably likelier that Republicans get over 51 than Democrats stay at 50 and preserve their majority. 

      https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/final-ratings-for-the-2022-election/

      My view is very much the opposite, I expect Biden to win at the end of the day. The data from the elections after Dobbs points to a Democratic edge. While it is possible that some of those voters aren’t voting for Biden now, I do believe that the danger of Trump will get them to hold their nose for Biden at the end. In contrast to basically everyone, I also think the Dems have a much higher shot than most think to hold on to the Senate (by winning two of three of Ohio, Texas, and Montana). 

      I do agree that Kamala Harris needs to be put out on the campaign and media interviews more. The reason is exactly what you said, there is a good chance that Kamala Harris becomes President if Biden is reelected. There should be more than one VP debate given the ages of the two candidates. As far as tying Harris on judges to the campaign, I’d tie it to abortion. Confirming Mangi might help among Muslim voters, but I expect the non-conservative ones to hold their nose for Biden at the end regardless. We weren’t holding many of the conservative ones anyway, the ones who were joining anti-LGBTQ+ protests aren’t voting for us anymore.

      There’s no backstop to a Trump victory this time. Biden judges cannot delay Trump policies as SCOTUS will block those efforts, and in cases where SCOTUS sides against Trump, he will ignore their ruling. There is no way to save democracy in a second Trump presidency, the only way to save democracy is to re-elect Biden. There is no other path, and that needs to be the message from now until November. 

      Like

  33. I went back and looked at the SJC in Sept 2022 (mid term election year) and they had 2 hearings that month, and each hearing had 2 circuit nominees each plus District court nominees. So for Sept 2024, Democrats should be able to easily have 2 hearings, who could then clear the SJC in the lame duck period.

    Liked by 2 people

  34. Rick, nominees who have their nomination hearing as late as Mid November will have time to clear SJC and get a floor vote by the end of the year. See Deandra Benjamin in 2022 for an example. If Dems lose the WH and/or the senate you can bet that the focus will be all on judges in the lame duck

    Liked by 1 person

      • Harry Reid pushed through 27 district nominees in November-December 2014, although most of them were by voice vote. The only pending judicial nominee on the senate calendar that he didn’t put through was for International Trade. McConnell had forced a recorded vote on every other judicial nominee in the year before the election, so I’m not sure if Reid had simply threatened to keep the senate in session till they were all confirmed, or if he made some other deal.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Come to think of it, I don’t think there’s any rule against Biden elevating a very old district judge to a circuit court and then that judge immediately taking senior status. Hell, I don’t think there’s even a rule against Biden elevating a district judge already in senior status to a circuit court only for them to immediately take senior status again. Then, Biden could appoint a much younger judge to be the actual holder of the seat. This would be impractical due to the tight timeframe but if it had started in 2021, Biden could theoretically add 4+ senior judges to an appeals court just by elevating senior district judges who then re-assume senior status immediately or upon confirmation of a successor.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment