Georgia Alexakis currently serves as Criminal Appellate Chief at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Chicago. She is favored to join the federal bench in the next few months.
Background
Georgia N. Alexakis graduated from Harvard University in 2000 and, after working as a consultant for three years, got a J.D. magna cum laude from Northwestern Priztker School of Law in 2006.
After graduation, Alexakis clerked for Judge Marsha Berzon on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and then for Judge Milton Shadur on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Alexakis subsequently joined Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP. Alexakis then became a federal prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois in 2013 and stayed there until 2021 when she came a Partner with Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP. Alexakis rejoined the U.S. Attorney’s Office in 2022 and currently serves as Chief of Appeals of the Criminal Division.
History of the Seat
Alexakis has been nominated for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. This seat will open on August 1, 2024, when Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer will move to senior status.
Legal Career
Alexakis started her legal career as a clerk to Judges Marsha Berzon and Milton Shadur and was even shouted out by Judge Shadur in multiple opinions for her work. See Love v. Frontier Ins. Co., 526 F. Supp. 2d 859, 861 n.3 (N.D. Ill. 2007) (noting a debt to Judge Berzon for “one of this Court’s two fine law clerks this year, Georgia Alexankis”). See also Patino v. Astrue, 574 F. Supp. 2d 862, 873 n. 10 (N.D. Ill. 2008) (noting that this opinion is “public acknowledgment of the outstanding work that has always been done by my extraordinary law clerk Georgia Alexakis”).
Alexakis subsequently started at Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP, where she worked on a multi-district litigation involving the potential contamination of U.S. rice crops with non-approved genetically modified strains. See In re Genetically Modified Rice Litig., 666 F. Supp. 2d 1004 (E.D. Mo. 2009). Alexakis also represented Bayer in defending another multidistrict litigation arising from the marketing of low-dose aspirin. See In re Bayer Corp. Combination Aspirin Prods. Mktg. and Sales Practices Litig., 701 F. Supp. 2d 356 (E.D.N.Y. 2010).
The largest portion of Alexakis’ legal career has been with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois. Early in her time with the office, Alexakis argued an appeal involving convictions for distribution of heroin and crack cocaine. See United States v. Chapman, 804 F.3d 895 (7th Cir. 2015). In another case, the Seventh Circuit reversed a conviction in a case that Alexakis argued, finding that the district judge should have recused himself from the illegal entry case because he had been involved in the underlying deportation proceeding. See United States v. Herrera-Valdez, 826 F.3d 912 (7th Cir. 2016).
Alexakis has also prosecuted cases of sex trafficking, see, e.g., United States v. Carson, 870 F.3d 584 (7th Cir. 2017), and mail fraud, see, e.g., United States v. Walton, 907 F.3d 548 (7th Cir. 2018). More recently Alexakis defended on appeal the convictions against police officer Marco Proano, for shooting two passengers of a moving sedan. See United States v. Proano, 912 F.3d 431 (7th Cir. 2019). She also convinced the Seventh Circuit to reverse the sentence for Adel Daoud, who had attempted to blow up a fake bomb provided by an FBI agent, as substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Daoud, 980 F.3d 581 (7th Cir. 2020), re’hrg en banc denied by 989 F.3d 610 (7th Cir. 2021).
Overall Assessment
With extensive experience with both civil and criminal litigation, Alexakis should be a fairly uncontroversial choice for the federal bench.
This was the most likely person I saw being nominated out of the list of recommendations that was sent. She was third on my list that I wish would have been nominated but probably the most qualified of them all.
LikeLike
She seems to the kind of person any Democratic President would nominate. I expect a comfortable confirmation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Leibowitz received his commission on Friday.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Uuuggghhh, I was hoping Melissa Damian would get her commission before him. Maybe she’s finishing up a case & couldn’t start yet. Sucks but at least Leibowitz isn’t too bad for a Republican pick.
LikeLike
I just hope they don’t give him the 11th circuit seat. I hope the WH gets a good nominee for the 11th circuit vacancy and does not promote one of the 4 recent district court nominees..
LikeLiked by 1 person
I do not think Biden will give the 11th circuit seat to a Republican, even a moderate one like Leibowitz, especially given that the outgoing judge Charles Wilson is a liberal Democrat.
LikeLiked by 1 person
How much do we even know about Leibowitz? Beyond some pretty good writings and some strategic political donations, he could be a moderate liberal whose uncle happens to have given Rubio millions.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I have done a lot of research on Leibowitz ever since his name surfaced under Trump. I think he’s a true centrist. I didn’t find anything in his background that suggest he’s MAGA or right wing in any manner. He seems to be a moderate or slightly left of center at best. More than acceptable for a red state Biden pick but not good enough for the 11th.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not too upset about that. Becerra got her commission first, and there is zero chance that any of the 3 judges will become chief (Trump judge Roy Altman is set to be chief until 2049, at which point the 3 newly confirmed Biden judges will be between 78 and 81.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The 11th Circuit has 5 Florida seats. Of those 3 are currently based in Southern Florida (2 in Miami and 1 in Ft Lauderdale). 1 is in in Northern Florida (Tallahassee). Charles Wilson’s Tampa seat is the only one located in MDFL.
It’s prob unlikely that Becerra, Leibowitz, or Damian would be considered for the elevation.
Julie Sneed, who is based in Orlando, could be a possibility, but her elevations would have to come with a full roster of MDFL noms and promises of voice votes.
Personally, I’m still all in on the WH just skipping negotiations and going with Stacie Harris. She’s known for her work in fighting trafficking which will play well in an election year.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Both Harris or Embry Kidd would be easier to deal with because their FBI background check could be done faster (since they have already went through the process).
LikeLiked by 2 people
I keep wondering when another member of the Southern District of Florida will take Senior Status? It’s an elderly court and many are eligible.
There is an apparent impasse over the final vacancy on that court. Another vacancy would solve that.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@keystone, I could’ve sworn that Sneed was based in Tampa.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Shoot. You’re right. I always mix up the MDFL cities.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In a separate subject, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously struck down the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling to ban Trump from the ballot. It wasn’t a big surprise. Even liberals on the Court sounded skeptical of it during questioning.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, safe outcome avoiding the dangerous precedent of state supreme courts unilaterally eliminating choices for their state’s voters. And it gives definition to how a previously vague clause can be enforced.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The 9-0 headline hides how contentions the opinion actually was – the liberals and Barrett only concurred in the judgment, so it was partly a 5-4 decision. The conservative majority held that section 3 (the part of the 14th Amendment stating prohibiting insurrectionists from holding office) has no legal effect unless Congress first passes a law “implementing” it.
The funny thing is that none of the other sections of the 14th Amendment required Congress to pass a law to have legal effect. And as the liberal concurrence points out, the majority’s holding essentially renders the insurrection clause a dead letter because Congress is not going to pass such a law. Barrett even agreed with the liberals that there was no need to reach such a holding in the first place. So because of this decision, we’re about to see January 6th rioters start running for all sorts of federal offices – any bets on the first state to have a January 6th rioter as a Senator or Governor?
tl;dr: This Trumpian joke of a SCOTUS takes another step towards stacking the election for their guy. And we’re supposed to act like the court is anything more than Mitch McConnell’s little lapdog? How dumb do they think we are?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Bush V Gore should have been the day it was clear SCOTUS wasn’t above politics.
It wasn’t so here we are.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Alliance for Justice weekly newsletter pointed out that President Obama is an alumnus from Nancy Maldonado’s old law firm. That probably was the deal breaker along with everything else we have discussed on the blog here that got her to be the pick for the 7th so quickly. Here is a copy/paste form the newsletter along with comments regarding Berner & Mangi as well…
“We are particularly excited to share news of the nomination of Judge Nancy Maldonado, of the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the Seventh Circuit. AFJ supported Judge Maldonado’s nomination and confirmation to the district court and looks forward to seeing her ascend to the appellate bench, where she will hear appeals from Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin.
The firm at which Judge Maldonado practiced before becoming a federal judge in 2022, Miner, Barnhill, and Galland, is a civil rights powerhouse. Its most famous alumnus? President Barack Obama. During her time there, Judge Maldonado focused on labor and employment law, a vital but underrepresented area of expertise when it comes to the federal judiciary. She was also the first Latina to serve on the federal bench in Illinois and will, upon confirmation, be the first Latina on the Seventh Circuit.”
“Recess is over! Which means it’s time for the Senate to advance the nominations of Nicole Berner, to the Fourth Circuit, and Adeel Mangi, to the Third Circuit. They’ve been waiting for 108 days already.
What’s the rush?
A quintessential movement lawyer who’s been part of groundbreaking litigation as an LGBTQ+ parent seeking recognition of her family as well as in her capacity as counsel to major reproductive rights and labor advocacy groups, Berner will be the first LGBTQ+ judge on the Fourth Circuit. Mr. Mangi, another award-winning litigator, will be the first Muslim federal appellate court judge. “
LikeLike
Someone remind me–we need new nominees on Wednesday to make the 4/3 SJC nominations meeting, right?
LikeLiked by 1 person
It wouldn’t matter if we got new nominees this Wednesday or next Wednesday, the SJC hearing would be the same day either way due to the recess weeks next month. So my guess would be no new batch this week.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thanks @Dequan
LikeLiked by 1 person
Definitely no new batch this week, I would expect one on either 3/13 or 3/20.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yesterday was the deadline for CDIL applications and last Thursday was deadline for Minnesota. I think all of the blue state district seats (the publicized searches) should now be in evaluation and soon to be interview phases.
The next batch of nominees cold be super interesting. There were a bunch of application deadlines in Oct-early Dec, and we might start seeing some of those picks come through, i.e the last AZ seat, MD, EDPA, MDPA, Mass. We might even see a nom for the 1st Circuit if they pick someone who’s already had a background check like the Maine US Attorney.
One last thing, for the EDPA seat to replace Edward Smith, I’ve been focusing on candidates in Easton since that’s where Smith was from and there’s a court house there; however, I just noticed that the PA senator’s application announcement for this seat says they are considering people in “the Lehigh Valley”. That could mean they’re looking at people in Allentown and Bethlehem as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would expect nominees to some of the failed nominees (EDWA,WNY) etc. to get new nominees soon as well, given that they must have had other names on their lists just in case.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We already got a replacement for Edelman so I certainly could see that. We have to be close to getting some more California nominees in the next batch as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
With Edelman, the Committee was already reviewing candidates for the other open seat. That’s why we got a nom so quickly.
With the WDWA seat, keep in mind that the Senators haven’t looked at any candidates for a long time there. I have to imagine they are rerunning a search committee. I wouldn’t expect a nom there for a while.
Who knows what’s going on with the WDNY seat. We got the EDNY nom super fast by that one SDNY seat has been there a long time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Schumer isn’t probably worried too much about taking a long time for New York nominees. With him being majority leader, he knows his states nominees are getting confirmed even if they have to keep the senate in session Christmas Day.
I really wish next week we get the WDWI nominee. I really will be quite upset if Johnson is allowed to hold yet another seat vacant.
LikeLike
WI’s also got 84, 82, and 67-year old judges. At this point I assume Lynn Adelman’s just holding on in hopes that Johnson loses in 2028.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Personally, I like NY’s method of recommendation best. I know some may think it isn’t transparent, but so what? I vote for my senators to make these decisions, not for them to outsource the process to some selection committee that is self-interested in recommending (professionally) like-minded candidates. That’s how we end up with so many corporate attorney and prosecutor type nominees, because those are what’s on those committees.
That said, I hate that Schumer takes so long to offer up recommendations. This isn’t a new or Majority Leader thing. Look at the Deborah Batts vacancy from 2012. It took over a year before Vernon Broderick is announced as her replacement. Ironically, I think Gillibrand might be quicker with recommendations, though hers might as well be coming from a selection committee.
Dems really need to reimagine the judicial selection process.
To those gunning for a WI nominee in the next batch: what’s changed in the last 3 years? Is Ron Jon no longer the other senator?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Overall I just want the process that will give the best chance to produce a young progressive nominee. In some states such as New Jersey, a commission is much more likely to produce that than the senior senator of the state is. But I do agree overall with what @Gavi said in the interest of saving time.
Even in my example of New Jersey, if you have a crappy senator then it’s more than likely the commission they recommend likely won’t be too far off. Ultimately the people of the state & progressives need to speak up much early in the process regardless of a commission or not. Colorado is the perfect example of this. We got Regina Rodriguez for the first nominee & progressives spoke up. This led to the senators changing the commission membership & it has produced much better nominees since.
As for Wisconsin, yup, Johnson will always be Johnson. But for God’s sake can we not at least try? We got the two names of the two men recommended last year. The administration should have just went with one by the end of last year to give a full year to call Johnson’s bluff. Not trying at all just gives him an out completely.
LikeLike
The more obvious solution is that senators can just put better people (including nonlawyers) on their vetting committees – that avoids the risks of people getting a job just because of their connections to the senator and would result in more progressive nominees. Especially for district court nominees, they should both be progressive and actually have trial experience so they can handle the 95% of the job that isn’t political.
The Washington senators use a committee and their recommendations have been pretty good, whereas any recommendation from Gillibrand’s inner circle would be as bad (if not worse) than a vetting committee full of big law lawyers and prosecutors.
And good riddance to Sinema – ding dong, the witch is (soon to be) gone.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Johnson wants to ensure Wisconsin’s district courts are made up of judges like the late Rudolph T. Randa, a George Sr judge who was a rubberstamp for every horrible thing Wisconsin Republicans have done the past decade and a half and who brought the investigations of Scott Walker to a halt.
Only reason that hasn’t happened is Tammy Baldwin has stopped him with her blue slips, which is a reminder of how the ones for the district court seats are doubled edged swords right now.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Just saw on PoliticalWire that Krysten Sinema is not running for reelection
LikeLiked by 2 people
Very good news. I belive John Barrassoo took his name out of hte hat for senate leader today as well.
If Dems can get a little luck in Texas, actually send funds to the Party in Florida & maybe even take a peek at Tennessee, they might be able to pull off flipping one of those seats to offset West Virginia. Of course, holding on to Montana, Ohio & Nevada will be essential.
LikeLike
I’d rather invest in MO than TN especially since MO has a abortion rights referendum on the ballot.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ll be honest, I follow politics pretty closely & I don’t even know who’s running in MO, let alone if they have a snowball’s chance in Hell at winning… Lol
But I 100% agree with you on Tennessee though. Despite what others on the blog here say, I think Dems should at least throw some money that way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
With Sinema and Manchin gone, if Dems hold the senate, they’re a lot closer to getting rid of the filibuster. Any chance that they could also amend the rules to do away with cloture votes (at least for nominees) altogether while they’re at it?
LikeLike
@Gavi would know better than me. If I had to guess, I would say you could reduce the amount of cloture time but I don’t think you can get rid of the vote altogether. I believe the vote itself is written in the senate rules. But they could certainly reduce the time which has been done numerous times before. @Gavi feel free to correct me if I’m wrong on my belief.
LikeLike
If we had a 50-50 senate without Manchin and Sinema, it would be a far more unified than the 50-50 that Democrats had in 2021-22.
Judicial confirmations would be easier, and if they had the House, we could pass a good voting rights bill, (among other items)
LikeLiked by 1 person
I once wrote on my Instagram: “I hate cinemas and mansions”. No one understood what I meant.
Next year, there will be no more cinemas or mansions in the Senate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, if the senate ends up 50/50 in the this scenario (big if) we would have essentially swapped out Manchin, Sinema, and Feinstein with Fetterman, Gallego, and Schiff/Porter. Plus Tester and Brown would be on fresh six year terms. The days of the Filibuster may be numbered.
There would still be a few institutionalists left like King, Coons, maybe Warner, but they’ll be much softer than the people who previously opposed.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Not a federal judgeship but Schemer just filed cloture on Adrienne Jennings Noti
LikeLiked by 1 person
Absurd there has to be roll call votes for her or other DC Superior Court nominees.
Should be voice votes but again, it’s a delaying tactic by Republicans.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Why? She is pretty controversial, all things considered.
LikeLike
@Frank
Adrienne Jennings Noti worked with the Center for Reproductive Rights. I am sure that’s the main reason Republicans have blocked her for two & s half years.
LikeLike
OMG I was just thinking about her the other day. It’s ridiculous we have to waste anytime on a Superior court of DC nominee but she’s good enough to deserve the time. Plus she’s been waiting far too long. Hopefully this will be the start of Schumer shifting his focus to the party line nominees.
LikeLike
Only recorded votes since 1980 for the DC Superior Court came in 1984, 2010, and 2022 (5). With a dozen vacancies and two more coming soon, along with ten nominees, we may see a few days devoted to this court. Pity there aren’t nominees for the DC CoA.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fact is, that Noti won’t get a voice vote, that was clear since she was voted out of the Committe of Homeland Security for the first time.
That the roll call could be done faster, is obvious.
And it’s also not sure, if the other six nominees, who are actually waiting for a floor vote, are getting one.
The situation is dire, in the moment there are eleven vacancies, and two more are leaving the bench this and next month, among them Biden-nominee Ranga Rana Putagunta, after a little more of two years. Many judges have quit long before their 15 years term were over, and the situation has not really improved since Biden took office, just not become worse. That job is not popular, and if the working conditions are not improve, we will see more, the Senate is not interested in giving that low priority nominations more attention, and the vicious cycle is starting again. I think the people of D.C. deserve better.
And yes, there are two more vacancies at the CoA in D.C., one of them is open for more than ten years.
Both courts should get nominees ASAP. Meanwhile the WH seems to nominate more than one of the three recommendations of each candidate, as further vacancies may open, and maybe accellerating the process a bit.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I wonder if that will be the only other vote this week, besides budget bills.
Hopefully next week can be another judges week.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Schumer did say that he’ll tee up the minibus vote as soon as the House passes it, there is a possibility of a Friday, if not Saturday session (I highly doubt it would happen Thursday night due to the State of the Union, unless the Senate hilariously recessed itself and came back afterwards).
If they spend a Friday or Saturday voting I hope it doesn’t come at the cost of giving up being in session on Monday next week (which happened the last time the Senate stayed a weekend to keep the government open, back in late September/early October of last year if I remember). Love to have two full days (Tuesday and Wednesday) and not just one next week.
The other half of the government funding isn’t up until the 22nd (which is when the Senate takes off for two weeks), so the entirety of next week could go for confirming nominees.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Patricia Collins, Susan Collins’ mother, died this morning. I’m not sure what that means for the Senator’s attendance this week.
Interesting fact about Patricia Collins, she was the first woman mayor elected in Caribou, ME.
https://www.wabi.tv/2024/03/05/patricia-collins-caribous-first-woman-be-elected-mayor-dies-96/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Condolences to the Collins family.
I wonder if the GOP will agree to voice votes so that Collins does not have to break her streak of missing votes. I think they will find a way to work around her missing votes. She is too well liked from both sides.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The GOP might also not do that as a way to get back at her for endorsing Haley over Trump. It would be a cruel and petty thing to do but…..
LikeLiked by 1 person
That helps explain why Collins almost missed a vote last week.
LikeLiked by 1 person
She is in attendance today and voted for cloture on that Assistant Defense Secretary, so she still made the flight down lol. Would have to think she’ll stay in DC for the week if she made the trip down after the death of her mother.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Collins has been in the Senate for 27 years and this is definitely not the first personal tragedy she’s had in those 27 years. Donald Collins (Susan Collins’s dad) died on March 10, 2018. Susan Collins voted on March 12 and March 14, and her dad’s funeral was held March 16 (a Friday). Patricia Collins’s funeral will definitely be arranged so that Susan does not have to miss any votes.
Furthermore, I would guess that Susan Collins’s parents instilled values in her that led to her insistence on not missing any votes. Perhaps Patricia urged Susan not to miss any votes because of her. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was back at work the day after her husband died, saying that her husband would not have wanted her to miss work because of him.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I’m surprised nobody’s mentioned that the 11th Circuit ruled against Desantis’ “Stop WOKE Act”.
Judges were Charles Wilson (Clinton), Britt Grant (Trump), and Andrew Brasher (Trump).
LikeLiked by 2 people
With that lineup I think it’s unlikely that the Supreme Court will reverse.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Surprising, figured at least one of them would rubberstamp DeSantis’s garbage.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m sure that Alito and Thomas will.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Both Sneed and Damian received their commissions yesterday, so every confirmed judge eligible to take the bench is on the bench.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I know I care way more about this then I should, but I would love to talk to somebody in the White House one day regarding the science behind when the commissions are signed. I thought perhaps Melissa Damian was still working on a case so that might be why her commission wasn’t signed the same day as Leibowitz but that obviously wasn’t the case now that I see she got hers 3 days after him. Had she gotten hers the same day, she would have bene ahead of him in seniority. I really want to know the science behind when they are signed… Don’t mind me, just one of those quirky things that bothers me… Haaaaa
LikeLike
The nominees expected at tomorrow’s SJC hearing still haven’t been posted. While I think we all know who will be appearing, the big question though is whether or not Kanter, who wasn’t part of the last hearing, will also appear, which would give us five nominees for this hearing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is the strongest statement from The White House yet backing Mangi. They are still 100% behind him & urge swift confirmation. I feel a lot better about him getting confirmed after reading this article then I did yesterday.
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/03/05/congress/wh-defends-judicial-nom-senate-00144933
LikeLiked by 1 person
In Senate campaign news, Colin Allred in Texas looks to be sailing towards the nomination and will win without a runoff. I expect Cruz to win re-election in November and won’t get my hopes up but if Republicans are having a bad night and Biden were to keep his performance in Texas close, this race could get a lot more interesting (a lot would depend if Allred could outrun Biden, which given Cruz’s likability problems it’s definitely a possibility).
Picking up this seat would obviously go a long way to holding the Senate and from a blue slip perspective, you’d have to think Allred/Cornyn would be far easier to negotiate with than Cruz/Cornyn.
I also wonder how much of an effect Dobbs could have on this race. When Cruz easily won in 2012, Texas was much redder and Democrats didn’t put a penny into contesting the race. Cruz held on by about 3 points in 2018 during a blue wave midterm but also in a pre-Dobbs environment. This would be Cruz’s first time confronting voters post-Dobbs, and Texas isn’t the rock-red state it used to be, and I’m sure there’s a mountain of material of Cruz’s past stances on abortions that could boost Allred. Not only that, I’m sure there’s a statement or two from Cruz out in support of Texas’s draconian abortion ban.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I felt Colin Allred was the best chance to defeat Cruz of any so I’m happy he will be his opponent. I’ll be even happier if national Democrats treat Texas as the next Georgia & give it the funding it deserves. Democrats need to go on the offensive in red states like Republicans do in blue states like Maryland. They may not win most of them, but with the senate composition, even winning one could be the difference between majority leader Schumer or Thune.
LikeLiked by 1 person
100% agree with this! Allred is a great candidate and will give Cruz a run for his money. One caution though, he needs to be careful to focus his campaign. Beto made the mistake to support every left-wing position he was asked to back, Allred needs to avoid that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Based on the SJQs that have been uploaded to the committee website, it appears that tomorrow’s nomination hearing will only feature the four nominees from the Februrary 7th batch. Unclear what is going on with Kanter as her SJQ has not been uploaded.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m refreshing the SJC website & still don’t see anything for tomorrow. Where are you seeing the SJC Q’s at?
LikeLike
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/committee-activity/library
LikeLiked by 1 person
The San Diego Bar Association graded her Well Qualified when she ran for Superior Court in 2022, so there prob isn’t an issue there.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Almost three year spread for the first point of contact (submission of resume/application or conversation with relevant point person) among the four nominees.
Bulsara: January 2021 (!)
Schulte: January 9 2023
Coggins: October 2023
Theeler: December 8 2023
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just goes to show how we were getting more progressive nominees for the EDNY then compared to now. Sadly Bulsara is probably the standard for New York for the remaining vacancies. He’s not bad but a long way from Ho & Merle.
LikeLike
Despite the 2021 application, Bulsara’s WH interview was just on this January 4. That’s just 34 days before he was announced, which is a new fastest mark for any of Biden’s district nominees. Julien Neals was the previous fastest, at 39 days. They were either very confident or were rushing, but I’m guessing the latter, which at least shows their commitment to getting nominees out in time for hearings.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The California congressional primaries were held on Super Tuesday. For the Senate race, Schiff and a Republican made it to the election in November, so Schiff will almost certainly be California’s next Senator. I wonder if he’ll get Butler’s SJC seat, but I’m sure if Democrats lose the Senate the Butler seat will most likely get the axe.
The other SJC Democrats up this year are Klobuchar, Whitehouse, and Hirono, none of which should have any problems getting re-elected.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It’s a two man race…
(https://www.yahoo.com/news/nikki-haley-exit-us-republican-110940537.html)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Eh it was a two man race for a while.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I know people are kinda meh about Bulsara but there’s some good stuff in his questionnaire.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I also read on his SJC Q he did a lot of pro bono work. Some of that included representing death penalty inmates. Being a board member of the American Constitution Society definitely bumps him up in my book.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m sure Judge Bulsara is very smart, but the LSAT doesn’t actually test on the law.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Seriously with all these campaign news. Is there not a more relevant forum folks can engage in the horserace to your heart’s content? And don’t try to make every election news about the judiciary. If you squint hard enough, everything is about the judiciary.
LikeLike
Sorry to tell you @Gavi but elections have direct relevance to judges. The name of this site is The Vetting Room. Senators are the 100 people who vet judicial nominees. I would say they are equally if not even more important to what judges gets on the bench then the president himself.
This is one we completely disagree on. So bring on the senate news all. I want to know as much as possible about each & every race so I know do we have a chance at any more Dale Ho’s… Lol
LikeLiked by 2 people
Then it’s an elections blog aka DailyKos? Got it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, 100% agree with @Gavi that the posts speculating about elections and amateurish election analysis (both which I’m also guilty of) should be left to another forum where there’s actually data/analysis and not just vibes. We’ll find out whether Dems can still nominate/confirm judges when we get election results in November – downplaying or panicking about the latest poll or whatever isn’t going to change that.
LikeLike
I think most of us are giving our opinions on the people running for the senate based on what we have seen, not based on polls. We do the same thing for the judicial nominees. I haven’t seen much talk about polls on this site.
The bottom line is the 100 US senators directly impact what judges we get. They will be discussed on this blog at great length as a result. The blog is an open forum. I agree long winded rants should be avoided but to be honest even when we get our bi-weekly @aangren rants, I just read it & keep it moving.
I don’t waste time trying to censor what people say on a blog. If Harsh doesn’t set any guidelines I certainly have no right to do so. But even if there were restrictions, discussing the people who vet judges on a blog called The Vetting Room wouldn’t be one of them.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Agree with Gavi. Prefer not to have any horserace discussion, unless it’s something truly newsworthy that will affect the judiciary, like Sinema not seeking re election. Just my two cents.
LikeLike
In his opening statement, Graham made some comment about an issue with background checks at DOJ. Any one know what that was about?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Senator Lee seems to think that National Asian Pacific Bar Association is a radical organization.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And Hirono didn’t push back at all? These Dems have got to get more of a spine and call out Republican nonsense when they see it – Lee hating Asians is hardly going to surprise anyone, but that doesn’t mean Dems should let him get away with it.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Exactly. There are many examples of this. One of the biggest was KBJ’s SCOTUS confirmation hearing when we got nary a pushback on the soft on pedo attacks she had to endure.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Here is my recap from todays SJC hearing;
Durbin started off by stating Graham was running late. Butler introduced Coggins. She mentioned the EDCA district is the sixth highest work load per judge.
Thune introduced the South Dakota nominees next. Schumer then spoke. He confirmed he recommended Bulsara. His last line was “I look forward to confirming more judges in the weeks & months to come”.
Rounds then spoke about both South Dakota nominees. Durbin then gushed over Thune & Rounds working with the White House to get the two nominees today.
Padilla then spoke about Coggins. Graham arrived & spoke about problems working on background checks. He didn’t elaborate.
Durbin & Graham then had uneventful questions. Then Durbin called on Hirono but then apologized & said it was actually Butler’s turn. This confused me since Hirono has seniority.
Kennedy then asked Coggins about her role in advising governor Jerry Brown on parole. He asked her about James Shodenfield, who was convicted of kidnapping 26 children & birthing them alive. Governor Brown pardoned him. He asked Coggins if she agreed with the decision. She said she would need to look at the entire file before making an assessment.
Kennedy then asked Bulsura about a case he ruled on involving J&J Sports Products. Kennedy spoke about the district court reversing his decision.
Hirono then asked her normal two questions. She then spoke about diversity & Schulte’s poetry writing.
Lee then asked Bulsura about statements made about the National Asian Pacific Bar Association, an organization he sat on the board of. He then asked him if males should compete in woman’s sports due to NAPBA’s support for such policies. Bulsura declined to comment because the subjects Lee was bringing up could come before the court. Lee then said perhaps he shouldn’t be a member of a group that holds those views if he can’t comment.
Ossoff then begin questioning. He was wearing a mask so I’m not sure if he was under the weather. Padilla then asked questioned. He spoke about diversity on the bench as well as law clerks. He then gave Coggins a chance to complete her response to Kennedy’s earlier question regarding her advice to Governor Brown regarding paroles.
Kennedy then asked Durbin since they had time left could he have a second round of questioning. Durbin politely denied his request.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I thought Bulsara said he was only a member of NAPBA and specifically said he WAS NOT a board member. I was half listening, so I may have misheard.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes that was his response to the accusation. Of course that won’t matter to Republicans anyway… Lol
LikeLike
Thanks for this. I couldn’t watch, so I appreciate this.
His last line was “I look forward to confirming more judges in the weeks & months to come”.
This is more or less meaningless coming from Schumer.
“Then Durbin called on Hirono but then apologized & said it was actually Butler’s turn. This confused me since Hirono has seniority.”
It’s based on who showed up first and have been waiting to ask questions. A senator can’t wait for 1 hour to ask questions only to be passed over by a senior senator we just showed up.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Haaaaa… Schumer & his McConnell-esse comments are always hilarious to me.
And that makes sense regarding Butler. That’s the fair way to do it. I just thought seniority was so important in the senate that it trumps all but I guess not always. That’s fair.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is there an issue with Kanter that we don’t know about given that she’s not at this hearing and is the only nominee left from the Feb 1st batch who hasn’t had one yet?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can’t imagine what could be the issue with Kanter but if there is one I wish they would hurry up & replace her. The only other Biden nominee I could think of that missed two hearings when there was a slot available in both & was still confirmed was Orelia Merchant. I believe her mother passed away so that was understandable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If there’s not a serious issue with Kanter, she could be scheduled for the 3/20 hearing if they do 2 panels (Maldonado at one, the district ct nominees at the other). But missing 2 hearings is…not great.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Graham’s background check comment wouldn’t be about her, would it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Graham’s comment was honestly the most important thing that I got out of the hearing today. I wish he had elaborated more on it. I doubt he was talking about anything related to Kanter though. I would imagine he was telling more about something pre-announcement. My guess would be it was regarding red state recommendations.
He said he would talk to Durbin about it later. Whatever it is, it needs to be dealt with ASAP. It’s March already. And as we can see from today, we aren’t filling six hearing slots per hearing. Hell we aren’t even filling five slots.
LikeLike
Switching gears a bit, last week The White House dropped the last requirement for anybody meeting with the President to get a Covid test. I hope with the relaxing of CDC Covid guidelines, this goes for the senate as well. Since only Democrats seem to still test & announce when they are positive, I hope this means they will change their current policy of missing a week of work whenever they get Covid.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Fascinating stuff re: Graham’s background check comment. These are the in the weeds details I love. And Graham not going into more detail is such a tease!
For a primer/reminder on the FBI’s BI for judicial nominations:
Click to access 09.29.23.%20–%20Judicial%20Nominations%20-%20Interim.pdf
LikeLiked by 1 person
That Mining Commission nominee or whoever just had cloture invoked, it was a 50-49 vote. I was at lunch for the first half of the vote but saw Sinema voting No. Britt didn’t vote so the Vice President wasn’t needed. Democrats are at full attendance today, while obviously I wish a party-line judge could have been voted on today at least they’re working on other nominations with tough votes.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sinema trying to stay relevant I see. Does anybody know what’s up with the Mayorkis impeachment vote? I hope to God Schumer doesn’t spend one Monday 5pm to Thursday 3pm minute of senate floor time on it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I learned yesterday that Republicans haven’t even delivered the impeachment articles to the Senate, so there’s nothing the Senate can do at this moment. Some House Republicans I guess want assurance that the Senate will hold a trial, which there’s definitely bipartisan opposition to one. If that’s the case then the Senate can just go about their day lol.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Oh wow, I definitely didn’t even know that was a thing. I thought the vote itself was enough to force senate action. Well that’s great news. Maybe they will put the paperwork where it belongs, in the nearest House garbage bin.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think it’s like voting on a House-passed bill, it’s not just enough for the House to pass it, they officially have to send it over to the Senate for the Senate can act on it (kind of like nominations, the nomination technically isn’t official until it’s sent to the Senate).
That Merit Protection Board nominee just had cloture invoked, it was a pure party-line vote (51-48). Again, not the juicy nominees we want to see but it’s good to see them taking advantage of having full attendance.
The House also passed the minibus, so we’ll see when the Senate takes it up. Just hope to god the monkey’s paw in this doesn’t involve Senators taking off the scheduled Monday that they’re set to be in for next week if they need to stay around Friday or something to pass the minibus.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I expect the debate over dismissal of the impeachment against Mayorkas will take a couple hours and then it will be dismissed
LikeLiked by 1 person
Elections, even outside just the Senate and President, have a direct relationship to the judiciary. As is news about legislation and other things in Congress. If a moderator forbids it fine, I’m not going to obey a particular busybody who regularly complains about election news here. I fully intend to discuss elections and Congressional news here.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m right there with you Jaime. I was being nice when I said only senate races have a direct affect on judges but to be honest even the House does. The House being controlled by a majority that will not pass legislation means more time for the senate to confirm judges.
Hell even governor races can have an affect on judges because I care about state Supreme Court’s as well. I’m fine with leaving the long rants out of the blog but to say whether Ted Cruz or Colin Allred is the junior senator from Texas doesn’t have an effect on federal judges is laughable at best.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Whitehouse wrapped up (I don’t know, there’s something about his delivery of his speeches that I like btw, he was also just coming off giving another speech in his series of speeches on all the right-wing money and influence in our courts). The Senate will vote on cloture and confirm that DC Superior Court nominee tomorrow, was actually wondering if that was going to get sidelined with the minibus vote. The resolution to escort the President to the House chamber at 9PM for tomorrow, so there should be some time in the afternoon for the Senate to take care of the minibus.
Tomorrow’s SJC meeting should be interesting, given that we expect two of the nominees being voted on to be party-line votes. And we’ll see if Schumer files cloture on any nominees tomorrow.
Today’s nominees will probably be listed and held over on the 3/21 meeting, and then voted on when the Senate is back from its next two week break at the 4/11 meeting, where I’d expect the nominees slated to appear at the 3/20 meeting to be held over and then voted out on 4/18.
LikeLiked by 2 people
So the senate should wrap up budget issues Thurs , and then this will fund govt thru 9/30/24 ?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I was having dinner, but Schumer had to file cloture on the minibus, in more descriptive terms to “concur on the House amendment”, so my understanding is that the Senate-passed minibus was modified by the House before it was passed, so the Senate has to vote on that. Might be just a two-step of cloture and then passage.
Either way, unless there’s some sped-up time agreement, might be a Friday passage since cloture was just filed today? I didn’t see any disclaimer of “Further votes possible” on the Senate Twitter feeds.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Only half the government. Other half needs worked out before it’s CR ends 3/22.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Judiciary Committee is voting on nominees tomorrow.
There are two nominees from Texas who could be confirmed easily. IMHO, Schumer is having difficulty rounding enough votes for four controversial nominees. Eumi Lee, Mustafa Kasubhai, and Sarah French got banged up in confirmation hearings and Republicans portrayed them as wild-eyed radicals.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your belief that Lee/Kasubhai/Russell are having trouble getting the votes is based on…what exactly? Just vibes? I can see them being party-line votes, but not sure what evidence there is suggesting that they won’t get confirmed (since they, unlike Gaston/Edelman/etc., were renominated earlier this year).
And honestly, what is Schumer’s logic with wasting time on executive nominees that might serve for like 10 months tops at this point (and also Article I nominees like the DC Superior Court).
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would argue the belief of Lee/Kasubhai/Russell being tough votes is primarily based on patterns (though there are def some vibes). Out of the 10 most recent CONFIRMED nominees that Graham opposed in committee, 5 were opposed by Manchin and all Republicans. 2 more were party line votes, 2 were unusual votes, and only 1 had the support of Collins, Murkowski, & all Dems.
There are 3 unconfirmed circuit and 4 district nominees that were voted out by a party line vote. Judging based on Manchin’s recent patterns, we can expect him to oppose 3-4 of the 7 nominees. Sinema might also be less cooperative (though fortunately, her and Manchin have separate “algorithms” for deciding whether to support a nominee).
If Graham’s voting patterns on Biden judges matched how I expected him to vote before there were any Biden judges, I would think Lee/Kasubhai/Russell would have no problem getting confirmed. But as 50-50 Dale Ho type votes have been a lot more common than 53-47 Rikelman type votes, it is much more likely for the 7 pending controversial nominees to need full Dem attendance.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If we get a new batch next week, I hope we get a full slate of at least six with the three weeks since the last batch. Perhaps we can get seven nominees if they include an intent to nominate for the Maldonado seat.
LikeLike
You KNOW that Biden will not make a nomination to the Maldonado seat until Maldonado is confirmed to the 7th circuit. No point in announcing a nominee this early on when the nomination would just sit on Biden’s desk for months.
LikeLike
That’s not true. Biden has had numerous intent to nominates. His very first batch had one with Florence Pan for KBJ seat. He did it as recently as September 6, 2023 with Kirk E. Sherriff for Ana de Alba who wasn’t confirmed until November 13, 2023. I can very much see him doing it for Maldonado’s seat since we have a list of recommendations for the NDIL.
LikeLiked by 2 people
SJC Meeting Vote Recap:
-Ali was a party-line vote
-DuBose and Harjani were 12-9 (Graham)
-White and Yoon were 14-7 (Graham, Kennedy, Tillis)
The non-judicial nominee votes if you’re curious:
-Levy (MA Attorney) was a party-line vote
-Lutzko (NDOH Attorney) was 14-7 (Graham, Cotton, Tillis)
-Minter (SDGA Marshal) was a party-line vote
-Carter (US Parole Commission) was 12-9 (Graham)
Nothing unexpected, only question for me was it was a coin flip on whether or not DuBose would have been a party-line vote.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why has Lutzko to be voted out of the SJC again?
Durbin has already tried to get her confirmed by voice vote on the floor and was always objected by her home state senator J. D. Vance.
Is that maybe a deal with vance to send her back to the committee and he might get a voice vote for ND of Illinois nominee Perry?
LikeLike