Sparkle Sooknanan – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Department of Justice attorney Sparkle Sooknanan is the White House’s second nominee to replace Judge Florence Pan on the D.C. District Court.

Background

A native of Trinidad & Tobago, Sooknanan moved to New York City at age 16 to attend St. Francis College, graduating summa cum laude in 2002. Sooknanan subsequently got an M.B.A. with Distinction from Hofstra College in 2003 and then started work at HIP Health Plan. Sooknanan continued working there while studying in the evenings at Brooklyn Law School, getting a J.D. summa cum laude in 2010.

After graduating, Sooknanan clerked for Judge Eric Vitaliano on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Judge Guido Calabresi on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and then for Justice Sonia Sotomayor on the U.S. Supreme Court. Sooknanan then joined Jones Day, becoming a Partner in 2020. Sookanan subsequently left Jones Day and joined the U.S. Department of Justice, where she currently serves as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights Division.

History of the Seat

Sooknanan was nominated, based on the recommendation of Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, to replace Judge Florence Pan, who was elevated to the D.C. Circuit on September 28, 2022. President Biden had previously nominated D.C. Superior Judge Todd Edelman to replace Pan, but despite being approved by the Judiciary Committee multiple times, Edelman never received a floor vote and his nomination was not resubmitted to the Senate in 2024.

Legal Experience

Sooknanan started her career in practice with a brief stint at the Department of Justice between her lower court clerkships and her clerkship with Sotomayor. During this time, Sooknanan had the opportunity to argue before the Ninth Circuit on a Federal Tort Claims Act case. See Dichter-Mad Family Partners, LLP v. United States, 709 F.3d 749 (9th Cir. 2013).

Between 2014 and 2020, Sooknanan practiced at the firm Jones Day. At Jones Day, Sooknanan was part of the legal team representing Everytown for Gun Safety as amici in a suit challenging Colorado’s background check laws. See Colorado Outfitters Ass’n v. Hickenlooper, 823 F.3d 537 (10th Cir. 2016). Sooknanan also represented defendants challenging their convictions relating to the illegal smuggling of drugs (now Judge Trevor McFadden was one of the attorneys representing the government on the suit). See United States v. Mosquera-Murillo, 902 F.3d 285 (D.C. Cir. 2018). One of Sooknanan’s most intensive cases from this time was her involvement in a multi-party litigation related to bonds issued by the Employee Retirement System of the Government of Puerto Rico. See In re Financial Oversight & Manage. Bd. of Puerto Rico, 914 F.3d 694 (1st Cir. 2019).

Notably, Sooknanan, alongside fellow former Supreme Court clerks Benjamin Mizer and Parker Rider-Longmaid, filed amicus briefs in support of the City of Charlottesville’s decision to remove Confederate statues. See City of Charlottesville v. Payne, 856 S.E.2d 203 (Va. 2021). The Virginia Supreme Court ultimately reversed a Circuit Court ruling putting the removal on hold. See id. However, due to Jones Day’s challenges to Pennsylvania election accommodations for the pandemic, Sooknanan resigned from Jones Day.

Since 2021, Sooknanan has been with the Department of Justice, most recently working with the Civil Rights Division.

Political Activity

Sooknanan has a limited political history, including donations to Secretary Hillary Clinton and Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul.

Overall Assessment

While Sooknanan doesn’t have experience as a public defender as Edelman did, her nomination is likely to prove fairly controversial as well. Her resignation of Jones Day and her work at the Civil Rights Division is likely to draw strong conservative opposition. With an election approaching, it remains to be seen if Sooknanan will be muscled through while Democrats have the attendance to do so.

928 Comments

  1. Joe's avatar

    I have a hunch that Berner, Lee, Kiel, and the TX nominees will be it for next week. Which is really quite a good week. Then they’ll move onto the spending bill.

    After everything is wrapped up we might see some voice votes, particularly for the Utah and Nebraska nominees. But that’s it

    Liked by 1 person

    • keystone's avatar

      Berner’s Monday confirmation date is a bold move. I kind of wonder if Schumer has intel that some Republicans will be absent on Monday evening, similar to Thursday.

      I assume the reason he only filed cloture on 2 noms is to leave room in the schedule in case there’s a last minute attendance surprise and they need to bump Berner to Tuesday.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Really the most thing for Schumer to know attendance wise next week is the VP’s schedule. I assume she will be in town Tuesday (The senate is not in session Monday). Also on Tuesday I am going to be laser focused on any cloture motions sent. Any numbers in the 460’s is golden.

        Then Wednesday will be very important. Hopefully a new batch of more than five nominees. And then we will find out if Kanter is in the SJC hearing. If not, I say her nomination is toast for whatever reason. No way she misses three hearings & something is not wrong.

        Liked by 2 people

  2. Hank's avatar

    I’m one of the ones who wasn’t that jazzed about Mangi’s nomination to start with because he’s been a boring corporate lawyer his whole career, and actually that makes it more infuriating that Rosen (or whoever) is blocking his nomination because of his Muslim faith.

    To those like Zack who are insulting our intelligence by acting like this is isn’t Islamophobia, here’s an analogy:

    To the extent that Mangi’s been “controversial,” it’s entirely been “guilt”-by-association and based on what others that are part of groups he’s been in have said. By this logic, Jacky Rosen is responsible for everything Ilhan Omar Rashida Tlaib have ever said because Rosen, Omar, and Tlaib are all members of the Democratic Party, right? And given that Rosen supports the current Israeli government and one of the ministers in that government has celebrated a West Bank settler’s murder of a 12-year-old, Rosen must also support child murder? Or do nuance and diversity of opinion only apply when it benefits white people?

    Liked by 3 people

    • Jamie's avatar

      I will say this, the reason why the guilt by association works in this case is because a clear majority of the country is Islamophobic, including a substantial minority of Democrats. That’s the truth, like it or not. I would be willing to bet that perhaps 2/3 of Montana is Islamophobic, and that’s the kind of electorate that Jon Tester has to win over. That’s reality. You might not want to deal with reality, but it’s going to deal with you.

      I really don’t believe the story that Casey/Fetterman are opposed because Mangi was involved with a some group that has ties to Mumia. The reason why Adegbile was rejected (which itself was disgusting) was because he had direct ties to Mumia’s defense. That’s a much clearer story to tell. 

      This, along with the claim that Mangi didn’t disclose that he was a moderator at a conference, feels like another excuse to justify that the opposition to Mangi isn’t due to his faith, when it so obviously is.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Hank's avatar

        Yep agree with most of what you said, Jamie – but even if Tester (and not Rosen) is the problem, that same 2/3rds of Montana also thinks Black people are criminals, LGBTQ people are perverts, Hispanics are “illegals,” and Asians are communists. Yet Tester voted for KBJ, Alison Nathan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Lucy Koh.

        If Tester’s gotten enough Montanans to vote for him/not vote for his opponent in the last 3 elections, I doubt he seriously believes on a judge in New Jersey that most people have never heard of (rather than their loyalty to Trump, for example) is what seals his chances at a fourth term.

        “Dealing with reality” and accepting bigotry are two different things – if Dems can’t tell the difference, then they have no right to demand that victims of bigotry continually vote for them while getting no help in return.

        Liked by 1 person

      • star0garnet's avatar

        @Hank

        Except that isn’t remotely true. There is of course substantial overlap between different forms of prejudice, but it’s nowhere near 100% overlap, and the strength/influence of the different forms of prejudice wax and wane. 2/3 of the state may be Islamophobic, but the figures for those opinions on the groups you mentioned are closer to 1/3 (and closer to 1/5 regarding Asians). And this is precisely the sort of vote that GOP PACs drool over the prospect of spending millions on framing in the most perverse way possible (‘Muslim hid connections…’).

        Liked by 1 person

      • Hank's avatar

        @star but other than your guesses, where is there any evidence that a significant number of Montanans simultaneously (1) hate Muslims enough that it determines who they vote for, and (2) don’t hate other groups to the same extent. Ranting about the Chinese Communist Party is one of the GOP’s favorite talking points, and so is the claim that LGBT people are dangers to children – racists and bigots are not picky about who they hate.

        Liked by 1 person

      • star0garnet's avatar

        @Hank

        Prejudices are of course hard to measure accurately. A moderately accurate measure of Islamophobia is whether or not Islam encourages violence more than other religions; that’s been steady at around 70% among Republicans, 30% among Democrats, and 50% overall for a decade. A moderately accurate measure of anti-LGBT+ prejudice is opposition to marriage equality, which sits around 50% among Republicans, 15% among Democrats, and 30% overall. I’m unaware of a measure of Islamophobia in Montana, but opposition to marriage equality stands around 35% in the state. The idea that “racists and bigots are not picky about who they hate” is not a helpful one in the centuries-long effort to reduce those tendencies and their influence.

        It’s well documented that prejudice is far more common and influential a) when there is fearmongering encouraging the prejudice and b) when a person is personally unfamiliar with subjects of that prejudice. The vast majority of Montanans will be personally familiar with Hispanics and members of the LGBT+ community. Most urban Montanans (so, roughly half the state) will be personally familiar with Black and Asian neighbors, as will a good portion of their rural counterparts. Very few will be personally familiar with Muslims, and even fewer will know that they are (as many Muslims conceal their faith).

        So yes, it’s a guess, but it’s an informed one. Along with 20 years of familiarity with political advertising. This is a very exploitable potential issue for Republicans. If it were just a matter of his faith, most people would see any ads on the subject as prejudice, pure and simple. But when you add in the apology to the committee, the theoretical ads gain a much larger receptive audience. And it’s the sort of issue where any potential response that Tester could give would be a losing one.

        (With all of this said, I’d guess that Tester would vote for Mangi at least if his vote was decisive.)

        Liked by 1 person

      • Hank's avatar

        Yep I agree that Tester’s unlikely to be the hold up (I still think it’s Rosen given that she blocked Edelman behind the scenes).

        Also agree that hate/bigotry is closely tied to lack of familiarity, but I’m not sure what basis there is to conclude that the “vast majority of Montanans will be personally familiar” with any of the groups we’re talking about. This is Montana we’re talking about, not NYC or LA – the census indicates that 4% of Montanans are Hispanic, 1% are Asian, and 0.6% are Black: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/MT/PST045222. I couldn’t find any LGBT numbers for Montana, but I doubt it’s enough for the “vast majority” of Montanans (especially older Montanans) to personally know someone enough that they aren’t swayed by Fox News propaganda. As for urban Montanans, there aren’t enough of them in the first place – that’s exactly why Montana is so conservative.

        And regardless of how many people are prejudiced in some way or another, having a prejudice is not the same as being so prejudiced that it is the deciding issue in how a person votes. How many Montanans do you think there are who are fine with Tester voting for Dale Ho (the Republicans also ran ads about him being some crazy leftist) and allegedly soft-on-crime Ketanji Brown Jackson (much more highly publicized), but draws the line at at Mangi? 

        Liked by 1 person

  3. Mike's avatar

    I’m a bit surprised they haven’t figured out a deal with Senator Kennedy for the two Louisiana vacancies.

    I thought they had a working relationship with Kennedy considering he returned 3 blue slips for district judges already.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      I don’t know who, but I trust governor Whitmer when it comes to judicial picks. She may be second only to governor Murphy who by far & away is the best. I had high hopes for Massachusetts new governor but she’s been underwhelming. I am still waiting to see how governor Moore does. I have high hopes for him as well.

      Like

  6. Zack's avatar

    It should be noted the Republican isn’t retiring until the end of his term so Whitmer can’t appoint someone to this seat.
    It’s going to be a general election and given how Sam Bagenstos failed before in 2018, I doubt he’ll try again.
    Won’t object if Fadwa Hammoud runs but the question is will she want to?

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Hank's avatar

    There’s already someone running on the Dem side – Michigan Law Professor Kimberly Thomas: https://www.electkimberlythomas.com

    Maybe someone will jump in now that it’s an open seat, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the Dems coalesce around Thomas. Running a statewide campaign is tough to do last minute, and state court seats (even to the state Supreme Court) are not as desirable/prestigious as federal appointments.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. rob's avatar

    Interesting comments from Murkowski was in today’s newsletter from Politco.

    WHAT MURKOWSKI’S THINKING ON JUDGES

    As the White House and Senate Democrats gear up to confirm as many judges as they can before the end of President Joe Biden’s term, one Republican they’ve generally been able to rely on is moderate Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski.

    But she made clear she shouldn’t be seen as a rubber stamp. On Thursday, for instance, she voted against proceeding with the confirmation of Nicole G. Berner to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

    “I want to know that you have had real-world experience when it comes to either being in front of the court or working with the courts at a lower level, particularly for these higher judicial offices,” she told Inside Congress. “I don’t care if it’s Biden [who] has nominated him or Trump has nominated him or George Bush has nominated him — if they’re not qualified, they’re not qualified. They shouldn’t be put up there.”

    Similarly, she said, Americans too often talk about federal judges the wrong way: “I’d like to think that they are not Trump’s judges or Obama’s judges or Biden’s judges.”

    Overall, she’s voted to confirm about three-quarters of Biden’s 185 Senate-confirmed judges; she voted against 34 and missed votes on 11 others. It underscores the challenge for the White House — that even one of the most gettable GOP votes on judicial picks still tends to oppose a hefty portion of them.

    As for the future of the “blue slip” — the Senate tradition of effectively requiring the signoff of both home-state senators for district court nominees — Murkowski conceded “we’ve seen some instances where it’s not working very well” but doesn’t support calls to do away with it.

    “It’s good to respect that process,” she said, “but it means that you have to work with one another.”

    — Anthony Adragna

    Liked by 2 people

    • tsb1991's avatar

      Speaking of Murkowski, I noticed while watching the DuBose votes for cloture and confirmation that Jack Reed (and to some extent Sheldon Whitehouse) hung around the chamber for the entirety of the vote, which sometimes Senators will do when a nomination or a bill that they’re pushing is up for a vote (Hawley did that on the radiation bill vote last week, for example). When Murkowski came out to vote on confirming DuBose, which she voted no, it looked like Jack Reed tried to sweet-talk her into voting yes, it would’ve been impressive had it worked. Also interesting it was Reed considering the judiciary is more of Whitehouse’s wheelhouse and not Reed’s.

      She’s still one of the more interesting Senators to me, as a couple of her re-elections you could attribute to Democratic voters (2010 as a write-in and 2022 with ranked choice voting, she needed Democratic votes most likely against her more conservative Republican opponent), and seems to have a good relationship with several Democratic Senators.

      Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        The most recent memory of me seeing a senator get another senator to change their mind in the floor was for the Roopali Desai vote. Sinema was talking to Romney & got him to change his vote to a yes. I remember somebody on the blog wrote a few weeks ago a Republican senator voted against a Republican pick, then Antoine Republican senator rushed over to them & they went back & changed their vote to a yes. I believe the senator was JD Vance & the nominee was Joseph Laroski but don’t quote me on that.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Ryan J's avatar

        I watch Senate votes infrequently enough that I could probably list here all the Senate votes I’ve watched live. Here’s a list of the ones I remember watching live:

        2020

        -confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett

        2021

        -second impeachment trial of Donald Trump

        2022

        -confirmation of Ketanji Brown Jackson
        -cloture on Arianna Freeman (only after seeing a Vetting Room comment saying she was down 40-42)

        2023

        -confirmation of Anthony Johnstone
        -vote on debt ceiling bill
        -confirmation of Natasha Merle
        -confirmation of Rachel Bloomekatz
        -confirmation of Ana de Alba

        2024

        -cloture on John Kazen

        Liked by 1 person

  9. raylodato's avatar

    I don’t get how Murkowski’s thinking on this led her to oppose Berner. Is she saying that Berner, who was both a union lawyer and worked for Planned Parenthood, didn’t have enough litigation experience? Or is there some sort of coded language that I’m missing here?

    Liked by 2 people

  12. Mike S.'s avatar

    @keystone – good article, even though they incorrectly state Lewis was appointed by W. (it was his old man, H.W., who incidentally also gave us Clarence Thomas…) I would really like to see Mangi confirmed, but in a tough election year for Tester, Brown, Rosen, etc., it just be to tough of a lift. If its clear he doesn’t have the votes, pull the nomination and again I’m going to advocate for Jeremy Feigenbaum 

    @Hank – good point on the Berner nomination and how Collins/Murkowski voted. While I thought they would vote for her as they did with Riker, I think your analogy to the Sung vote makes more sense. They would support a nominee who is an advocate for abortion rights, but a pro-union/workers right lawyer is a bridge too far.

    Is it me, or does it seem we had an easier time confirming judges in a 50/50 senate than we do today?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      @Mike S

      No it’s not just you at all. I was thinking the same thing as well. But there are several factors as to why it was easier with a 50/50 senate (Although I’m certainly not advocating that over 51/49).

      With Manchin not up for reelection for 4 years (At the time he probably still thought he would run again), he probably didn’t feel the need to vote against any nominees the first two years. Plus Dems knew every senator was the deciding vote so there was probably more internal pressure from the WH/Schumer/Biden than there is now.

      There are simply many more red & purple-ish state senators running for reelection this year than in 2022. So now you have to throw in Rosen & others in the mix.

      The thing that still hurts me the most is Mandela Barnes loss. Having him defeat Johnson would have had so much of a ripple effect. We would have a EDWI nominee by now & likely a pretty progressive one to boot. We wouldn’t have to worry about Manchin voting no anymore & could spare the occasional second Democrat senator voting no too. Lastly I wouldn’t be nearly as worried about the senate flipping if it was 52/48 versus what we have now.

      Like

      • Hank's avatar

        Yeah I could understand if it’s Tester or Brown (and we all knew Manchin will be a pain on pretty much everything), but Rosen infuriates me because there’s no electoral basis for her tanking Edelman and now possibly Mangi. Cortez Masto, the other senator from Nevada, didn’t pull this BS when she was running for reelection in 2022 (when all polls/signs before the election were pointing to her losing). Nor did Warnock or Kelly, and Arizona and Georgia are much more conservative states than Nevada. In fact, Tammy Baldwin’s running for reelection in Wisconsin (also redder than Nevada) on the same calendar as Rosen, and she’s not going out of her way to be a pain in the ass.

        Especially for Rosen, I don’t think it’s electoral considerations and more than she personally opposes Mangi – if she wanted to get credit for being a moderate, she’d put out a statement or whatever about how she’s opposing these “soft-on-crime,” “antisemitic” candidates. Instead, she’s too much of a coward to do more than pull this behind-the-scenes maneuvering – whether it’s because she’s an idiot who lacks the reading comprehension skills to see through the Republican BS or a bigot who apparently thinks someone from Pakistan must automatically be a Hamas supporter, who knows.

        Liked by 1 person

  13. Hank's avatar

    Good article about the Mangi situation and how the GOP attacks are ridiculous given (1) national Jewish groups’ support for Mangi and (2) past Republican nominees who have represented people who were convicted of killing cops (which I don’t think is disqualifying because the criminal justice system is premised on even the worst person having a defense attorney, but this is something that Mangi never even did): https://www.huffpost.com/entry/adeel-mangi-muslim-judicial-nominee_n_65f486e1e4b0651fa4a2b1ec?jx2

    Unfortunately, I suspect that this is all too little, too late in terms of saving his nomination – and I can’t help but wonder where Demand Justice/ACS/Alliance for Justice have been on this. Demand Justice spent money on an ad campaign for Dale Ho’s nomination to a district-court seat, but haven’t done anything for the infinitely-more-important deciding vote on the Third Circuit? At the very least, they could be putting together a “call-your-senators” effort and circulating among progressives/getting AOC & co to spread the word about it.

    More than anything, if the WH/Durbin/Schumer really support Mangi, they should leak whoever it is that’s obstructing this nomination – that would make any grassroots campaign to call their office/pressure them to get into line easier. I still suspect it’s Jacky Rosen, and I wonder if her bigotry will hold up if she actually faced some pushback for it. More vocal backing of Mangi from unions could likely make that traitorous witch come to her senses (given the dependence of NV Dems on labor), but interestingly enough, Mangi’s corporate background probably makes him less appealing to organized labor

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Zack's avatar

    @Dequan, Barnes in 2022, Cunningham in NC in 2020 (Jeff Jackson should have been the nominee) and Bill Nelson in 2018 are misses that will haunt us this year.
    I will also say this about Barnes, I know some folks want to think otherwise but him jumping on the defund the police bandwagon and wearing a defund ICE t-shirt is what sunk him in the end, even if he did try to distance himself from it.
    Tammy Baldwin is very liberal but even she knew there was a line you can’t cross in a purple state and that was it.
    And like I said earlie on Mangi, people want to blame Rosen because of Edelman/her stance on Israel or suggesting Jon Tester is to blame because of Islamphobia in MT keep discounting that even now in the PA/NJ area, the Mumia Abu-Jamal case is still a cause of deep division and anger and while he’s not as conservative as he was once was, Bob Casey is not going to ignore LEO groups that didn’t weigh in on Arianna Freeman or other nominees weighing in on Mangi’s ties to Alliance of Families for Justice, which is a lighting rod in the NY/NJ/PA area for many.
    But I digress.
    We likely won’t ever know who the no votes are because
    despite the wishes of some folks here, the WH/Schumer care more about holding onto the Senate more then anything else.
    They aren’t going to put certain senators on blast publicly or do a vote they know will fail and risk a major division in the party when there already several over one nominee, that’s politics 101.
    If he can be confirmed after the election in the lame duck period, then roll the dice but if he can’t, then it’s time to move on.
    It sucks but sadly, this isn’t the first good nominee to fail because of politics, and it won’t be the last.
    As many folks who have fought civil rights over the years can tell you, sometimes you have to cut your losses as painful as it is for the greater good.
    One nominee doesn’t matter as much as the civil rights of millions do.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hank's avatar

      Other posters have already pointed out why your focus on that one PA case makes no sense, so I’ll keep my response on your ad nauseam mentions of that PA case short (because there’s not much to suggest that Casey, who unlike Rosen has not been reported to have blocked any nominees, is behind this). We’ve got Republican judges who have represented “cop killers” on the bench, but this case of someone who didn’t represent a “cop-killer” is too much? Really? Then all the prosecutors that Casey has voted to confirm must also be unqualified because of the times their coworkers wrongfully got someone convicted or defended a cop who murdered a civilian, right?

      And I actually agree with you that they should just ask Mangi to withdraw and nominate someone else (rather than risk waiting until the lame duck), but you need to stop telling people to just “get over it.” If Muslim groups/progressives/whoever want to suss out who it is and organize an #AbandonRosen campaign in Nevada, then that’s Rosen’s fault for being a bigot.

      After all, if Dems abandoned KBJ because of the Republicans’ “soft-on-crime” BS, you really think Black leaders would be like “oh well better luck next time”? No, people would be rightfully angry at whichever senators were too bigoted to uphold the values Democrats are supposed to have. And if those voters don’t feel like going through the hassle of voting for Dem candidates that do nothing for them, then it’s the Democrats’ job to win them back.

      Liked by 2 people

  16. Zack's avatar

    Medhi Hasan implied in 2020 that Biden was senile among other things over the years.
    If you’re trying to get people to convince the WH/Senate to push harder on Mangi’s behalf, he’s not it.
    Also, Timothy Lewis is the type of Republican jurist along with Illana Rovner who would NEVER make it through the screening process the GOP has in place today.
    Just goes to show that even under Reagan and Bush Sr, the process to ensure only right wing hacks got through worked to some degree (Thomas/Alito) but not 100%.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Zack's avatar

    Yes ,one case can matter more then the usual this nominee is soft on crime garbage.
    We saw that with Edelman and we also saw it with Michael Delaney’s nomination for the 1st Circuit.
    Even though the NH Senators fought until the end for him it wasn’t enough and he was a far centrist/right leaning nominee, yet you and others don’t think a couple of couple high profile cop killing cases won’t move the needle?
    You go to the twitter feed of the person in question and he does mention Casey being hit with ads over this.
    Perhaps some folks here need to get out of their bubbles a little bit more.
    Also, you have no proof Rosen is a no vote yet you’ve called her a bigot, a hag and other things, language which hasn’t even been used to describe Sinema or Manchin or Tester etc.
    I wonder what’s different about her?
    Finally, I’ll say this.
    I’m a member of the LGBT community that has had to see Democrats at times help to pass garbage like DOMA/DADT, not fighting as hard as they should to repeal anti-LGBT laws/fight for LGBT rights, watch LGBT nominees be put through the ringer yet I still voted Democratic because the other side is in fact worse.
    It has mattered to me for the past four years I haven’t had to see what anti-LGBT/racist/sexist bigot is being put on the courts.
    That is what factors in for many others as well.
    We’re not voting because we’re in love with Biden/Harris or aren’t angry at certain policies of theirs, it’s about getting some things done while reducing the harm done overall to the courts, society etc. and yes, that means sometimes gritting your teeth to do so.
    It sucks that Mangi’s nomination is likely to fail but this notion that it’s okay to stay home or vote third party because of one nominee or others issues and that those of us who will be damned with Trump should be okay with it?
    Nope, the choices are Biden or Trump, simple as that and if some folks don’t care or think it will create a progressive revolution (it won’t) if they vote third party or stay home/give the Senate to Republicans, they are beyond reach, simple as that.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Hank's avatar

      @Zack apparently you can’t read, because I made my reasons why Rosen is different from the others very clear – other senators who were or are in as tough (if not tougher) races than her—including the senior senator in her own state—didn’t feel the need to tank well-qualified nominees. Even Sinema (who I also despise with a passion) hasn’t tanked a nominee. 

      And to the extent that you’re implying I can’t hate Rosen without being a sexist or antisemite, how dare you. I’ve had no problems with Ossoff, Blumenthal, Schatz, Sanders, Schumer, or literally any of the women senators except Rosen/Sinema – that’s because none of them are idiots who block great nominees. And if resenting Feinstein for staying long past when she should’ve retired and holding up SJC votes is antisemitic, then every other person on this board must be antisemitic. No senator gets a pass for being horrible simply because of who they are – what other senator from a state Dems have won in every presidential election since 2008 has obstructed their own party like this? And unlike with Casey, there’s evidence that Rosen’s already tanked one nominee – Edelman.

      As for your “the other guy is worse” argument, that really helped President Hillary Clinton win in 2016. And don’t try pulling the gay card on me – as a gay man and person of color, I’m well aware of what’s at stake. But if we had just accepted every homophobic attack from Dems in the 90s and 2000s without pushing back (which gay activists were doing during that time), does anyone honestly think we would’ve gotten the progress we’ve made so far? To simplify it: if you always vote for a politician even when they spit in your face, what motivation does that politician have to ever help you when they can take your vote for granted?

      So no, Democrats like Rosen are not entitled to the votes of people they treat with nothing but contempt. If she wants votes, she might have to *gasp* actually do something to earn it.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Hank's avatar

        And my apologies for bringing non-judicial politics into this for a minute, but Biden’s border bill are the perfect example of what happens if marginalized groups follow Zack’s “always vote Dem with no complaints” demand: 

        Latinos/Hispanics have steadfastly supported Democrats in every election, yet the Dems were more than ready to permanent codify many of Trump’s horrendous executive actions relating to immigration into law. All without any protections for DACA recipients (which has historically been a Democratic demand in exchange for tougher border policies, one which Dem voters think is fair) or even allowing a Hispanic/Latino senator into the room for negotiations–instead immigrants were supposed to trust that…Kyrsten Sinema and Chris Murphy were watching out for their interests? And then Dems were messaging this Republican wish list to the public as some “reasonable compromise” and that they would help DACA recipients “next time.” But if the Dems already gave the Republicans 90% of what they wanted on the border, what horrendous price would Republicans demand “next time” in exchange for normalizing DACA status (in the wild world that they would ever agree with it at all)?

        Allowing politicians to feel entitled to our support by being “not as bad” as the other party only incentivizes those politicians to get closer to the other party’s position. If marginalized groups won’t exercise what little power we do have when politicians abandon us, then we’ll soon have no power at all.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Hank's avatar

        @Joe that’s fair, I shouldn’t have used the word “hag” in retrospect – I still think she’s an idiot to have blocked Edelman, but I understand how “hag” is gendered (and it is my bad that it was the first word that wasn’t a swear word after motherf—– and a–hole to come to mind when I thought of her). I’ll admit that I hold a lot of anger towards Rosen because of the Edelman situation.

        And anyone with experience in the criminal justice system has seen people be convicted and sentenced on circumstantial evidence, so I see no reason to cut Rosen any slack. The behind-the-scenes maneuvering/leaking is giving me strong flashbacks to what happened to Edelman, and let’s not forget how Jacky Rosen acted during that process (from the WashPo article):

        “Retired federal appeals court judge Beverly Martin, now with New York University, wrote to senators to say this: ‘I don’t know any judge — whether nominated by a Democratic or Republican president — who would have [done differently than Edelman] under the law and circumstances that existed at the time.’ On the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) was at first concerned about Blackburn’s allegations, but he backed Edelman in the committee vote after learning the facts. Other senators were likewise reassured. Manchin and Sinema were their usual noncommittal selves, though they seldom tank a nomination when the rest of the Democratic caucus is on board. But Rosen held out, apparently out of fear that she’d be the victim of an attack ad in her tight reelection race this year. Unions and civil rights organizations pleaded with her, to no avail. She declined to meet with Edelman, instead having a staffer do it.”

        So forgive me for not wanting to cut any slack for a senator who is such a coward that she couldn’t be bothered to hear the nominee’s side of the story or tell him to his face why she was blocking his appointment on the basis of Republican BS. Especially when Senator Cortez Masto didn’t pull any of this nonsense in 2022 when she was running for reelection. Rosen is a weak and horrible person, but I was wrong to use language suggesting that her being weak or horrible has anything to do with her gender.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Joe's avatar

        I understand where you’re coming from. I was upset about Edelman and the others as well.

        Fortunately we appear to be getting someone as good or even better in in Sooknanan, so it may all work out the same way with Mangi as well, if he indeed doesn’t get the votes.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Hank's avatar

        Yes, fingers crossed that we get someone decent to replace Mangi if he can’t get through. I’m doubtful that we will though, given how little time we have left – my bet is that it’ll be another career prosecutor or someone “safe” from that list of finalists.

        And last thing – I’m not so convinced that Sooknanan will be “better” than Edelman. She’s younger, but Edelman was one of the few nominees who, like Berner and Sung, had a labor law background. By contrast, Sooknanan spent her whole career until very recently as a corporate lawyer, and one of her main cases was representing hedge funds looking to capitalize on Puerto Rico. Given DDC and CADC’s jurisdiction over most federal agencies, I’d rather see a union-side labor lawyer than a career corporate lawyer on it, and my concern is that Sooknanan will turn out to be another Ana Reyes (liberal on social issues, but less so on economic ones).  

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        It worked out in the case of Edelman because I wasn’t so thrilled he was the nominee in the first place. He deserved to be confirmed however, especially after not getting a vote under Obama.

        I unfortunately see little to no chance of the same happening in the case of Mangi. He was a rock star pick even without being the first Muslim circuit court nominee. I see virtually no chance of his replacement being as good. The best chance of that happening is if Jeremy Feigenbaum or Rachel Wainer Apter have some gold bars laying around their houses. If so, I can set up an interview with the states senior senator. Otherwise we are likely to get a lackluster replacement.

        Like

  19. Joe's avatar

    Daisy, unfortunately that really only does anything if it’s your home state senator.

    I’ve told Lindsey Graham before that I appreciate his working across the aisle to find high quality judges….with things like this Ive always found that you have to be careful how you word things so that it comes across like you’re a “winnable” vote for them.

    If I lived in any of the swing states I’d happily be lobbying my senators for sure.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. Daisyoodle's avatar

    Oh, I know. The calls usually aren’t effective especially as they simply get filed into the system or even ignored if you’re from out of state. I was more asking if anyone was from any of the states with senators who might vote no. In my experience people just lie about where they’re from though.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Ryan J's avatar

      I can’t remember specifically about U.S. Senators since most of the time when I write to them it’s through an organization that already has my email (and possibly my address) on file, but when I write to my state legislators, they ask for my address (to prove I am their constituent). So I think someone lying about where they were from would have to provide an address, and this would be risky (unless they get consent from a friend in that state to write their address)

      Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      Don’t get me wrong, I would rather have Mangi. I am just saying only if we can’t get Mangi confirmed, I would rather have another history making progressive nominee in his place. And him being 36 by the time he would take the bench only makes him that much better in my eyes. But Mangi is the best pick for this seat, I just don’t want the year to end with the seat vacant & I certainly don’t want one of Menendez’s crappy picks either.

      Like

    • Hank's avatar

      Feigenbaum’s the current solicitor general of NJ and a former Elena Kagan clerk, so he’s qualified for the job and will probably be a center-left judge if he becomes a judge (which I suspect he will be – either the NJ SSC or a federal seat down the line). 

      I don’t share others’ enthusiasm for him just because he’s young – he was a big law corporate lawyer before he started working for the state of NJ, so he will likely be more pro-corporate and pro-government than a progressive judge should be. He doesn’t actually have much of a progressive track record, so he’d definitely not be as good as Wainer Apter, for example. And he’d technically be historic in the limited sense of being the first LGBT judge on CA3 (there are lgbt judges on other circuits), but that’s objectively less historic than the first ever Muslim appellate judge – furthermore, Bumatay demonstrates how we cannot assume someone will be more progressive than their career suggests based on their race/sexuality/etc.

      And more to the point, Feigenbaum wasn’t even one of the five finalists for the CA3 nomination last time (I suspect the WH’s objections about his age were pretextual, as they had no problem nominating Garcia to CADC), so I don’t think he’ll be picked given the short turnaround time. Of the actual finalists, I think it’ll come down to Almonte and Fabiarz. Almonte might be a bit more likely – career prosecutor (so nothing particularly progressive), avoids leaving a district court seat open because he’s an MJ rather than a DJ, and Menendez cares about Hispanic representation.

      Liked by 3 people

  23. Lillie's avatar

    I’m from Ohio and wrote to Brown and Vance about confirming Mangi.

    I doubt Brown is the problem and I have a better chance of playing center field for the New York Yankies than Vance voting for anyone, but at least I did something.

    Liked by 3 people

  24. Mike S.'s avatar

    I just finished the book I was reading on judicial politics, “Confirmation Bias”, which covers judicial nominations in the last ten years or so. Trump published a list of nominees to the courts before he was even elected, and once we was, he turned over the reigns to Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society and they took to remaking the federal judiciary in their preferred mold. Sure, there were a handful of “consensus” picks to the circuit courts, and a few more on the district court level, but take a look at where the 5th Circuit is today. The 6th, the 8th or the 11th for that matter, and the other far right judges he managed to get confirmed. Anyone happy with that?

    Elections matter – especially the presidency and the senate. Biden/Harris aren’t my preferred candidates, but you play the hand you are dealt. The Biden administration has some pretty impressive legislative accomplishments to run on, as well as an impressive impact on returning balance to our courts. Anyone who has supported Biden in the past, or cares about the direction of judiciary, is just kidding themselves if they vote third party or sit this one out. Anyone remember what happened in 2016? Boy those people who just couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Hillary sure showed us! Those who want to make protest votes out of this election are simply living in a fantasy world…

    Let’s not lose sight of the number one consequence of voting in a presidential or midterm election folks: judges, judges, judges!

    Liked by 6 people

    • Hank's avatar

      I agree that Biden would obviously be better than Trump on judges – but he hasn’t been perfect on judges, and if people want to see him do better in his second term (in the unlikely chance that he gets reelected with a Dem senate majority), they need to be pushing Dems to do better in the future. The reason religious conservatives have gotten theocratic nuts like Barrett on the courts is because they demanded that Republicans be anti-abortion as a condition for their support.

      I see no problem with conditioning our support for Democrats on them committing to certain things (like confirming qualified, progressive nominees regardless of their religion). Given how Garland was blocked from SCOTUS by McConnell in 2016 and Dems love renominating Obama appointees, does anyone think Biden would’ve nominated KBJ (or committed to nominating a Black woman) if it weren’t for Clyburn conditioning his endorsement in the 2020 primary on that?

      Liked by 2 people

      • star0garnet's avatar

        In what world with a Democratic senate would Biden have nominated a 69-year old for SCOTUS? (Let alone this one, after seeing Biden’s very diverse pool of judicial nominees, among whom no Article III nominee has been within seven years of Garland’s age) There’s even a good chance if McConnell had allowed a vote on Garland that he’d have stepped down under Biden. And if there wasn’t a coordinated effort to nominate KBJ, Breyer would have stepped down a year earlier.

        I doubt there’s much chance of Biden’s nominees dramatically improving in a second term (though they’re easily the best pool of nominees we’ve ever seen from a presidential term), but the main way to guarantee they’d dramatically worsen is by giving him a Republican senate. And like it or not, unless Dems knock off Cruz or Rick Scott, that’s going to have to include the caucus’s third most vulnerable member this year, who’s been on board with 95%+ of the nominees this term.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Hank's avatar

        In what world would Joe Biden, the archetypical Democrat moderate who will bend over backwards to accommodate Republicans in the name of “civility,” have wanted to nominate a Black woman public defender if there wasn’t any pressure at all to do it? And what evidence is there that Breyer would’ve stepped down any earlier? 

        And Rosen’s not the most vulnerable senator up (the dumbest one, maybe) – Baldwin’s up in Wisconsin, and she’s not pulling this BS. Not to mention that Biden is running in both states this year too, so if Rosen’s concerns were valid, wouldn’t the WH itself want to pull the Mangi nomination? If Jacky Rosen wants Democratic votes, maybe she should stop tanking a Democratic president’s priorities – it’s not that hard.

        And really? It wasn’t the Democratic Party’s fault that they lost 2016? It wasn’t RBG’s fault for being so full of hubris that she wouldn’t step down after she had a cancer diagnosis while Dems could replace her? Who was talking about defunding the police in 2010 or 2014, when the Dems lost big time?

        Why is it that when Dems are more than happy to copy Republican positions to chase after “moderate” white votes, but have done nothing to address the fact that support is slipping among voters of color (other than claim they’re entitled to our votes)?

        Liked by 1 person

      • star0garnet's avatar

        I don’t know what to tell you if you think anybody’s controlling who the former chair of the judiciary committee chooses to nominate. Or if you think Biden, who keeps rolling out progressive change after progressive change and has been a pretty average Democrat for nearly 50 years of its leftward unification, is the “archetypical moderate Democrat.” Leave the idiots and bots on Tiktok to their cesspool I guess.

        Breyer is the ultimate party man. If Biden had asked him to step down a year earlier, he would have, but he didn’t, allowing KBJ to gain the requisite experience as a circuit judge. And it’s full-on lulzworthy to think that being Black, a woman, or a public defender would not be advantages in Biden’s book.

        Baldwin isn’t vulnerable because the GOP’s shot themselves in the foot with a blathering idiot of a candidate. Wisconsin and Nevada are the Biden states where Dems’ longterm prospects are the least strong. But whereas Dems in Wisconsin have been making strides with suburban voters for 20 years and probably will for another 20, Nevada Dems still rely on the Reid Machine, which should be able to push them over the finish line, but it will be close enough that apathy like 2016, where many didn’t bother voting because they thought a Hillary win was a foregone conclusion, would prove decisive. Sinking one okay nominee does not equate to tanking Biden’s priorities. Given that Rosen’s opposition was announced publicly, it was almost certainly a coordinated move along with the DSCC that will play well in a state that likes tough-on-crime antics. And I’m sure the WH will now withdraw Mangi’s nomination if he doesn’t back out himself. But as some have speculated here, announcements may wait until Ali’s been confirmed to keep the heat off of him.

        It is also not a “fact” that Dems support is slipping among minorities, nor do Dem politicians claim that they’re entitled to minorities’ votes, beyond Kevin de León-type idiots. Yes, there was certainly slippage among rural, socially conservative, and/or caudillo-loving Hispanics and Muslims from 2016 to 2020. But there was not, with the possible exception of Muslims, from 2020 to 2022, nor in other elections since. The only thing indicating a further shift are highly questionable polling crosstabs that have no hard evidence to support them. And sure, the administration hasn’t blasted their changes at the SBA, HUD, etc. that have been real-life altering for minorities, that’s largely because it is far easier to accomplish things and protect those accomplishments when they are under-publicized. That doesn’t mean they didn’t happen nor does it mean they can’t publicize those that they want to from now till November.

        Liked by 1 person

  25. shawnee68's avatar

    If Trump is wins the election judges won’t matter anymore. There’s no kind of court that can save us from the type of “government” we will have.

    It’s not Joe Biden’s , Pat Leahy ,RBG or Democratic Party’s fault for the predicament that we are in.

    You can blame it on a sliver of the fringe left who demands purity at any cost. They can’t present a viable option so they just bitch and moan.

    In the 2000 election, it was the same idiots who voted for Ralph Nader instead of Al Gore which gave us 8 years of GWB.

    In a sense the far left fringe or “latte liberals” are just as nutty as Trump sycophants. They accept no responsibility for elections they are screw up with “defund the police” and nonsense.

    The next election is the last election . If Trump wins , it’s all over . Judges will not save us.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Ryan J's avatar

      Although Trump will absolutely try to defy the rulings of judges, judges can at least slow the damage done by Trump. Trump has already tried to defy the courts, but his administration refused to. Biden judges will issue injunctions when Trump tries to do illegal actions. Biden judges can also torpedo criminal prosecutions against anti-Trump protestors, whistleblowers, or women seeking abortions should Trump’s DOJ attempt to make such prosecutions.

      Ok, suppose that Trump stacks his administration with loyalists who will do his bidding no matter what. Suppose he successfully defies judges’ rulings, like Andrew Jackson did in 1832. That would destroy all remaining legitimacy of the GOP being the party of “law and order”.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ryan J's avatar

      With that, why tf is Trump still leading in the polls? Worse yet, I can think of a dozen things that would widen Trump’s lead but can’t think of anything substantial that would bring Biden back into the lead — the economy is good enough so that Biden should benefit from it, but for whatever dumb reason people trust Trump on the economy, Trump is a deranged fascist, Biden signed an infrastructure law, the Inflation Reduction Act, CHIPS Act, Respect for Marriage Act, Speak Out Act, & gave us KBJ. And it isn’t even clear that any other Democrat could do better than Biden. It reminds me of an article I read a couple weeks ago: “Democrats will never win an election again if the GOP figures out how to nominate a normal human being”

      Liked by 1 person

      • star0garnet's avatar

        Because polling is broken. Almost nobody is willing to answer polls anymore, making it far more difficult for pollsters to get representative subsamples. There’s a high probability that polls are increasingly infected by bots, programmed to give specific answers to certain questions and random questions to others. And a growing portion of the small portion of people willing to answer polls are trolls, giving deliberately false answers.

        Liked by 2 people

  26. Dequan's avatar

    Anybody know what’s up with the other half of the budget? The senate is on a two-week recess after this week. I would love for them to work on it during the recess time & of course not add time off when they are supposing to return on April 8th. I’ve lost count of when the budget deadline is, but I don’t think it was through April 8th.

    Like

    • tsb1991's avatar

      As Ryan said, it’s this Friday, so decent possibility the Senate will be around again on Friday since it’ll be the 11th hour. Also depends on when the House acts. If the Senate knows they’d be in Friday, I’d personally donate to Schumer’s Super PAC if Thursday became a full day where they voted until the evening. Not that I expect it but the difference between this week and two weeks ago was that the State of the Union was Thursday night, so that wouldn’t be an issue.

      On the House side, Mike Johnson did mention trying to pass an Israel/Ukraine bill under the suspension of House rules, which would make it a 2/3 vote to pass (probably since the three hardliners McCarthy put on the Rules Committee as a concession to become Speaker would kill any such bill). If that happens it probably wouldn’t be the Senate bill which means the Senate might take another whack at that down the road.

      After Berner is confirmed Tuesday it will be interesting to see if any cloture motions for nominees get sent out for Thursday.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      Sotomayor retiring this year would be a great shot in the arm for Biden. I would hope if she is, she announces sooner rather than later. That would give enough time for Biden to backfill Myrna Perez, Brad Garcia or whoever he nominates seat.

      Speaking of articles, here’s an article @Ethan sent me this morning regarding Mangi.

      (https://popular.info/p/will-senate-democrats-cave-to-an?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1664&post_id=142703142&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=197po&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email)

      Like

    • shawnee68's avatar

      It’s rude and plain wrong to openly ask a justice to retire because they get to a certain age.

      Sotomayor can stay as long as she pleases. What does she do if she leaves?

      There’s lots of bias coming from the left towards people who are older that needs to be addressed and corrected.

      I did not see or hear anything criticizing Justice Scalia for not retiring before he passed away.

      Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        It’s not bias against old people when you are talking about a job that affects hundreds of millions of people. It’s reality. Nobody is going to live forever & these are lifetime appointments. That’s why I will gladly walk into a voting booth & vote for Joe Biden for president but would burn the house down if he was nominated to be a federal judge.

        I’m all for older people doing whatever they like EXCEPT being a federal judge nominated by a Democrat president. Sonia Sotomayor has been a federal judge for over three decades. She will be just fine whenever she decides to step down. In more concerned with the country over the next three decades if she decides to stay & we have a repeat of RBG.

        Liked by 2 people

      • shawnee68's avatar

        I’ll repeat the same sentiment: Sotomayor can stay for as long as she wishes. It’s lifetime appointment and as such can remain until she no longer wants to or passes away. It is what it is.

        I can’t think of any occupation other than aviation and boxing when people reach a certain age retirement is necessary.

        If people vote in elections it wouldn’t be necessary for judges to give a political candidate a “shot in the arm.”

        I don’t know if that would help. We should not assume if Sotomayor decided to retire, that Biden would select someone from her background.

        Let’s not disrespect people who have served us well by calling for their retirement. That’s a very personal decision that one makes in their life.

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        The first part of what you wrote doesn’t require any repeating. Of course Sotomayor as well as any federal judge can stay until they decide to retire or pass away. That has nothing to do with any American stating they should make that decision sooner rather than later. She a big girl. She went through the confirmation process three times. She can handle people encouraging her to retire.

        And we may not know Biden would pick somebody from her else background but judging on his nominations we have seen to the judiciary, I’ll happily take my chances. I think it’s more than likely I will be happy with his Sotomayor replacement should he get that opportunity with 51 Democrat senators.

        Liked by 2 people

      • shawnee68's avatar

         Oh please….This business of telling people they should retire is ridiculous .

        It’s so insulting and it takes a lot of nerve.

        Do you think Sotomayor is going read some blog or article and be influenced by it? Of course not!

        It’s just like anyone else she will leave when it suits her.

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        I don’t know if Ms. Sotomayor reads this blog or not. Also I will say again, yes we all know she & every federal judge will retire when they want. Again, that has nothing to do with me or any other American expressing our opinion which is she should retire this year. She is a public figure. I am sure she is use to this by now… Lol

        Like

      • Zack's avatar

        @Dequan, couple points about Mangi.
        1 A valid point was made that Mangi’s nomination should have been pushed to confirmation much sooner instead of letting it linger and let more and more attacks be lodged against him, especially in an election year.
        As someone pointed out, they let their guard down having gotten Dale Ho, Nusrat Choudhury and others through and let their guard down here.
        2) I know folks want it to happen but Schumer/Durbin aren’t going to put Democratic senators running in swing states on blast to make people on twitter/facebook/this blog feel better.
        3) I’m glad the WH is standing behind Mangi but like I said, they really should have started standing up for him much earlier, especially when purple/red state senators were getting hit with ads on him with no blowback.
        Like I said before, if the votes aren’t there now but could be after the election, you can take the risky scenario of rolling the dice.
        If that won’t happen, then asking him to withdraw is the only option at this point.
        Politics sucks sometimes, it truly does.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Dequan's avatar

        I definitely agree. I think the decision needs to be made by the end of the Easter recess if they are going to stick with Mangi or not. I have said repeatedly circuit court nominees should be fast tracked. Especially if they aren’t red state circuit court nominees. They shouldn’t go past the following week after being voted out of the SJC until they at least get their cloture votes unless there is an attendance issue the following week. I’m sure the Ambassador of Zumunda is important, but not more important than a circuit court judge… Lol

        Liked by 1 person

  31. Zack's avatar

    Sorry, I don’t consider it a lot of nerve to tell someone who if they die at the wrong time can affect the civil rights of millions that maybe they should step down for the greater good, especially when that person has health issues that require a medic to travel with them.
    If nothing else, folks who dared to point out the issues with RBG and were called sexist/ageist were proven right in the end.
    Her serving people well on issues meant nothing in the end because she choose to roll the dice and lost and was replaced on someone hellbent on undoing everything she fought for.
    Sotomayor doesn’t need to risk the same thing.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Ryan J's avatar

      If we blame RBG for dying at the wrong time, we have to equally blame Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O’Connor, & Thurgood Marshall for retiring at the wrong time. Actually, we have to blame Kennedy, O’Connor, & Marshall more because they all deliberately chose to retire under a GOP president.

      Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        That’s even more of a reason for Sotomayor to retire. Every example of a moderate Republican getting replaced is with another Republican. Marshall & RBG were two of the most liberal justices of the modern era & both were replaced by ultra conservatives. Democrats have no luck when it comes to timing on the highest court in the land.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Hank's avatar

        No matter how moderate O’Connor/Kennedy were, they were still Republicans (and unlike Souter & Stevens, firmly center-right) – there’s been reporting about how mad O’Connor was when it looked like Gore was winning in 2000 because she wanted to retire under a Republican. And Miers, Bush’s first nominee, was perceived as a moderate—the R’s didn’t nominate the far-right Alito until after her nomination failed.

        So yes, this 6-3 majority is uniquely Ginsburg’s fault (Marshall stepped down during the HW presidency because of health issues). If Dems want to avoid history repeating itself and ending up with Supreme Court Justice Ho or VanDyke, then they need to stop putting an individual justice’s ego above everything else.

        Liked by 3 people

  32. Hank's avatar

    I doubt Sotomayor will retire this year, though I agree that she should and that the WH should be asking her to do so – there are lots of judges of color that can take her place, and she’s not immune from criticism simply because she’s a woman of color or a current judge.

    I will say that in the unlikely case that Sotomayor does retire this year, that would likely result in some circuit seats being left vacant because this Democratic Party can’t walk and chew gum at the same time. The Dems didn’t nominate any new circuit judges and confirmed only previously one circuit judge during KBJ’s whole confirmation process, and they didn’t name any new circuit nominees for two months afterwards.

    Did someone say we should expect nominees this week? A circuit nominee or two would be nice, but other than maybe the ME seat if Collins is cooperative, the vacancies are probably too new for the WH to have worked something out with red-state senators already.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      I fully expect a new batch this week. We will miss a SJC hearing if we don’t get one & this new WHC has yet to miss a hearing slot. Unfortunately I doubt any of the five pending circuit court vacancies will get a nominee this week. It’s more than likely we will see at least one next month.

      Like

  33. raylodato's avatar

    I don’t think we should expect a ME nominee for CCA-1 anytime soon. I thought Collins had scraped the bottom of the barrel when she voted for Kavanaugh, but when she voted against Berner, who has a lot of the characteristics of other nominees she’s voted for, I gave up. She’ll drag this out as long as she can.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hank's avatar

      Good point that even Collins will have no incentive to agree to someone quickly/easily. If anything, McConnell’s probably pressing her to drag this out as long as the WH will let her. 

      Anybody else concerned about these seats not being filled at all? Blackburn’s been able to stall the Gibbons seat for 7+ months now – if I were one of the other GOP senators, I would demand at least as much time as Blackburn got (given that they’ve all been more cooperative than Blackburn) in return for a possible blue slip. That would mean we don’t see nominees until the fall, which to me seems like cutting it too close.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        I would be concerned if it was the last WHC office. I trust this WHC office (Although not as much as Biden’s first). I believe all five current circuit court vacancies without a nominee will get filled before the end of the year. I don’t have the same confidence in a red state vacancy getting filled if it occurs from now on the rest of the year but these five I feel confident in.

        Like

  34. Mike S.'s avatar

    So it seems like they’ve resolved the budget issues. Apparently, the Speaker prefers 72 hrs for review once the text is released. That means, in all likelihood, we will have another Friday Senate working session for the budget.

    Hoping we have cloture nominations fired up tomorrow, preferably a few district court judges and a cloture vote for a circuit judge (Aframe?). Wednesday should be the four votes (cloture, confirmation) for Kiel and Lee, and votes for the two WDTX noms. I hope they take advantage of a full day of voting on Thursday…

    Liked by 2 people

  36. Dequan's avatar

    Here’s a breakdown of vacancies without a nominee that I think we will likely get a nominee for this year;

    CIRCUIT COURT SEATS – 5

    01 – CCA

    04 – CCA

    06 – CCA

    06 – CCA

    11 – CCA

    BLUE DISTRICT COURT SEATS- 19

    01 – MA

    02 – NY-S

    02 – NY-S

    02 – NY-W

    02 – VT

    03 – PA-E

    03 – PA-E

    03 – PA-M

    04 – MD

    07 – IL-C

    07 – IL-N

    08 – MN

    09 – AZ

    09 – CA-C

    09 – CA-C

    09 – CA-C

    09 – CA-N

    09 – CA-S

    09 – WA-E

    SEATS IN STATES WITH A CIRCUIT COURT VACANCY – 9

    01 – ME

    04 – NC-M

    04 – NC-W

    04 – NC-W

    06 – TN-W

    11 – FL-M

    11 – FL-M

    11 – FL-M

    11 – FL-S

    These are a little less likely but I will include them anyway…

    PURPLE SEATS WITH ANNOUNCED RECOMMENDATIONS – 2

    07 – WI-E

    09 – AK

    Liked by 2 people

  37. Zack's avatar

    Last thoughts on SCOTUS and retirement for now.
    O’Connor and Kennedy were moderates on a couple of issues (LGBT rights/abortion etc.) but overall were still very conservative and Bush V Gore was the ultimate proof of that with their we’re putting a Republican into office because we can.
    They were never going to allow a Democrat to pick their replacements (O’Connor was quite vocal about that.) if they could help it.
    Thurgood Marshall didn’t retire under Carter because he figured he could outlast eight years of a Republican but what he couldn’t forsee was Bush Sr riding Reagan’s coattails to a term of his own in office.
    Also, there were articles from 1987 that talked about how he was still in good health yet by 91 he was in such poor health he retired even though he HATED Bush Sr because he didn’t forsee a Democrat winning (Bush Sr’s poll numbers were sky high at the time.) and we sadly know he was wrong.
    What makes RBG’s choice in not retiring all the more inexcusable to not retire knowing Marshall was there as a warning that you may not be able to control your destiny the way you think you can.
    Bottom line, Democrats have gotten burned on SCOTUS and many don’t want to see that happen again with Sotomayor and there is nothing wrong with saying that.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      This paragraph from the article is what I’ve been saying for weeks…

      ”Abandoning Mangi’s nomination would be an unconscionable act at any time, but especially perilous for Democrats in the current political climate, when tens of thousands of Democratic primary voters in key states are expressing their outrage at Biden’s policy in Gaza by voting “uncommitted.” Meanwhile, the right is using the attacks on Oct. 7 and the ensuing war in Gaza as a means to imply that any Muslim could be pro-Hamas or antisemitic. If Democrats acquiesce, they will set a dangerous precedent.”

      Like

  39. Zack's avatar

    Sad to say but Democratic voters as a whole have shown they don’t care about the judicial branch the way Republicans do.
    Given that, I can certainly see the political calculation some senators are making that it’s not worth sticking their necks out here, especially since a lot of voters from the Uncommitted group have said there is nothing Democrats can do to get their votes at this point.
    Going to have to wait and see if the right thing’s done.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hank's avatar

      Yep fully agree with you on this actually – I just think there’s more to be done than just “wait and see if the right thing is done.” If politicians face no backlash for rejecting nominees because they are Muslim (or any other faith of course), of course those politicians are going to take the easy way out. The point is to change the political calculus so politicians like Rosen don’t assume that they are free to indulge their bigotry.

      Glad to see that there’s more press coverage of the Mangi situation (still suspect it’s too late), but it’s frustrating that the typical players (AFJ/Demand Justice/etc.) are sitting on their hands and doing nothing. I wonder if they were (1) scared of being labeled antisemitic, or (2) didn’t want to spend resources on Mangi (like they did with airing ads supporting Dale Ho) because he’s a career corporate lawyer. Reason #1 shouldn’t be an issue given prominent Jewish groups’ support for Mangi, and although reason #2 is valid, it seems risky because this seat may be left open if the Mangi nomination is dragged out and still fails.

      Liked by 1 person

  40. Joe's avatar

    There were several Trump nominees that fell through too. Tim Scott even tanked one because of some past racist comments. So it’s not solely an issue with Democrats.

    Not to say that Dem senators and politicians don’t have room to improve, but we’ve come a long way in the last 10-15 years.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Gavi's avatar

      Republicans blocking very few deplorable nominees is not equivalent to Dems blocking nominees based on smears. The one or two nominees that Republican senators block deserved to be blocked on their own merit, not a collateral, 3rd degree association that they are trying to pin on Mangi.

      And as much as Zack repeats the same thing over and over again, notice that he cannot address the issue that, if it’s good politics for a Dem senator to *not* vote for Mangi, wouldn’t it be good politics for them to actually cast that vote, in public? Otherwise, it’s a cop out, no? Schumer shouldn’t need to protect you from casting a vote you think your constituents demand.

      Liked by 1 person

      • star0garnet's avatar

        The latter part is pretty darn obvious. That is effectively what Schumer’s job boils down to. Protect your caucus from casting politically detrimental votes unless the upside outweighs the downside. If there’s a chance Mangi could be confirmed, there’s an argument that the upside outweighs the downside. If there isn’t, it would be incredibly stupid to hold a vote. A vote one way angers knowledgeable progressives and Muslims; a vote the other way opens your members up to attack ads.

        Liked by 1 person

      • star0garnet's avatar

        Not sure who said that. The choice is between having about 2% of voters disappointed as Mangi fades into the shadows vs. having Islamophobic ads blasted in every competitive senate election and presidentially competitive state. Holding a vote where he isn’t even confirmed gets you both, and it’s hit or miss whether it even would protect senators voting no from Islamophobic attacks.

        Liked by 2 people

      • star0garnet's avatar

        @Hank Not sure what’s hard to grasp here. Unless Tester, Brown, Baldwin, Casey, Rosen, Klobuchar, King, Heinrich, Kaine, Smith, Peters, Ossoff, Luján, Warner, Shaheen, Cortez Masto, Fetterman, Warnock, Kelly, and Hassan are all nos, he’d be exposing members of the caucus to unnecessary risk. The potential benefit to those that vote no is small and requires them a) to vote against their conscience (for all or almost of them), and b) to spend money trumpeting that betrayal of conscience, explaining a complicated issue while somehow not coming off as Islamophobic. And it would be used against Gallego, Slotkin, Allred, and Mucarsel-Powell, despite them not being able to cast votes.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Gavi's avatar

        Why is it a vote against their conscience? Isn’t Mangi a terrorist-loving antisemite? If you are going to oppose him for him for that reason, why wouldn’t you want to trumpet that loudly to your voters. In essence, it’s not something that’s hard to grasp, it’s something we disagree about.
        I refuse to be OK with bigotry winning, even against an “OK” nominee (as you described him).
        I refuse to simply throw up my hand and say it is what it is and that it isn’t the first nor will it be the last time. I believe in holding politicians to account, even the ones who are politically closer to me.
        You are free to take another approach.

        Liked by 1 person

      • star0garnet's avatar

        I described Edelman as an OK nominee. Mangi is a great one, at least was until his apology last week, but the country may not be ready for him.

        With regard to swaying a senator’s vote, it doesn’t matter what a senator thinks of him; it matters how he is portrayed in the media and by whichever side’s ads are more impactful. There may be a few Islamophobes in the Dem caucus (while they constitute most of the GOP caucus), but I doubt there’s a single one among them stupid enough to perceive the attacks on him as anything more than an Islamophobic smear campaign. Almost everything a senator does is with politics in mind, and as such, senators vote against their conscience semi-frequently, but it’s generally limited to a small pool of them; asking a wide swath of them to do so on a single issue is asking for trouble with the resulting conflicting messaging.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Hank's avatar

        Yeah fully agree with Gavi that the “protect senators from tough votes” argument makes no sense if those senators are going to vote no – Schumer would protecting them from…a chance to distance themselves from Biden and seem independent of their party? Wouldn’t they be welcoming a chance to prove that they’re “nOt LiKe OtHeR dEmOcRaTs”?

        As much as Zack or whoever wants to deny it, the evidence here supports an inference that at least one senator is at least slightly Islamophobic herself. Some posters apparently have no problem with that. Others of us do.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Hank's avatar

        100% agree with Gavi, and @star you’re the one who’s have trouble grasping the basics. If a vote is as “politically detrimental” as you claim it is, all those senators can just…vote the other way? And the folks running now can say they would’ve done the same thing in the (unlikely) chance that this becomes a campaign issue. If a vote for Mangi is as bad as you think, many senators would love to get centrist credit for breaking from Biden’s “crazy radical” nominee and seeming independent of the national party.

        People here are twisting themselves into pretzels to excuse Dem senators’ Islamophobia and it is disgusting.

        Liked by 2 people

  41. Dequan's avatar

    I just tried to vote here in Miami-Dade & was told I can’t because I’m a registered Democrat & the Party has closed the primary. Only Republicans & Independents can vote. Anybody know why Republicans can still vote even though everybody has dropped out & Trump has the required delegates but Democrats can’t?

    Like

    • Gavi's avatar

      No because we’re not election experts in his blog on the judiciary. Call your local elections board. (They’ll probably tell you that party primaries are private events, so one party may decide to not hold a contest with only one candidate, while the other is free to do the opposite.)

      Liked by 1 person

    • keystone's avatar

      Florida is a closed primary state, which means that for partisan races, only people registered to the party can cast votes. Only Reps can vote in the Rep primary and only Dems can vote in the Dem primary. Independents aren’t allowed to vote in either. Florida has had this system since 1913 so nothing has changed.

      It’s my understanding that since Biden is the only person who qualified to appear on the Dem ballot, so the FL dem party isn’t having a primary. Multiple Republicans qualified for the Florida ballot and they still appear even though most have technically dropped out.

      Liked by 2 people

    • tsb1991's avatar

      Yeah, last week was super late and nothing was listed until the day of. Usually the nominations tend to be posted around the end of day the day before, so hopefully in the next few hours.

      With the Senate back today, we’ll see if cloture gets sent out for anything to be voted on Thursday, since the House might not have the minibus passed then. For the Senate to pass the minibus they’d need an expedited time agreement, if the bill is coming through the Senate for the first time (the minibus that passed a few weeks ago had passed the Senate last fall, was voted on and amended by the House, and the Senate only had to do cloture and agree to the House amendments, so far fewer procedural votes).

      I’ve noticed on a Monday or Tuesday back cloture filings are either done on wrap-up or around 4:30PM. I know some have expressed attendance concerns for confirming Berner today but attendance tends to be lighter, especially on the Republican side, on votes happening the day of returning from a weekend/break. The turnout tomorrow for Lee and Kiel will probably be more interesting.

      Liked by 2 people

  44. Zack's avatar

    @Hank, you keep attacking one Senator with no proof whatsoever that she is the key vote stopping Mangi from getting confirmed and calling her stupid, a hag, a bigot and saying you’ll donate to her Republican opponent etc. simply because she was on record voting against one nominee (there were likely others against Edelman as well beyond Sinema and Manchin or he would have been confirmed.)
    Then you and a couple of others act outraged that Schumer won’t bring up Mangi for a vote on a nominee and subject other Democratic senators to the same thing?
    Like I said before, yes the Islamphobia has been awful but the other issues I mentioned around Mangi with regards to a couple of groups he belonged to/moderated (he apologized for one) are the sticking points for these senators and just because you and Gavi live in a bubble where those things don’t matter doesn’t mean others do.
    Done discussing it for now since no one is going to change their mind and there’s point in us continuing to talk past/fling mud at each other.
    Have a good day.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hank's avatar

      “simply because she was on record voting against one nominee”

      Yes, I will hate her until the end of time for blocking a qualified public defender and one of the few union-side labor lawyers nominated to the bench. How dare she, a senator from Nevada who only got elected because of unions and union members working overtime to get out the vote, pull such BS when other senators in more conservative states (including her own senior senator) felt no need to.

      ”there were likely others against Edelman as well beyond Sinema and Manchin or he would have been confirmed” 

      51-3 = 48. How is a nominee going to get confirmed with 48 yes’es to 52 no’s. Stop excusing bigotry and go take a math class.

      ”the other issues I mentioned . . . are the sticking points.”

      Based on what evidence other than your vibes? And ignoring the fact that Rosen, unlike Tester or Casey, has actually blocked a nominee. 

      Just own up to the fact that you’re fine with bigotry as long as it’s not directed at you personally – none of us are surprised.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Hank's avatar

        At the end of the second-to-last paragraph I meant to say: 

        And ignoring the fact that Rosen, unlike Tester or Casey, has actually blocked a nominee in exactly the underhanded, behind-the-scenes maneuver that someone is trying to pull right now to block Mangi.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Hank's avatar

        Saw a tweet indicating that Catherine Cortez Masto is taking issue with Mangi because she has “concerns about his affiliation with an organization that supports individuals who killed police officers.”

        At least Cortez Masto has the backbone to be public about her reasons, and I’ll pretend this truly is the reason. Let’s look who Cortez Masto did support then, shall we?

        1. Cortez Masto supports KBJ – even though KBJ directly represented a Guatanamo detainee who was an intelligence chief for the Taliban and the possible cell leader of a terrorist group. KBJ also represented the interests of Guantanamo detainees in amicus briefing.
        2. Cortez Masto supports Federico – even though Federico actually represented one of the individuals charged with plotting the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which led to the death of countless police officers. Separately, Federico represented a white nationalist who was distributing explosives to people he knew planned to target national politicians and news organizations. 
        3. Cortez Masto herself recommends and supports Anne Rachel Traum – even though Traum represented someone who faced multiple charges stemming from a casino robbery, including attempted murder with use of a deadly weapon. She also represented another individual charged with second-degree murder of a homeless person. Those are just two of the examples listed in the SJQ, and given that Traum was an FPD for 6 years, I’m sure there are more examples of unsavory or unsafe clients.

        This is not to say that KBJ, Federico, or Traum should not have been confirmed – they are great nominees, and while I haven’t reviewed Federico’s or Traum’s record, KBJ is a fantastic justice. Everyone, including the individuals they represented, deserves legal representation?

        So the conclusion is that Cortez Masto has no problem with lawyers who have actually represented terrorists and murderers (at least some of whose actions led to the death of cops), but draws the line at a person who did not represent them but agreed to serve on the board of an organization that includes other people who did? I wonder what the reason is behind her sudden change of heart on Mangi?

        All the things I said about Rosen (which I believe still apply to her) equally apply to Cortez Masto, who is much more of an idiot than I thought when donating to her 2022 campaign – this politician, who claimed during that all people should be treated equally, is now blocking a historic nominee on the a clearly pretextual ground.

        In sum, Cortez Masto–who is a lawyer herself–supported a white lawyer who actually represented one of the planners 9/11, which led to the death of who knows how many cops. But that’s all good as long as his name is Richard and not Adeel?

        This is utter BS. Any progressive worth their salt should remember this when Cortez Masto comes around asking for votes and money again in 2028, or else who knows how many more judges she’ll suddenly start finding pretextual reasons to block.

        Liked by 2 people

  45. Ryan J's avatar

    Click to access 22-666_bq7c.pdf

    https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/03/announcement-of-opinions-for-tuesday-march-19/

    This is one of the reasons Sotomayor is hesitant to retire. The Court ruled today in a 6-3 decision that circuit courts have the power to review denials of lawful permanent resident status. The lineup

    Majority: Sotomayor, joined by Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett
    Concurrence: Jackson
    Dissent: Roberts
    Dissent: Alito, joined by Roberts, Thomas

    Sotomayor, as the most senior justice in the majority, had the power to assign the majority opinion. This is the 2nd time that she has assigned a majority opinion, and both times she assigned to herself. It is rare that a liberal justice gets to assign the majority opinion as the 3 most senior justices are all conservatives (though Alito has never assigned a majority opinion). Ginsburg got to assign a handful of majority opinions in her last few years, Breyer assigned 2, and Sotomayor has assigned 2 so far. But at least Kagan is right behind her so if Sotomayor retires, then next year could be Kagan’s first time assigning a majority opinion.

    Liked by 1 person

  46. Ryan J's avatar

    Uhgggggg my last comment didn’t post.

    Click to access 22-666_bq7c.pdf

    https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/03/announcement-of-opinions-for-tuesday-march-19/

    This is one reason why Sotomayor would be hesitant to retire. Today, SCOTUS ruled 6-3 that appeals courts can review denials of lawful permanent resident status. The 6-3 vote breakdown was:

    Majority: Sotomayor, joined by Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett
    Concurrence: Jackson
    Dissent: Roberts
    Dissent: Alito, joined by Roberts, Thomas

    This is Sotomayor’s 2nd time assigning the majority opinion. Both times, she assigned the majority opinion to herself. As the 3 most senior justices are conservatives, it is rare that a liberal justice gets to assign the majority opinion. Ginsburg only got to a handful of times in her last few years. Breyer assigned the majority opinion twice, and Sotomayor has twice so far. (Alito never has but we know he is one of the most partisan justices on the court.) At least Kagan is right behind Sotomayor, so if Sotomayor retires, then maybe next year Kagan will get to assign her first majority opinion.

    Like

  48. Ryan J's avatar

    Maybe it works if i throw out the links?

    This is one reason why Sotomayor would be hesitant to retire. Today, SCOTUS ruled 6-3 that appeals courts can review denials of lawful permanent resident status. The 6-3 vote breakdown was:

    Majority: Sotomayor, joined by Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett
    Concurrence: Jackson
    Dissent: Roberts
    Dissent: Alito, joined by Roberts, Thomas

    This is Sotomayor’s 2nd time assigning the majority opinion. Both times, she assigned the majority opinion to herself. As the 3 most senior justices are conservatives, it is rare that a liberal justice gets to assign the majority opinion. Ginsburg only got to a handful of times in her last few years. Breyer assigned the majority opinion twice, and Sotomayor has twice so far. (Alito never has but we know he is one of the most partisan justices on the court.) At least Kagan is right behind Sotomayor, so if Sotomayor retires, then maybe next year Kagan will get to assign her first majority opinion.

    Liked by 1 person

  49. Joe's avatar

    Bringing the discussion back to a more positive place – I’m excited to see Nicole Berner confirmed today. A labor attorney with heavy ties to Planned Parenthood. This is likely one of Biden’s most progressive appellate nominees yet. Can’t wait to see her on my home circuit.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      Nicole Berner is an A+ nominee. If she was 10 years younger, we would have to make a new A++ category for her. I of all people never thought I could give somebody born in 1965 an A+. She’s that great.

      But I’m sorry, I will never forgive Cardin for playing Russian Roulette with this seat. To think had the polls been correct & Dems lost the senate in 2022, we would not be where we are about to be in a few minutes with Berner joining the 4th. It’s unforgivable, particularly since the holdup was what part of the state she didn’t live in. I could understand in a big state like Teas, California or Alaska but I could drive through the state of Maryland by the end of the first half of a Ravens game.

      But I will just be happy with her confirmation. She was just confirmed 50-47.

      Liked by 4 people

Leave a comment