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

    • I think Blackburn has the wrong definition of consulted. Andre Mathis name was sent to her & Haggery about five months before he was announced. He interviewed with their staffs. She claims she wasn’t consulted. I think her definition of consulted is you pick who she tells you to pick.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Yep, Blackburn lacks the intelligence to know that consult =/= veto power.

        Just like how she didn’t know that “statutory maximum” mean the most number of years you can sentence someone under a statute.

        Blackburn should be grateful there’s no IQ test to get into Congress – she’d be beaten on that test by a goldfish.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. I was trying to see Kiels vote was so close and if he was controversial and found his vetting back from last November.

    This was Mitchs comment.

    “Republicans aren’t making Kiel’s nomination a priority. He’ll likely be confirmed by a fair margin.”

    It’s always funny how much we overcredit Republicans to be fair and decent.

    Liked by 4 people

    • A couple months ago, I thought that Manchin would support Kiel as we were talking about how the SJC Republicans were rage-voting no that meeting. But by the time his vote neared, I knew Manchin would vote no (even before Manchin’s announcement), as that is his pattern. By this point, I expect Manchin to vote against any nominee that is cleared out of the SJC by a party-line vote as Manchin is clearly receptive to GOP BS on conventional nominees such as de Alba and Kiel.

      I expect Aframe and Maldonado to be party line votes (meaning Manchin opposes). Perhaps some of the blue state district court nominees will get 4 Republican votes (Collins, Graham, Murkowski, Manchin), but there are at least a few district judges that I expect to be party line votes.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Yes, Blackburn is a racist/homophobic bigot (her record reflects that) but her real anger over Mathis and now Ritz is the fact that (yes I’m aware they are still playing nice to some degree especially for district court seats) is that unlike the Obama and Clinton years (though Clinton was in a tougher spot once Republicans took control of the Senate), Democrats aren’t doing package deals for Circuit court seats where a conservative like Julie Carnes is nominated.
    It’s either moderate judges like Kolar or we move on without you with a liberal nominee like Mathis.
    Even the worst Circuit Court nominee/confirmation Irma Ramirez isn’t a Federalist Society hack.
    Under her term, Blackburn is likely to see all three of TN’s Circuit Court seats be filled with non conservatives and there isn’t a darn thing she can do about it.
    GOOD.
    If nothing else, I consider it karma for her since she gladly ignored the blue slip rule under Trump.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. The Labor nominee has been confirmed, they’re voting on a Congressional Review Act resolution. I don’t see that “LAST VOTE TODAY” paper on the Republican secretary desk up front, so still a chance Schydlower gets confirmed tonight.

    Also the fourth nomination confirmed this week on a party-line minus Manchin vote.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Kiel was asked questions during his nomination hearing about Anti-Semitism on campus and his viewpoints on Hamas.
    His response was he didn’t know enough about the subject to give an option on it and that made him a terrorist supporter in the eyes of Republicans.
    Hence the party line vote.
    It’s why as bad as the attacks on Mangi over being Muslim/Hamas etc. were bad, I think he could have survived those.
    The he belongs to a group that support cop killers is the smear that is sadly going to sink him.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Or the non-Muslim person who didn’t strongly condemn Hamas got confirmed, whereas the Muslim person who did strongly condemn Hamas got smeared with anti-semitism ads (not anti-police ads) and didn’t get confirmed.

      Also, Cortez Masto and whoever she’s covering for supported Ana de Alba (and thank god she did), but de Alba released from home monitoring an undocumented immigrant tied to the killing of a police officer (in addition to the other nominees who represented people who had killed police officers). 

      And apparently Cortez Masto/the Dems’ support of the police didn’t extend to listening to the association of police officers of color who fully back Mangi (including the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives and the Coalition of Underrepresented Law Enforcement Associations). Or do the views of cops matter if they’re white?

      Like

    • Or the non-Muslim person who didn’t strongly condemn Hamas got confirmed, whereas the Muslim person who did strongly condemn Hamas got smeared with anti-semitism ads (not anti-police ads) and didn’t get confirmed.

      Also, Cortez Masto and whoever she’s covering for supported Ana de Alba (and thank god she did), but de Alba released from home monitoring an undocumented immigrant tied to the killing of a police officer (in addition to the other nominees who represented people who had killed police officers). 

      And apparently Cortez Masto/the Dems’ support of the police didn’t extend to listening to the association of police officers of color who fully back Mangi (including the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives and the Coalition of Underrepresented Law Enforcement Associations). Or do the views of cops matter if they’re white?

      Liked by 1 person

    • But I digress – the nomination is doomed since Manchin came out against it, so I hope they nominate someone new ASAP.

      Also, has anyone asked AOC/the ceasefire people what they think about the first (and for the foreseeable future, only) Muslim nominee being smeared and blocked from a position for which he is well-qualified? Or are they just going to let Cortez Masto (the other moderate Dems) and her spinelessness/Islamophobia go unpunished?

      Liked by 1 person

  9. While we’re waiting to see if the Senate is doing anything else today, Booker is on the floor with a defense of Mangi.

    For a fun fact, that CRA vote was 70-25. I’d expect the President to veto this, but depending on the House vote on this, it could be the first overridden veto of his presidency (something about importing beef from Paraguay).

    Liked by 1 person

  10. I could see this passing this year, since it would have no Immediate practical effect, that is, no vacancies for Biden to fill.

    But can you imagine if Congress were to follow through on the Judicial Conference’s recommendation and authorize 66 (!) new district court judgeships? Though it wouldn’t include new circuit judgeship, it would be a boon like the one Carter got.

    Realistically, even if Congress were to authorize a number of the recommended 66, they could structure the statute to take effect at some later date. Also, even if Biden were to still be president when those new judgeships are established, much of those 66 new vacancies could still be untouchable for Biden, with the home state Republican blue slips.

    https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/temporary-judgeships-would-be-permanent-in-bipartisan-senate-bill

    Liked by 2 people

    • If I were the senate Democrats, I would definitely offer a staggered effective date for additional judgeships. I would also split them up between red & blue states to give a greater chance of the legislation passing. Unfortunately the days of Jimmy Carter are over so sadly there is no way Republicans will vote to pass that many new judgeships for Biden to fill. They would probably have to defer some until after 2029 but at least help would be on the way.

      The legislation they really need to pass is reducing the number of senate confirmed positions as a whole. There are simply too many positions that need sente confirmation.

      Like

  13. @Gavi, tried posting that earlier and got word pressed.
    Based on what I see, a lot of the new seats would still be unfillable unless the blue slip is also ditched for district court seats and I don’t see that happening yet.
    Still, would give us a chance to fill an extra seat in Hawaii, California, New Mexico and Arizona.
    Wanted to add on Hawaii, not surprised they’re requesting an extra seat, as I thought the two nominees from there got confirmed awfully fast.
    Needless to say, their caseload has increased a lot from what it was.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Schumer wrapping up. Senate will be back tomorrow, as the House is passing the minibus tomorrow. Gonzalez will have confirmation vote at 12PM. Not only was it good to not have a cloture vote on him, an even added bonus to vote on him during an “overtime” Senate session (beyond Thursday afternoon or a Friday, for example), so it’s one less thing to worry about on the normal Senate schedule. Nothing mentioned about Schydlower.

    Even if they miss the midnight deadline, I guess the government won’t technically shutdown if they know passage is imminent and the bill is going through the motions, as there’s no guarantee the minibus will by tomorrow night.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. Just saw a valid point made about Senator Menendez.
    When he’s gone during his trial if Manchin sticks with his no votes on judges if they don’t get a Republican vote, that could bring judicial confirmations to a near halt.
    Why we need to clear out everyone we’ve got so far before mid April (if they want to tackle a bunch of them by next week, fine by me.)

    Like

      • If Menendez had any decency, he would’ve resigned a long time ago – he’s going to stick it out until he actually get convicted/voted out. His trial is currently set for May – no idea how long it could take, but I would guess at least a month: https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/new-jersey/2024/03/15/bob-menendez-case-judge-toss-motion-dismiss-second-indictment/72985981007/. I’m unclear what happens if he gets convicted – does he get voted out like Santos did in the house? And does Murphy get to appoint a successor?

        Ideally the Dems confirm Aframe (and maybe even Maldonado) and a few of the party-line district court nominees before then. I’ll probably eat these next words, but the only ones that seem like party-line votes right now are Kasubhai, maybe Russell, and Ali. And unless the trial goes on for like three months, there are a good number of non controversial nominees to confirm during that time.

        Also, Manchin has shown that he’ll vote against a Dem nominee even when they get Republican votes – DuBose got both Collins/Graham and Manchin was still a no. He’s just trying to stay relevant and feel important these last few months before no one gives a damn what he thinks come next year. 

        Liked by 3 people

      • Governor Murphy would get to appoint his successor if Menendez left office. If that happened, I think there would be a good chance he would appoint his wife who would likely go on to lose to Kim in the primary. At this point I couldn’t care less. Murphy could appoint Bozo the Clown & it would be an upgrade.

        In addition to Kasubhai, Russell will almost surely be a party line vote. She’s another A+ nominee in my book. I wish they had selected her for the 2nd & left Khan on the SCOT-CT but oh well. I’ll be happy to see her at least as a district court judge at this point.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I see the Menendez trial is scheduled for May 6th… That’s right in the beginning of several weeks the Senate could be confirming judges with a one week break end of May before a good long June session…. I wish they would try to postpone May 6th . Such as he is he’s a Dem. vote for judges….

        Liked by 1 person

      • Regarding Menendez….hopefully they can get Aframe and all of the party line district nominees confirmed during that two week April period. Can’t rule out any shenanigans from Menendez so might as well get the hard stuff out of the way.

        Malconado and the newer nominees won’t be out of committee by then anyway, so the backlog isn’t too big

        Liked by 2 people

      • Menendez thinks he can use the trappings of his office for personal advantage.

        It’s really sad to see his family have to live with the shame that their father forced on them.

        I see the Alicia Menendez on MSNBC talking about how Trump is corrupt. Her dad isn’t much better.

        Like

  17. Was it just me, or did they start to consider Schydlower and then Butler started speaking about book bans, and then Smith followed up, like they were stalling for time?

    Can’t figure out why, though–with Cruz and Cornyn, this should have been an easy one (i.e., not require full Democratic attendance).

    Liked by 3 people

  18. I’m not sure what the deal with the order is. My guess is both will get confirmed with 60+ votes each though. Hopefully Scydlower gets his vote this week too, plus voice votes for the Nebraska and Utah nominees

    Liked by 2 people

  21. There was a bill introduced by Sen. Young from Indiana, a responsible minded conservative, that would have created nearly 80 district court positions – The JUDGES Act. The openings were to be staggered between 2025 and 2029, and were based upon the Judicial Conference recommendations (at the time). Unfortunately, the bill went no where..

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2535/text

    A bill like this should absolutely be non-controversial (in a functioning Senate), as we are in desperate need of new district court judges. On top of that, the 11th Circ. could use 2-3 more circuit judges. Also, I am of the opinion that the 9th Circ. should be split as well, and a new 12th Circ. created, but that’s a story for another day…

    Going back to the earlier post, why these temporary positions have not yet been made permanent is beyond me – it is disgraceful. Nonetheless, they get extended every year apparently. In addition to making all temporary judgeships permanent, 2-3 seats should immediately be added to the E.D.C.A., as well as 1 seat in Idaho and 1 seat in Delaware. Again, the bare minimum, but you need to start somewhere…

    As an aside, is this the most comments for one post ever? I hope we get close to 1,000 comments 😉

    Cheers to all that meaningfully contribute and that truly care about our federal judiciary!

    Liked by 2 people

    • The temporary seats are already filled by a previously confirmed judges, the bill really is just a statutory fix to change the nature of the seat from temporary to permanent.

      The more controversial bill is the creation of new judgeships, which is way overdue. The last substantial judge’s bill I believe was in the early 90s under Bush Sr..

      I am also wondering when the DC Superior Court judges will be confirmed? Previously, they have been confirmed in batches via voice vote. Also, why are two seats still vacant on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia? (not the DC Circuit) Baffling as to why we don’t have noms there yet…

      Liked by 1 person

  25. Does anyone know much/have thoughts on Sara Beth Myers?

    Nashville based lawyer. Adjunct Professor at Vanderbilt. Born c 1982.

    Background includes:

    • An early stint at Jones Day
    • 2 yrs as Ass’t DA in Nashville
    • 2 yrs Asst AG in Tennessee
    • 4 yrs AUSA – Civil Rights Coordinator and Human Trafficking Coordinator
    • Was reportedly in considered for US attorney MDTN.

    Has been Deputy General Counsel for Southern Poverty law Center for past ~10 months.

    She’s be a party line vote. Just trying to figure out how much she’d get beat up in a Judiciary hearing.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yeah if it weren’t for the SPLC I think she’d be an acceptable candidate to Collins/Murk (although she is pretty young). The WH will likely want to go with someone less controversial.

      Also, adjuncts aren’t the same as tenured academics when it comes to law professors. Adjuncts are usually practicing lawyers who teach at a law school on the side but have a full-time job doing something else. I agree that the WH has not really gone for academics, but I don’t think that would apply to an adjunct.

      If they were to pick a Vanderbilt law prof, I think Rebecca Haw Allensworth might be interesting – she’s an antitrust scholar at a time when Biden’s DOJ/FTC have stepped up antitrust enforcement (though to be fair, CA6 doesn’t get many antitrust cases), her resume doesn’t seem too liberal (she clerked for conservative judge Richard Posner, but has done some pro bono immigration work), and she’s a white woman: https://law.vanderbilt.edu/bio/?pid=rebecca-allensworth.

      Anyone know who the appellate chief for the MDTN US Attorney’s Office is? I’m not sure they’d pick Leventis b/c that would result in all three of TN’s circuit judges flipping from women to men, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they still go with someone from the USAO because they think it’ll be an easier confirmation.

      Liked by 2 people

      • @hank

        Oh, interesting. I’m into having more anti-trust people. When I searched for Allensworth, the first thing that popped up was a Federalist Society profile – bc she’s participated in events with them )as have many lawyers across the spectrum). I wasn’t quite sure what to make of her political leanings. But I found her CV and it looks like while at Harvard Law, she was a research ass’t to Professor Elizabeth Warren, so I’ll take that as a good sign.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @Hank, I doubt it will be Rebecca Haw Allensworth as her CV says she’s never practiced law outside of academia and clerkships.

        As for who the Appellate Chief is, I’m not sure but I do have a very incomplete list of all Appellate/ Civil/ Criminal Chiefs for each US Attorney’s Office.

        If anyone has more info to add, let me know. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1O7F6HZ3mklTLNaPtwr5WEd4OAfXxoKqvbf0UNX9NfJ4/edit?usp=sharing

        Liked by 3 people

      • So it’s possible that not all districts have an official Appellate Chief. Since the Sixth Circuit is pretty good about listing all attorneys on briefs, I’ve looked at all Sixth Circuit cases since January 2023 that involved the US Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Tennessee and here are all the attorneys (other than the US Attorney himself) from the office who have appeared on brief:

        -Cecil VanDevender (born c. 1978): He is currently detailed to work as an Assistant to Special Counsel Jack Smith, so that probably makes him a non-starter to Republicans.

        -Philip Wehby (born c. 1969): Can’t find much else about him other than what I found in his father’s obituary (https://www.dignitymemorial.com/obituaries/nashville-tn/vincent-wehby-10861431)

        -Monica Morrison: Unable to definitively find out anything about her.

        -Rachel Stephens (born c. 1976): Here is her LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/rachel-stephens-007a53147/).

        -Rob McGuire (born c. 1976). He ran for Tennessee Attorney General as a Democrat in 2014 so that also probably makes him a non-starter to Republicans. Here is his LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/rob-mcguire-3b01b253/).

        Like

      • Good point – I didn’t notice that she went right from clerking to legal academia, and I agree that such a career is not what this admin is looking for (which makes sense, as academics who have never litigated are probably not the ones who should be setting precedents that district courts then need to figure out how to apply). I believe Johnstone was the only other academic nominated to a circuit seat (someone let me know if that’s wrong), and he had significant litigating experience. Of course nothing’s stopping the WH from changing things up and nominating an academic – the Republicans can’t exactly paint someone like that as soft on crime when they’ve never represented a criminal defendant.

        And as I think more about it, I don’t think labor lawyer Stranch would love the idea of being replaced with a career prosecutor – just as Gibbons’ conditional senior status probably put some pressure for the WH to pick a more moderate / conservative candidate than it would have preferred, I could see the pressure going the other way with Stranch. Maybe this is just hopeful thinking, but (1) Stranch hasn’t been on the bench that long and is not even the oldest senior-eligible Dem appointee on CA6 (although she is 71), (2) she went senior about late as she could while still being replaced by a Biden nominee (and more than a year after she became eligible), which to me suggests that she at least considered sticking it out as an active judge.

        Liked by 1 person

  27. On Rebecca Haw Allensworth, it should be noted that even though he was a conservative, as time went on Richard Posner made it more and more of a point to call out how to the right the Republican Party was going and made no secret of the fact he thought Scalia and his ideas were crap.
    If not for his Alzheimer’s diagnosis, I think he would have stayed on until Biden could have picked his replacement so the fact Allensworth clerked for him isn’t a sign she’s a conservative herself.
    Have to see more into her ties to Liz Warren though, if they’re close, that would be a good sign that she could be the final nominee.

    Liked by 2 people

  29. If I remember right, McConnell confirmed something like 16 judges in December 2020 before they lost the white house and senate the following month.

    I feel like now that’s not going to happen in any way just logistically speaking.

    With Menendez legal issues and his potential to cause real damage on his way out, and Manchin needing GOP support, I’m now wondering if confirming the red state judges first is the right way to go like I originally thought.

    Maybe confirm all the blue states first then when Menendez is out on trial or anything else happens and hope that GOP senators won’t vote against their own agreed to nominees later in the year when they should all pass with bipartition support.

    Liked by 1 person

  30. There’s no way to know what the backlog will look like by November, but there will be five full weeks post midterms. No reason plenty of judges can’t be confirmed (if it’s even necessary, we may quickly run out of vacancies if we keep getting 5-6 nominees per batch)

    Liked by 3 people

    • I can almost guarantee you there will be another budget problem that will take at least a week off of the senates’ time in Nov or Dec.

      Probably more because first the senate will pass their own bill, the house will then reject that one and pass theirs and the senate will have to waste more days working off that one.

      I certainly hope there are nominees for every vacancy but there’s a lot of blue states that need to speed it up. PA, IL, and I don’t get how CA and NY don’t have an active list of preapproved nominees ready for their never ending vacancies.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I think as it currently stands there are 16 blue state district vacancies with no nominee. Also 4 appellate as well (well, 5 once Mangi backs out). So, 4 or 5 batches worth

        There is the possibility of red state batches as well, but of courser those are harder to predict.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Unless we start getting new vacancies (which have pretty much dried up) or red state deals, we’ll be running out of vacancies pretty quickly. As it stands:

        Circuit: 2 awaiting senate vote (probably 1 withdrawal), 1 awaiting committee vote, 1 awaiting hearing, 4 awaiting nominee

        District: 7 awaiting senate vote, 8 awaiting committee vote, 5 awaiting hearing (probably 1 withdrawal), 18 awaiting nominee, 30 nominee unlikely

        Territorial: 1 awaiting senate vote, 2 awaiting nominee

        Claims: 1 awaiting senate vote

        Tax: 3 awaiting finance hearing, 3 awaiting nominee

        DC CoA: 2 awaiting nominee

        DC Superior: 6 awaiting senate (voice) vote, 5 awaiting gov affairs hearing, 2 awaiting nominee

        Liked by 2 people

  32. @Frank,
    At this point, the only nominees that fill a judicial emergency and can be confirmed are Leon Schydlower & Ann Neff.
    After that, everyone up who is a Republican nominee can wait until the blue state nominees are filled.
    If Republicans want to create a backlog in their states, that’s on them.

    Liked by 1 person

  33. Gonzalez was confirmed earlier this afternoon. Cloture was filed on the minibus so who knows if there’s any time agreement. Like the last minibus, it’s to “concur on the House amendments to the Senate amendments to the original House-passed bill”, so far less procedural hurdles. Just cloture and then vote on passage, so the issue is how long the Rand Pauls and the Mike Lees want to drag this out.

    We should hopefully get some cloture motions sent out after the minibus passes. The safest non-red state nominee would be White, after that it’s three party-line nominees, so if Schumer goes the judiciary route first it may be White first and then I’d guess Ali is going to be easier to confirm than Russell or Kasubhai.

    Since the Senate is in for two weeks, I’d hope we’d get all party-line nominees cleared (Aframe, Ali, Kasubhai, Russell), before Menendez has his trial. The earliest Maldonado could be voted out of the SJC most likely I think is 4/18. I know we should assume a party-line vote but is “You have an enormous backlog” really going to cause Collins or Murkowski to oppose her? Maybe Graham since he brought it up but if that’s all they have on her this better not be a party-line minus Manchin vote.

    Liked by 1 person

    • The funeral for Susan Collin’s mother is this Sunday. Hopefully Paul & Lee give her some consideration when taking up time before the vote on the bill. I want them to wrap this up as soon as possible one to avoid a default even for hours & two, because I don’t want them to be tempted to add a day or two to their return after recess.

      Like

    • Also – Robin Meriweather on Court of Federal Claims.

      I keep thinking about that Maldonado hearing. Their sole complaint was, “What’s wrong with you? Why don’t you work faster? You should be working faster? Why aren’t you working faster? Just work faster?” Imagine someone who’s never done your job coming in and saying this to you. And Mike Lee’s flippant comment about how maybe she should consider shuffling off her case load onto the newer judges as a form of hazing. These are horrible, horrible people.

      Liked by 2 people

      • On Maldonado, Durbin pointed out that she has never been reversed by the Seventh Circuit in any of the 250 written decisions – that means she has not made a single reversible error in her entire (admittedly) short tenure on the district court. That’s pretty extraordinary, and if she’s taking a little longer than average, it just means she’s an even better fit for Seventh Circuit – we want appellate judges who are taking their time and being careful in their written decisions. I’m sure if Maldonado were faster but got reversed a couple times, they would’ve made some hay out of that (remember Graham made a fuss about Mehalchuk when she had been reversed in literally 2% of her rulings).

        And from the article summarizing the SJC hearing (I didn’t have time to watch it live), it seemed more like Mike Lee was recognizing that Maldonado got handed some tough cases from older judges – though I wouldn’t put it past him to have meant the other thing you suggested, keystone. Furthermore, as we’ve all noted, NDIL is a judicial emergency with a much-higher-than-average weighted number of filings.

        I think Maldonado will be a good indicator of whether Manchin’s little stunt has incentivized Collins/Murkowski to be less cooperative rather than more – if they won’t support Maldonado despite her perfect record because of the case backlog, they’re not going to support any circuit nominee.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Maldonado not ever being overturned is one thing. On top of that, despite Biden putting 4 judges on the 7th circuit, those are the only Democrat appointees. So Maldonado hasn’t been overturned ever by a circuit with a majority Republican appointees. I wish Durbin had thrown that in at the hearing as well.

        Like

      • Not that I expect his vote, but yeah, Lee was surprisingly more forgiving on that backlog issue than say, Kennedy or Blackburn (he put it into a “justice delayed is justice denied” and not “you’re bad at this job” kind of context). I mean, if you couldn’t get Cruz to appear and flip out on her for five minutes is this really what you’re going to die on the hill for?

        There’s always the possibility they vote on Meriweather as keystone mentioned, but if they’re going to be without Menendez for a while, maybe they could use that time to confirm the DC Superior Court stuff and Meriweather/Manglona?

        Liked by 2 people

      • On the hazing ritual point, I didn’t know that district judges can just give the new judges all their worst/least interesting/most complicated cases. That seems like a bad system for everyone except the old judges looking to lighten their workload – the parties in a complicated case get a new judge that is just figuring things out, the new judge gets the worst parts of the job, and the old judge’s knowledge/familiarity with the case is wasted. You’d think the judiciary would just randomly reassign cases or something, rather than treat justice like a college fraternity treats the pledging process.

        Liked by 1 person

  35. Wanted to add Maldonado will still likely be a party line vote.
    Yes, she’s replacing the most liberal Republican jurist left on the bench but that means it’s a seat they can’t fill later on with a right wing hack and that is the only reason they need to vote to oppose at this point.

    Liked by 1 person

  36. Mangi released a letter addressing the smears of him as “anti-police” – I don’t think any of the other Biden nominees who were blocked ever did anything like this?

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/adeel-mangi-biden-muslim-nominee_n_65fd9279e4b07c954d557fe7?2q7

    It suggests to me that he is unwilling to withdraw his own name (I don’t think Edelman ever did either) and will make the WH do it – good for him for not covering for the Dems’ spinelessness/Islamophobia. 

    Now do I think this is going to change anyone’s mind? Probably not. Even if Cortez Masto weren’t covering for Rosen/some other Dems, she is…to put it nicely…not the brightest star in the Democratic Party (she didn’t do very well at a not-great law school, had an unremarkable legal career, and owes her political career to a well-connected father). People like those in positions of power aren’t likely to change their mind based on things like new facts or evidence.

    Maybe this is a Hail Mary and the WH will withdraw Mangi next week (assuming nothing changes). And I hope they’re already vetting/talking to Booker/Menendez about a new nominee so that person can be announced ASAP.

    Liked by 2 people

  37. @Keystone, considering the NDIL seat that was just filled was a judicial emergency, it suggest that maybe just maybe that district has a lot of cases and no judge can speed through cases if they want to be fair and impartial.
    Like I said, it was clear they had nothing else to go after her on so maybe Collins or Murkowski will vote for her but I won’t be shocked if they don’t.
    At this point, Republicans are going to make it as hard as they can to fill any Circuit Court seats.

    Liked by 2 people

  38. The “anti cop”group in question is an organization that was cofounded by Danny Glover. He’s on the board of directors. He’s also the first thing you see when you visit the site.

    Kindly Danny Glover. Danny Glover, the man who stared in the “Lethal Weapon” movie franchise, which helped to invent the buddy-cop film genre and helped to glorify police work via film.

    I kinda want someone with a camera to get in some of these Senators’ faces and ask them, “Mr. Manchin, why do you believe that Danny Glover hates America?” Ms.Cortez-Mastro, why do you believe Danny hates the police?” I want to see them have to worm their way out of it.

    Liked by 1 person

  39. The Senate will be voting on the nomination of Leon Schydlower to the W.D.TX shortly. He is the Dem pick of the two, correct?

    Re: Maldonado, she may be moving slowly, but keep in mind she was probably assigned a significant caseload once she was sworn in. On top of learning the ropes of being a federal judge, imagine being assigned a massive backlog to work through.

    My friend who was a law clerk for a federal district court judge previously confirmed transferring over caseloads is common when new judges are confirmed (I don’t think they like to give them the problem ones off the bat though…)

    All in all, while her record may not be the quickest, not seeing anything problematic with the way she has controlled her docket as a new judge on a very busy district court.

    Liked by 2 people

  41. With the Schydlower vote, Biden will have 148 Article III district court confirmations (includes IT Court), which is 10 ahead of Trump by this date in 2020.

    He’s 10 behind Trump on CCA confirmations as of this date, and of course 1 behind on SCOTUS.

    I’d been hoping Biden would get to 49 CCA judges by the end of his first term, but with Manchin’s announcements, Mangi’s candidacy in trouble, and who knows what will happen with Ritz re: Blackburn (and Manchin), I’m much more skeptical.

    Liked by 1 person

  42. The Schydlower vote is really taking a long time. I started watching live about an hour after it started, thinking it would be done soon, but it’s been another hour and still ongoing (the vote count is 91-8 so maybe the last senator signified they are coming)

    Liked by 1 person

  43. Once Schydlower is confirmed, Biden will have filled 3 out of the 8 vacancies, thus maintaining the number of Dem appointees in Texas. Out of the 8 judges who vacated their seats in Biden’s first term, only 3 are Dem appointees. However, if Trump wins this fall and gets to fill the other 5 vacancies, the Texas courts will move to the right (w/o needing any more vacancies).

    That is because out of the 5 GOP appointees who have vacated since 2021, 2 (Yeakel & Martinez) are liberal, only 1 (Hughes) is conservative, and the other 2 (Montalvo & Alvarez) I have no data on.

    I still stand by my decision about being unhappy about Yeakel leaving… he struck down abortion laws several times. Although I like Yeakel as a judge, retiring was a massive misstep. He had the audacity to complain about how overworked Robert Pitman is when he contributed to the problem by retiring without waiting for a successor. Does he not know about blue slips? If Trump wins and gets to fill Yeakel’s seat with a FedSoc hack, then I think it’s fair to say that Yeakel pulled a RBG.

    (You could argue that 1) Yeakel could be conservative on everything except abortion and 2) Yeakel doesn’t care which party replaces him — this would explain the political lens but not the understaffing lens)

    Liked by 1 person

    • Or he just got tired of the job and its caseload after 20 years and wanted to retire/do something else – he did the years of service to qualify for senior status, and it’s not a judge’s responsibility to work themselves to death because the R’s won’t add more judgeships to meet the number of cases filed. 

      Besides, being a liberal district judge in CA5 sounds awful – you have to follow nonsensical precedent, you get reversed based not on the law but instead based on conservative vibes, and you have a crushing caseload. A vacancy on a Texas district court is hardly an RBG-level problem when CA5 is actually insane, and why would anyone condition their retirement on how cooperative Ted Cruz decides to be?

      Liked by 4 people

  44. Big idea comment #2 of 3 (the TX vacancy comment was #1):

    Out of the 41 circuit judges Biden has replaced, only 6 replaced Republican appointees (I am excluding Howard, Rovner, & Gibbons since their seats have yet to be filled)

    Those 6 Republican appointees are: Juan Torruella (1st), Peter Hall (2nd), D. Brooks Smith (3rd), Helene White (6th), Joel Flaum (7th), Michael Stephen Kanne (7th). 5 of those 6 had underlying factors: 3 (Torruella, Hall, and Kanne) are dead, Flaum went senior before Biden was inaugurated, and Smith went senior in order to take another job. Only Helene White (a liberal appointed in a package deal) was a true “I want Biden to pick my successor” vacancy. Rovner made it clear that she wants Biden to pick her successor, and I would guess Howard & Gibbons do as well (assuming Gibbons doesn’t have any health issues).

    I think that GW Bush was a good president and I think most of his judges are doing a good job and not partisan hacks. The thing that irks me most about Bush judges is that so many of them let Trump replace them with radical FedSoc hacks. Bush had 61 confirmed circuit judges. Out of those 61, 32 have vacated their seats. 2 were replaced by other GW Bush judges, 6 by Obama judges, 20 by Trump judges, and just 4 by Biden judges. And the minority of Bush judges that are hacks tend to be younger than the ones that aren’t hacks, so most of them are still in office (and 2 of those hacks were elevated to SCOTUS by Trump). When it comes time for Trump judges to go senior, I expect this to get even worse. The real wildcard question is this: if Trump loses in ’24 and the GOP returns to some resemblance of normalcy afterwards (such as someone like Nikki Haley), do the Trump appointed FedSoc hacks let the next GOP president replace them or do they stay in office until they die?

    Liked by 2 people

    • I don’t know how much I agree with GW Bush didn’t try to put hacks on the bench. Remember Democrats controlled the senate the first two years & last two years of his 8 years in office. And the filibuster was still around all 8 years.

      There were a lot of hacks GW Bush tried to put on the bench that Democrats stopped. But I do agree overall his picks were less hacks on the average than Trump of course.

      Liked by 2 people

      • It would take a major political realignment in my opinion. If you look at the party these people are all genuine believers in the conservative orthodoxy. Nikki Haley especially.

        Outside of Lisa Murkowski or Susan Collins backing their way into the presidency somehow it’s not happening anytime soon

        Liked by 1 person

    • Many of Bush’s picks may not be as attention-seeking as the likes of James Ho or Lawrence VanDyke, but the large majority are definitely Republican partisans – he appointed Alito, literally the most partisan justice on SCOTUS. At the end of the day, most Republican judges will want to be replaced by Republican judges – anybody hoping for something else is just living in fantasyland. 

      And sure, in theory the Republicans could revert to being 1960s Rockefeller Republicans. And in theory I could be appointed to SCOTUS by Trump if he wins in November. The Republicans have made it clear how extreme they are and how much farther they want to go (the House Republicans announced a bill to block IVF for military families – you think they’re going to stop there?) – why do people keep pretending like they’re anything else.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Also, Nikki Haley would sign a national abortion ban and thinks embryos are children (AKA no IVF) – the biggest con she’s pulled off is getting people to think she’s “moderate” when the only difference between her and Trump is that she says she won’t foment an insurrection if she loses.

        Liked by 4 people

    • Nixon’s judges were far worse than Ike’s. Ford’s were similar to Nixon’s, if a little more religious. Reagan’s judges were far worse than Nixon/Ford’s, and HW’s were similar. W’s judges were far worse than Reagan/HW’s. Trump’s judges are far worse than W’s. The next GOP president’s will be far worse than Trump’s, regardless of whether that’s Trump, Haley, DeSantis, Abbott, Pompeo, Barrasso, or Kanye. For 70+ years, their party has been kicking out their most reasonable members and welcoming whichever sect of extremists was up for the taking. Every time they’ve come to power, they’ve been empowered by the strides their predecessors made the previous go-round.

      Also, btw, 8/9 of the court that unanimously decided Brown were Dem appointees, and Warren was appointed by Ike with the understanding that he wouldn’t overturn Plessy, Berea, etc.

      Liked by 2 people

  46. Big idea comment #3 of 3 (the TX vacancy comment was #1):

    I read comments about the Sullivan proposal to add new judgeships. While I do think that we need to add judgeships, the number of new seats that Sullivan wants to add is a lot.

    If I were in the Senate, I would tell Sullivan that I am open to supporting the proposal but he has to work with me. The Senators (especially those who are wielding their blue slip power to hold seats open) are aware that Trump leads in the polls. While I want to add seats to the California courts, I’m not sure it’s a good idea to add that many at once… the 2025/2029 split helps, especially knowing that the president in 2029 won’t be Biden or Trump (unless Trump succeeds in becoming dictator or wins in ’28 after losing in both ’20 and ’24).

    One of my suggestions would to codify blue slips to these new seats, meaning that although the Senate could still get rid of blue slips for seats that exist right now, they could not get rid of blue slips for these new seats. If I were a California senator and I wanted to be extra snarky, I would count up every seat that the GOP had blue slip power over in 2021-24, keep track of what % of those seats Biden filled, and tell them that if Trump wins in ’24 and this law is passed, I would let Trump fill the same % of seats in California that GOP senators let Biden fill (though more for ED Cal and less for the other courts). That ought to get the GOP to cooperate especially if Dem senators from multiple states said they would do this.

    Another proposal would be to stagger the creation of new vacancies out further (for example, 2025, 2027, 2029, 2031, 2033). I think that could encourage people to vote in midterm elections knowing that new judicial seats would be created the following year (unfortunately this would prob increase GOP turnout more than Dem turnout). Perhaps I could amend it to indefinitely add seats to the California district courts every 2 years, though it would be a good idea to have a conditional end to adding seats in case things out out of hand (the condition for stopping the addition of seats could be when a judge’s average caseload drops below a certain number — the law could be amended if the court themselves requested we stop adding seats for a different reason)

    Liked by 1 person

  47. As Dequan pointed out, Democrats had the Senate the first two years of W’s term in office and the filibuster was still in place so a few awful judges were kept off the bench.
    Many more made it through though and they’ve gladly help upheld voter suppression laws, gutted reproductive rights, anti-LGBT laws, and so many other awful things.
    They had no qualms about letting hacks replace them because they’re ones as well.
    Not to mention Roberts and Alito, who is a truly vile man.
    They helped turn SCOTUS into the joke it is now.
    Trump is so awful that people forget W was too, both here and abroad and that goes for his judges too.
    IMO of course.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a comment