Detra Shaw-Wilder – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida

Recommended both by Sen. Marco Rubio and Florida House Democrats, Coral Gables attorney Detra Shaw-Wilder has now been nominated to fill the last vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Background

Detra Shaw-Wilder received a B.S. from the University of Florida in 1990 and a J.D. from the University of Miami School of Law in 1994. After graduation, Shaw-Wilder joined Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, where she became Managing Partner in 2015 and General Counsel since 2017.

History of the Seat

Shaw-Wilder has been nominated for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to replace Judge Robert Scola, who took senior status on October 31, 2023. Shaw-Wilder was the only candidate that was simultaneously recommended for the federal bench in 2021 by Senator Marco Rubio and Florida House Democrats, but was not nominated in the 3 judge batch put forward in late 2023.

Legal Career

Shaw-Wilder has spent her entire legal career at the Coral Gables firm Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton where she currently serves as General Counsel. While at the firm, Shaw-Wilder has represented limousine drivers in a suit for overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. See Vidinliev v. Carey Intern. Inc. 581 F. Supp. 2d 1281 (N.D. Ga. 2008). Shaw-Wilder also represented three law firms in obtaining a large judgment against two attorneys for impropriety in settling various lawsuits. See Kane v. Stewart Tilghman Fox & Bianchi, 197 So. 3d 137 (Fla. App. 4th Dist. 2016).

Shaw-Wilder has also handled a number of federal appeals, including persuading the Eleventh Circuit to reverse a default judgment against Costa Rican corporation Parrot Bay Village, for lack of jurisdiction over the defendant. See Oldfield v. Pueblo de Bahia Lora, S.A., 558 F.3d 1210 (11th Cir. 2009).

Political Activity

Shaw-Wilder has a number of political donations to her name, all to Florida Democrats, including former federal judicial nominee Mary Barzee Flores during her run for Congress.

Overall Assessment

The last three nominations put forward to the Southern District with the support of Florida senators have sailed to confirmation. As of now, there is little reason to believe that Shaw-Wilder’s experience will be any different.

570 Comments

  2. Dequan's avatar

    Sadly we are down to 20 vacancies that do not require a Republican blue slip. That’s four hearing slots if we have five in each. We were going to eventually get to the point that a hearing slot was missed. I was just hoping it wasn’t going to be this soon. There’s hope for tomorrow but very slim. Four weeks from today looks to be the first SJC hearing slot we will miss in quite some time.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. tsb1991's avatar

    Maggie Hassan just wrapped up (woulda been funny if she filed cloture on her own judicial nominee). Senate will gather at 10:20AM to go to the House, so yeah, that SJC meeting at 9:45 will probably be super quick, and the Senate is recessed until 12:30PM tomorrow. I’m sure they’ll just adjourn shortly after getting back at 12:30PM, but there’s always the possibility of a cloture motion being sent out then.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Dequan's avatar

    I always enjoy looking at the guest list for state dinners. I see Bill Hagerty appears to be the only Republican senator and no Republican House members attending. I wonder if Biden is trying to butter him up for the remaining vacancy on the 6th… Lol

    Whenever I see Stephen Benjamin I always look to see if his wife is so going which she’s not tonight. I don’t think a sitting federal judge attending should be a conflict of interests but maybe she doesn’t even want the appearance of any conflict.

    (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/04/10/white-house-releases-state-dinner-guest-list-4/)

    Like

  8. Ryan J's avatar

    Down to 11 judicial emergencies with Mciff Allen confirmed. I’m ok with “wasting” days on red state confirmations if they will fill judicial emergencies (based on what I know, the Nebraska seat should probably also be considered a judicial emergency even though it doesn’t meet the official criteria)

    Liked by 2 people

  10. tsb1991's avatar

    For some reason I kept thinking the Senate had another two week break coming up and that next week was our last pre-Menendez trial week. It’s only one week so they’d have the week of 4/29 for party-line nominees. They could still do an Aframe cloture next Thursday and then confirm the 29th but I’d still like to see how Monday and Tuesday next week are handled (I’d be fine to see cloture on Aframe Monday, receive the impeachment articles, dismiss the trial on Tuesday, and then take the rest of Tuesday off and let that count towards postcloture and setup Aframe for a Wednesday morning vote).

    Which Manchin is still 100% onboard with tossing the trial out so if Democrats are at full attendance they’ll be able to dismiss.

    If we are going to have a hearing in May, nominees would be due next Wednesday for a 5/15 hearing, and then nominees would be due on 4/24 for a 5/22 hearing. Was leaving the door open for nominees tomorrow that you could hold on Thursday 5/9 but the nominees for next week’s hearing would be voted out by then (5/2 would be the holdover meeting). Again, was thrown off by thinking the next break was two weeks and not a week which would have made 5/9 just a holdover meeting.

    Liked by 2 people

  14. Rick's avatar

    I was trying to do multiple things at once, but I caught some of it. Looks like the one SD nominee was a 12-9 vote, as were the CA & NY nominee

    Let me guess. Schumer will file cloture on the nominees who cleared the committee today before he does the 4 who’ve been waiting much longer. 

    Liked by 1 person

    • tsb1991's avatar

      Yeah, Bulsara, Coggins, and Schulte were 12-9 votes. Theeler was 20-1 with Hawley voting no. At least Graham’s rant about the trial getting dismissed didn’t translate to no votes lol.

      Barnett (NM Marshal) was also 12-9, Fuchs (MD Marshal) was 13-8, with Graham and Tillis.

      I totally wouldn’t be surprised if these got voted on before the remaining party-line nominees, but we’d have to wait for Monday for the first chance to get cloture on them.

      The Senate Press Gallery says there is an expected vote at 12:30PM when the Senate gets back, wonder what that’ll be about.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ryan J's avatar

      Not sure why AW Bradley decided to retire. She said last year that she planned on running. She will be 75 in 2025 so maybe she has some kind of health issue. Anyway, this makes it more likely for conservatives to regain the state Supreme Court because AW Bradley would have had incumbency advantage.

      I’m not too worried about a 4-3 conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court, but a 5-2 conservative court (or 4-3 with Hagedorn replaced by an arch-conservative) would be disastrous. In 2020, the Court was 1 vote away from effectively handing 10 electoral votes to Trump.

      Liked by 1 person

    • tsb1991's avatar

      The vote earlier was some procedural vote, Schumer filed cloture on Manglona and the cloture vote will be at 5:30PM Monday.

      My understanding is that some Senate Republicans are throwing a hissy fit over the dismissal of the trial, and Mike Lee is blocking UC/voice votes over things you’d never see voted on (usually it’s a voice vote or a UC to proceed to either legislative or executive session, which was just voted on), and now they even have to vote to skip town.

      We’ll see if that practice continues next week…

      Liked by 2 people

      • Dequan's avatar

        Exactly. The senate works on unanimous consent. I learned that from @Gavi.

        So the two votes today are things usually done with UC but since a few of the senate Republicans are having a bitch fit they won’t be able to grind out & waste more time on the impeachment next week, they are trying to find other ways to do so. As just mentioned above, the key will be to see if this becomes a new trend.

        Like

    • tsb1991's avatar

      For all the talk about how Democrats never fight/don’t fight enough, I’d say voting to dismiss a trial and telling both House and Senate Republicans to pound sand is a decent hardball tactic. Hilariously Republicans are saying it’s just as awful as when Reid nuked the filibuster for nominations 10 years ago.

      If this does continue I’d donate to Schumer if he kept them on a weekend to work on nominees (and made them eat into the break after next week) or if this somehow caused the holdouts to flip on Mangi out of spite.

      Liked by 2 people

  20. Ben's avatar

    Yeah I’m not sure what’s going on today. They had to vote to move to executive session to consider the Manglona nomination which took forever. Then Schumer filed cloture on Manglona for a Monday vote. Now they’re voting on a motion to recess until Monday.

    If this is how they’re gonna be from now on, it is going to be a LONG year ahead.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Joe's avatar

      My guess is the GOP will back down after the weekend once cooler heads prevail and the senate “trial” is over. They’re just trying to make headlines.

      I do wish that an unintended side effect would be the hardening of some Democrat votes in favor of nominees. Manchin is pretty set on dismissing this trial right away because it’s a waste of time, so perhaps he’ll vote for a few partisan nominees just to piss of McConnell and company.

      Liked by 1 person

  22. Gavi's avatar

    @Star

    The WI supreme court fascinates me. I’ve been talking about it on here for a while now. This is probably selection bias, but I think this court must be the most unique in the country, where raw party and power politics seem to be the norm and not just an exception. (As partisan as the justices on TX supreme court are, TX’s isn’t as powerful as WI’s, i.e. criminal not civil vs. criminal and civil)

    What a major blow this could be. Bradley is tough and could go head-to-head with any conservative, even the other justice bearing her name. I could suggest that she should retire early so that the Dem gov could appoint a replacement, but that wouldn’t give the replacement any advantage.

    WI has a very practical supreme court election schedule where only a single vacancy is on any one ballot. So an appointed replacement would just take Bradley’s spot on the ballot next year.

    Ironically, if Trump wins in November, that would probably give the liberal candidate the advantage next year.

    WI Liberals will just have to go all out to try to save this majority next year, which is far from a given.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Ryan J's avatar

      Yeah, the Wisconsin Supreme Court (and Wisconsin in general) seems to be very, very polarized. In 2020, they were 1 vote away from overturning the election (a position that no federal judge, not even those appointed by Trump, would take). Around 2011, there was an incident where 2 Wisconsin justices got into a physical fight.

      2 conservative justices are up in 2026 & 2027, so there would be chances to take back/expand the Dem majority. I’m not too worried about a 4-3 conservative court (at least with Hagedorn as the controlling vote) but a 5-2 conservative court would be disastrous. However, the conservatives would need to be 4 for 4 in order to get a 5-2 conservative majority by 2028.

      The legislature also has a chance of flipping this fall. Republicans still have a slight advantage (thus why they agreed to the maps), and Dems need to take at least 1 chamber of the state legislature this fall in order to prevent the GOP from re-gerrymandering if the court flips back in 2025.

      Liked by 1 person

  25. Dequan's avatar

    We talked about if Republicans will continue repeating what we saw today. I’m actually curious if we will see Democrats do the same.

    Schumer brought up a vote to proceed on Ramona Villagomez Manglona. While it’s an extra vote, it seems to actually be quicker than the normal process we have grown accustomed to.

    Normally Schumer would send a cloture motion to the desk. Then the senate has to wait two days to vote for cloture. So in Manglona’s case, had Schumer sent a cloture motion to the desk today instead of the vote to proceed today, the cloture vote couldn’t have happened until Tuesday (Absent unanimous consent of course). So despite the extra vote, the senate is actually saving a day on her nomination. I’m curious if this will be a one off or new strategy.

    Like

    • tsb1991's avatar

      I think the net effect of the votes today was the same had UC not been blocked. Normally, that motion to proceed to executive session would be a voice vote or UC, and then Schumer would sent out the cloture motion. If that motion did get a voice vote or UC we’d still have a Monday vote for cloture.

      The issue is what happens the next time Schumer sends out cloture for multiple nominees. In between each cloture filing, he moves to proceed to legislative session, and then back to executive session to send out the next cloture motion. If that gets objected to then the Senate would be outright unmanageable, since you’d have to vote on every motion individually. I’m not totally sure what the switch to legislative and back to executive session for filing multiple cloture nominees is for, my understanding is that it was something Robert Byrd started as Majority Leader as a procedural shortcut. Ringwiss on Twitter I think has explained this in the past (the guy’s a talking congressional rulebook), and I still don’t fully understand it.

      That multiple cloture filings could be an issue on Monday, since if the trial is expected to be dismissed on Tuesday you’d need cloture filings Monday for Wednesday votes.

      Liked by 1 person

  26. Mike's avatar

    The senate spending an hour to vote to give themselves the rest of the week off is just the perfect cherry on top of this sh*t sunday before Menendez is out for his trial in May.

    There’s a real chance they confirm less than 5 judges next month. Of course the Dems figure out a way to skid off the road the moment they tie Trump’s judicial confirmations.

    Remember folks, it wasn’t until April 2019 that McConnell changed the district court debate rules from 30 hours to 2 hours. Dems have had that advantage for 3.5 years and STILL, Schumer gets played like a fiddle.

    McConnell would’ve confirmed 300 judges by now.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      @Mike

      EXACTLY… Democrats threatening McConnell with keeping the senate in session over the weekend would have meant a trip to Office Depot. Mitch would have had to buy a brand new pen to make sure Trump had enough ink to sign the influx of commissions coming his way that Saturday & Sunday.

      I keep repeating it but if you don’t punish bad behavior, there is no incentive to stop behaving badly.

      Like

  27. keystone's avatar

    On the bright side, there is a pretty good queue of judges who could prob be confirmed with out Menendez.

    Meriweather (Fed Claims), Bulsara (EDNY), Coggins (EDCA), Schulte (SD), Theeler (SD) all got bipartisan support in committee.

    Lanham (AZ), Martinez (AZ), Alexakis (NDIL) will prob get bipartisan support. Even though they haven’t had their hearings yet, I imagine Vargas (SDNY) and Shaw-Wilder (SDFL) will also be OK.

    As for next week, Schumer does tend to like setting up an easy nom to test attendance and Manglona is a great candidate for that. I think there’s a chance we could see a few of the party line noms confirmed.

    Liked by 1 person

      • keystone's avatar

        Really? You thought that was a poor performance? It was like a minor disagreement that lasted 2 seconds. Coggins and DeBose had much dicier exchanges and got through fine.

        Also, Martinez is supported by Sinema. If Sinema was able to convince 19 Republicans to vote for Desai, I feel like she should be able to talk Graham or Collins into voting for her.

        Even if Martinez doesn’t get bipartisan support, the point still holds that there’s a healthy queue of noms who would.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Dequan's avatar

        I’m not even sure if Martinez was wrong in her exchange, let alone performed poorly. I expect her to get at the very least one SJC Republican vote & three on the floor. Most likely more. There is nothing controversial at all about her or her hearing.

        She is a former US Attorney who clerked for a Republican appointee that was assassinated & was recommended by Sinema. She should be fine.

        Liked by 2 people

      • dawsont825's avatar

        @keystone

        Sinema getting 19 GOP “yes” votes for Desai were purely because they were trying to make nice with her because she was singlehandedly blocking Biden and Schumer from getting keys parts of BBB through the senate and because of her acting as a bulwark against eliminating the filibuster.

        It’s an election year, and she has no political capital left to persuade any of them to vote in favor of two liberal district court judges in Arizona. A lot of the GOP senators can see a 2nd Trump term and the FedSoc hack nominees coming in abundance, so why would they help Sinema and Biden do anything??

        I’m sure both Martinez and Lanham will get Collins’ vote (which will trigger Manchin to vote yes), but that’s about it. Sinema is done as a senator, and these 2-3 nominees she gets from Biden will be her legacy along with Desai.

        Liked by 1 person

  28. dawsont825's avatar

    Biden is so close to 200. I figured he’d get there in July or something but being 7 away is a real milestone. Even more so considering he had a divided senate for two years, and a one seat majority with basically a republican in Manchin as the 51st vote.

    Even if they don’t match or surpass Trump’s record in 4 years, Biden emphasizing judges on day 1 will have innumerable benefits long-term. If only Obama and Leahy thought the same way… *sigh*

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      I really hope the abortion issue increases turnout amongst those on the fence & Independent voters. If Dems can pull off a senate miracle this November & Biden gets re-elected, the map loos favorable in 2026 (Yes I know that’s two years away & anything can change). Having even just two, let alone four more years of a Democrat president & senate would probably give Dems either even or a majority in over 80 of the 93 district courts by the end of 2028. Out of the 13 circuit courts, I can see the same in at least 10 of the 13 circuit courts, probably 11 of the 13.

      Liked by 2 people

      • dawsont825's avatar

        Now you got me dreaming about what 300+ judges from Biden would look like.

        I think a resounding rejection of extreme GOP politics in 2024 with a 2nd Biden term and a 50/50 senate would bring about substantial judicial progress.

        Starting off with the biggest prize: SCOTUS. You would essentially start a 4-year period where you’d trap or block Justice Thomas from retiring to be replaced by his protégé, Judge Ho *barf emoji*. 4 years is a long time, and you can never count on excellent health from a justice approaching 80. But the wicked tend to live long lives, so he may get healthier as he ages. Ugh. Alito would rather perform an abortion himself than let himself be replaced by Biden or a Dem president, so the most we could hope for would be Biden to make 2 appointments to SCOTUS. The median justice being Roberts is easier to deal with than having goddamn Kavanaugh be the median.

        Secondly, the circuit courts. Biden finishing his 2nd term with well over 70 circuit court judges would fundamentally alter the jurisprudence of imbalanced circuit courts in this country. The 8th would look MUCH different with a lot of older judges eligible for senior status or getting closer to croaking altogether. The 5th could finally be brought to a decent level with 2 more appointments there. The 11th as well. He could further deepen the liberal wing of the 9th circuit, and work to keep the 10th liberal wing intact and out of FedSoc hands… especially with a lot of states like Wyoming, Utah, and Oklahoma wanting conservatives on their circuit courts. Not to mention that with another appointment or two in every circuit (such as the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, and 7th) those circuits could either have outright liberal majorities or be close enough ideologically that 3-judge panels would have 2 or 3 dem appointees on them.

        And lastly, the sweet sweet district courtships. The dream would be to finally get liberal judges in states like Alaska, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, etc., Will that happen? Probably not. But finally being able to call Sens. Johnson and Sullivan’s bluff and getting judges in those states to keep the rogue GOP state governments in check would be glorious. Not to mention getting a lot of judges in places like Missouri and further appointing liberals to Texas’ federal bench. They’d still get reversed on appeal, but anything to slow down the batsh*t crazy stuff coming out of Texas would be sensational.

        Overall, Biden getting 225+ in his first term and leaving 0 circuit court vacancies, then turning to his 2nd term and leaving office with 360+ judges and 2 SCOTUS appointees would go a long way to loosening the conservative movement’s stranglehold on the judiciary. Sign me up please.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Ryan J's avatar

        Dequan, I figure that your exceptions would be the 5th, 8th, & 11th. The 5th & 8th are just too heavily Republican and the conservatives on the 11th are all younger.

        I’ll respond to your well thought analysis with one of my own.

        Current ideological split of each circuit court (roughly) — with the exception of Ilana Rovner, this is just a measurement of Dem appointees vs. GOP appointees:
        1st: 5-0 liberal (1 vacant)
        2nd: 7-6 liberal
        3rd: 7-6 conservative (1 vacant)
        4th: 9-6 liberal
        5th: 12-5 conservative
        6th: 10-6 conservative
        7th: 6-5 conservative
        8th: 10-1 conservative
        9th: 16-13 liberal
        10th: 7-5 liberal
        11th: 7-5 conservative
        DC: 7-4 liberal

        List of circuit judges who will be 75 by 2028:

        1st: Kayatta* (liberal, 75 in 2028)
        2nd: none
        3rd: none
        4th: King (liberal, 88 in 2028), Niemeyer (conservative, 87 in 2028), Wilkinson (conservative, 84 in 2028), Agee (conservative, 76 in 2028), Gregory (liberal, 75 in 2028)
        5th: Smith (conservative, 82 in 2028), Jones (conservative, 79 in 2028), Stewart (moderate liberal, 78 in 2028), Southwick (moderate, 78 in 2028), Graves (liberal, 75 in 2028)
        6th: Clay (liberal, 80 in 2028), Moore (liberal, 80 in 2028), Gibbons* (moderate conservative, 78 in 2028), Griffin (conservative, 76 in 2028), Stranch* (liberal, 75 in 2028)
        7th: Rovner* (liberal, 90 in 2028), Easterbrook (conservative, 80 in 2028)
        8th: Loken (conservative, 88 in 2028), Benton (conservative, 78 in 2028), Shepherd (conservative, 77 in 2028)
        9th: M. Smith (moderate conservative, 86 in 2028), Gould (moderate liberal, 82 in 2028), Callahan (conservative, 78 in 2028), Rawlinson (moderate liberal, 76 in 2028), Bennett (conservative, 75 in 2028)
        10th: Hartz (conservative, 81 in 2028), Matheson (moderate liberal, 75 in 2028)
        11th: none
        DC: Henderson (conservative, 84 in 2028)
        Federal: Newman (101 in 2028), Lourie (93 in 2028), Dyk (91 in 2028), Prost (77 in 2028), Reyna (76 in 2028)

        *has announced intent to take senior status

        Liked by 1 person

      • dawsont825's avatar

        Wow. Thank you for going and finding all this information. It really makes predicting what another 4 years of Biden appointees to circuit courts would look like.

        For starters, Biden has already made the 1st circuit HIS circuit, so anything else would be a surprise retirement or an untimely death. The 1st circuit is probably the circuit that liberal advocacy groups will file lawsuits when there is a GOP president. Especially if they file in the DMA, they’re guaranteed to get a liberal active judge, and then be appealed to an all-liberal circuit… 6-0 liberal
        2nd: Already saved the liberal wing and has made an impact. Barring more sudden retirements or deaths, you can plausibly envision one more appointment (such as CJ Livingston going senior after her term as chief is up)… 8-5 Liberal
        3rd: This one scares me the most because Biden is using Mangi’s nomination as a political football. It makes sense politically to be seen fighting full force for an embattled Muslim judicial nominee, but he’s also rolling the dice and could potentially leave this seat open for Trump and his gaggle of FedSoc hacks. If they get Mangi confirmed or pull the nomination and get a liberal jurist confirmed, all eyes turn to the 6 eldest Bush and Obama appointees to see which one will take senior status over the next 4 years. Obama’s nominees are most likely to let Biden name their successor, but you just never know. At best, this will be a 8-6 split court, but 7-7 is perfectly fine.
        4th: King has to take senior or die off at some point… right?!? This circuit is the blueprint to how to remake a staunchly conservative circuit overtime (looking hard at you 5th circuit)… Yes, that entails having liberal or left-leaning senators in those states to return blue slips for liberal judges on both the circuit and district court levels, but still. The 4th circuit was the boogeyman for liberals for years, and now it’s firmly in their hands; with the chance to be very liberal with 4 more years of Biden appointees. Yes… Biden will have to contend with 2 GOP senators in both West Virginia and North Carolina for King’s and Wynn’s seat. But you can plausibly see Biden at least two more appointees guaranteed, but then also a few more if Wilkinson or Niemeyer take senior or die within the next 4 years (can I just say that I’m jealous that there is STILL a Reagan judge in active service to this day. The conservative movement’s discipline in getting young conservative jurists on the courts is something that we’ll have to deal with for decades; and something that I wish liberals would copy. It’s good to focus on law backgrounds, but age needs to be considered) If all goes right after 4 years of Biden, this could be a 10-5 or 11-4 liberal court.
        5th: I think the conservatives on this court are flat-out conservative activists and would rather work full-time at Planned Parenthood before they allow their seats to be filled with liberal jurists. With that said, Biden would certainly get the chance to bypass that racist meemaw in the senate (Hyde-Smith) and appoint Colom straight to the circuit courts (Just like Judge Bumatay on the 9th circuit when he was initially nominated to the SDCA). Biden would get the opportunity to shore up the liberal wing of the 5th circuit, and maybe he gets a shot or two to replace a few of the non-nut job right wingers on the circuit. Best case scenario after 4 more years would be.. 10- 7 conservative. Much better than what we have now, I’d certainly take it.
        6th: With 3 appointees to this circuit, Biden has already outpaced his previous Dem predecessor, and will likely get 5 appointees at the end of his first term. In a 2nd term, Biden should be able to replace the two remaining Clinton appointees, and if he’s lucky, he’ll get another Bush appointee to step down. Best case scenario… 8-8 split, with a 9-7 conservative majority being the most likely.
        7th circuit: This circuit is already much different since he was inaugurated, and after 4 years, it could look much different. The 3 eldest judges are Reagan, Papi Bush, and Bush appointees. 4 years is a looooong time, so who knows if he’ll get 1/3 or 2/3 or in an ideal world, he’ll get 3 more appointees and will basically make the circuit that handmaids tale SCOTUS Justice Barrett is over, a very liberal one. In the real world… Biden would get at least one while waiting out the other two. So, this would be a 6-5 outright liberal court, or in a really good scenario, a 7-4 liberal court.
        8th: You have to start somewhere. It’s lopsided as hell currently, so any help for Judge Kelly would make her a happy camper. Luckily, there are a lot of older conservatives on the court, so there’s a good chance Biden can make a serious dent there after 4 more years. Best case scenario, he gets all 3 of the older conservatives, but he may only get 2 appointees there after 4 more years. This circuit will be a long-term plan. If a Dem president succeeds Biden, then the goal of bringing more balance here would be attainable… 7-4 conservative.
        9th: The most Biden can further do here is keep the liberal seats out of FedSoc hands. So, with 3 more appointees, he’d surpass Trump’s appointees here and keep the liberal wing young and vibrant. It would be hilarious is Judge Bennett pulled a Julie Carnes and allowed Biden to appoint his successor, not likely, but stranger things have happened. It wouldn’t surprise me if Biden got to replace one of the Bush appointees, but it’s more likely that he would keep the 16-13 liberal majority intact for decades. 17-12/18-11 isn’t out of the realm of possibility, but it’s unlikely.
        10th: This is the one that has the chance to be the biggest variable. Obama turned this circuit liberal by working with a lot of red-state senators to appoint centrist or even slightly left-leaning jurists here. The best thing Biden can do is replace the liberal wing with younger jurists and hope to pick off an untimely retirement. 7-5 liberal is the most likely after 4 years, but 8-4 liberal isn’t out of the realm of possibility if Biden prioritizes judicial nominations paired with timely retirements/senior status announcements. Can’t let this one slip away, because the senators from Oklahoma, Kansas, Wyoming, Utah would looooove to have some FedSoc hacks on their courts.
        11th: Sadly, I don’t think Biden can do much here unless death or sudden retirements pop up. His 2 appointees after his first term will be good, but he has to prioritize getting the Obama appointees to take senior so Scott and Rubio don’t get to recommend more Desantis lackies there. Maybe Biden gets lucky and gets CJ Pryor (highly unlikely since he was AG of Alabama). Best case scenario is maintaining the 7-5 conservative majority and playing the waiting game.
        DC: Obama’s appointees should be in good shape to wait out the next Dem president and senate, so just hope that Henderson takes senior. An 8-3 majority on the 2nd highest court in the land would hit like fresh crack (don’t ask).
        Federal: Same thing here, 4 older appointees spots ripe for the picking. Keeping Trump from putting a FedSoc hack here should be a priority. I think they can keep this circuit safe.

        Overall, 4 more years of Biden with a majority in the senate can, should, and will bring about great change in the judiciary. Since SCOTUS can’t hear EVERY case, keeping the lower courts in liberal hands would go a long way to slowing the insurgent conservative judicial takeover of the courts.

        Not to mention that every circuit vacancy in red states brings the potential for package deals of liberal judges on the district courts in exchange for a more moderate circuit judge. I’ll happily take Scott Colom’s on the NDMS in exchange for a non-fire breather on the district court. Not to mention that having liberal judges on the district level would help to keep the increasingly rogue state governments in check. If Illinois has to contend with FedSoc hacks striking down liberal bills passed by Pritzker and co., so should red states in the south and Midwest.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Dequan's avatar

        I think if Biden got 8 years with a Democrat senate, the 5th & 11th would still have a Republican majority. The 8th was the third circuit I put on the fence. There are a handful of judges that could retire today, not to mention with their ages, any health issues that could force them off the bench. The 8th is honestly my personal holy grail to see Biden get some vacancies on. Poor Jane Kelley is both the only woman & Democrat appointee on the court.

        Liked by 2 people

  29. keystone's avatar

    @dawson825

    I understand why Desai got so many votes. I understand the backend politics. However, that isn’t that only reason. Romney, who is prob Sinema’s closest Senate friend aside from Manchin, is on record as saying that he originally voted no and that Sinema came over to him to explain that she was vouching for Desai and convinced him to go back and switch his vote. That Romney yes vote was not needed. Sinema was makin’ rounds and doin’ work to whip votes to ensure her nominee got over the finish line. I’m not saying she’ll get 19 votes. I’m just saying, I think she’ll ensure that there is at least 1 GOP who will vote for it.

    Liked by 3 people

    • dawsont825's avatar

      That’s fair, and I already expected Collins to vote for any normal status-quo-background nominee. Any former prosecutor/AUSA/ADA/etc., is good with her. Just don’t ask her to vote for any public defenders or labor lawyers lol.

      I think the most Sinema can get for her district court judges would be the 3 usual votes (Collins, Murkowski, and Graham) and potentially her good buddy Romney and/pr a random Sen. Cassidy/Young/Braun vote.

      I’m excited to see who incoming Sen. Gallego judicial nominees would be, I’m confident they’d be more liberal than Sinema’s (sans Desai, who is very very liberal), but he would defer to Sen. Kelly on them all.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Ryan J's avatar

      Even if the GOP opposes the AZ nominees in unison, if anyone can convince Manchin to make an exception to his rule, it would be Sinema. The two seem to be friendly with each other. Nevertheless, I think Collins and Romney will support if Sinema asks them to. So I really think it comes down to how hard Sinema pushes for the AZ nominees to be confirmed. I’m not too concerned since the seats don’t actually open until June 1 and July 1, so it would be ok if they had to wait till June to be confirmed.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Aiden's avatar

      I was meant to post this when it came out, but got busy. Thanks for this!

      The panel she is on, is already very liberal.
      Mendoza and Murguia being some of the most liberal judges on the court.

      It will be interesting to see her see if there are any dissents in any of these panels decisions. Though I very much doubt it.

      I think a better indicator of her ideology might show in panels with moderates such as Owen or others like. H.A Thomas.

      Like

  31. Zack's avatar

    As has been said before, there was a chance to fix some of the courts, especially the 7th and 11th under Obama and we know what happened there.
    But two more years of Senate control would make it much more likely that some Democratic appointees on the DC, 3rd, 4th,6th,9th and 10th Circuits will take senior status along with some Republican ones take the Kanne route and thus we can strengthen moderate/liberal control of those courts.

    Liked by 2 people

  32. Dequan's avatar

    I didn’t know some members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus spoke out against Sen. Richard Blumenthal & rushed to defend Sotomayor against retiring. Also I love Sen. John Fetterman comments at the end of the article. I couldn’t agree more with him.

    (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/sonia-sotomayor-retire_n_66157826e4b07b7205f16f6c?utm_source=cordial&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=hp-us-reg-morning-email_2024-04-10&utm_term=us-morning-email&email_hash=de017c0fe15eeb269996034e729e5c4653882ba0)

    Liked by 1 person

  33. Joe's avatar

    These senators are sort of in an impossible situation when they’re asked, but it’s clear that there’s really zero downside in Sotomayor retiring. The upsides are tremendous.

    At age 70, she’ll most like likely be fine to continue for another 5-10 years and make this a moot point, but why risk it? My guess is a big part of it is that she is a lifelong judge and is single with no kids – being a judge is her whole life and her whole personality.

    Anyway, I sort of hate this tendency in the judicial/legal community to continue working at all costs. Personally I think David Souter had it right.

    Liked by 4 people

      • Joe's avatar

        Agreed, Frank.

        I also chuckle at the notion that somehow she (or any other SCOTUS judge) even needs the senior status in order to justify leaving the bench financially. As if every university or law firm in America wouldn’t immediately drop everything to hire her for a salary far above what she’s making now.

        Liked by 4 people

  35. shawnee68's avatar

    It’s really up to Justice Sotomayor whether she wants to leave or not. The question of when a person decides to retire is a personal one. It’s no one’s business to opine on if they ought to pursue other areas of employment.

    How about this? Maybe she likes the job she has and doesn’t want to go elsewhere. That’s entirely up to her.

    These discussions don’t happen in conservative circles. They have more respect for justices elected by republican presidents,’

    Let’s ask Thomas and Alito (who have demonstrated that they can’t live on their salaries ) to end their careers rather than insulting Sonia Sotomayor for a change.

    Liked by 1 person

  36. Zack's avatar

    Both Rehnquist and Scalia were known to have health issues and the former had been strongly pressured to retire before he did but he didn’t.
    If he had been replaced by a Democratic appointee, he would have gotten called out just like RBG has.
    As to Sotomayor, all due respect her job isn’t like the president where there is a liberal replacement waiting for her if she passes away from the health issues that require her to have a traveling medic.
    If she passes away at the wrong time, the civil rights of millions which are already under attack by the now 6-3 right wing SCOTUS we have now will cease to exist with a 7-2 right wing court.
    In a fair world, someone could stay at their job as long as they want but we don’t live in such a world and I get tired of one person being made out to matter more then a group as a whole.
    That line of thinking saw to it RBG’s only legacy is letting someone who is against everything she fought for replacing her.
    Yes, young people and others need to vote in every election even if someone doesn’t meet their purity test 100% (that includes Gaza) but that isn’t likely to happen any time soon.
    So you go with option number 2 and that is asking someone to retire for the greater good.

    Liked by 2 people

    • star0garnet's avatar

      This, but with the caveat that there are very few justices, or even circuit judges, for whom public discussion of their retirement is going to impact their retirement timing. For most, there are at most a handful of close family and friends whose opinion has any influence whatsoever. Thus, there is no harm whatsoever in public discussion of said retirements.

      Liked by 2 people

    • shawnee68's avatar

      It wasn’t RBG’s fault that people who are complaining now did not vote in the midterms during Obama’s second term. It might be more useful to place the blame there than on someone who is longer with us.

      We have teach the generation following us that we failed. To blame others and not accept responsibility will not yield positive results.

      It can leave us those who are entitled and unable search within our selves to be more involved rather than complacent.

      Like

      • star0garnet's avatar

        Someone can be forgiven for brushing off a single bout of cancer from which they fully recovered. But her surgery for her second bout was two weeks after Obama took office. She had NEARLY SIX YEARS to make a decision that would take any non-egomaniac less than a week to make. I also suspect somebody complaining about her selfishness is far likelier to vote in local schoolboard elections than they are to have missed a midterm.

        Liked by 2 people

      • shawnee68's avatar

        I don’t anyone who has children would think that is a appropriate response from an adult.

        Roe should have been overturned decades ago. No one wants to admit that people from the left got complacent and lazy.

        I guess it’s more convenient to blame RBJ. Does it help you sleep at night?

        Like

      • star0garnet's avatar

        Now you’re just getting nonsensical. Anybody who saw the effects of the avoidable Marshall–>Thomas disaster, such as RBG, has no excuse for replicating it. Yes, had Hillary’s campaign not waltzed into the election in a state of overconfidence, we’d be in a very different place today. But the complacent and irresponsible one in this scenario was RBG, who happened to hold virtually all of the cards.

        Liked by 2 people

      • shawnee68's avatar

        Actually, it’s you who is talking nonsense.It’s also kind of mean. We had 12 years straight of Republicans controlling the White House.

        The 1984 Election Reagan won all states except one. Then his VP Bush won the 1988 Election. They had better candidates and a superior campaign.Anyone who was alive then knows that.

        During that time 3 justices O’Conner , Kennedy and Souter upheld Roe. No one expected Roe to survive.

        So, I guess we’ll go and desecrate the resting place of Thurgood Marshall because he had the nerve to die. I’m sure that someone else dying is worse for you than the deceased or their loved ones .Listen to yourself!

        Now, can we moved forward or do you want to attack people are no longer with us? Some people have no class whatsoever.

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        @shawnee68

        It’s not as simple as you make it out to be. Yes Republicans held the presidency for 12 straight years but for most (If not all) of those 12, Democrats had the majority in the senate. So they were able to get more moderate Republican appointed justices back then. I believe no less than three Republican nominees were not ultimately confirmed including Robert Bork.

        Liked by 2 people

      • star0garnet's avatar

        Our society has survived as long as it has because a large enough portion of presidents and justices have regularly placed the interests of the country above their own. Marshall resigning and RBG refusing to resign happen to be two grave errors in judgment from two otherwise brilliant players in our history. How harshly you judge them for those errors may come down to how far down the right wing rabbit hole you believe these justices will drag us, and how okay you are with that.

        Liked by 2 people

      • shawnee68's avatar

        We have a Congress for a reason. That’s the branch that represents the people. The court’s are not there to fill in for people who are too lazy to vote.

        What happens when we keep losing elections and the Congress circumscribes the jurisdiction of the courts?

        I remember the day that Marshall retired because that was the only time he was on TV. No, I wasn’t his fault that he had failing health and had to leave.

        No one could have known that the Republican’s would win 3 straight presidential elections.

        We underestimated Reagan the same way that Republicans are doing with Biden.

        I have said this many times on here if you want assign blame you can look to the folks who voted for Ralph Nader in the 2000 election.

        It’s happening again in 2024 with the RFK Jr campaign for president. It’s the same dumb ass campaign as 2000 all over again.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Joe's avatar

        Of course Democrats should’ve turned out in better numbers I. 2014. Maybe they hold onto Colorado and North Carolina. The others were probably never going to be held anyway though. But that doesn’t change the basic facts. RBG was determined to be replaced by a woman president (Hillary) and set SCOTUS milestones (longest serving Jew). She would never have retired in 2015-2016.

        Had she truly valued “the work” over her own personal preferences then she would’ve retired sometime between 2011-2014. But she fell victim to her own ego for a variety of reasons and refused. And then the inevitable happened and she couldn’t retire without Trump making her replacement and look what happened.

        With Sotomayor it’ll probably be fine, but RBG is an important lesson in hubris. The work is always more important than the individual

        Liked by 2 people

      • Dequan's avatar

        I’m sorry but you’re just factually incorrect. Sandra Day O’Connor is & was not considered a hard core conservative in the mold of Thomas & Bork. And once again senate Democrats had the majority & no less than three Republican nominees were ultimately not confirmed during the 12 years you mentioned. This is not my opinion, these are facts easily able to be looked up… Lol

        Like

      • shawnee68's avatar

        Sorry but I followed those nominations when they happened back then.

        They did not use terms like “hard right” back then. We apply those terms retroactively.

        Yes, hindsight is 20-20. Bork was rejected for several different reasons.

        If you watch his hearing he was no more conservative than Thomas and Alito. In fact, Bork stated that “contraception” is a protected right.

        Like

      • tsb1991's avatar

        If SCOTUS was still 5-4 though and Ginsburg stepped down and was replaced under Obama, does Dobbs even get taken up by SCOTUS? I thought I remember reading that even after Kavanaugh replaced Kennedy, the Thomases and Alitos of SCOTUS were still reluctant to take up an abortion case to overturn Roe since they didn’t trust Roberts on the matter and didn’t feel they had five rock solid votes to outright nuke Roe. That became a moot point after Barrett replaced Ginsburg since Roberts was no longer the court’s swing vote and the conservatives no longer needed Roberts to make a majority. If the court was still 5-4 maybe June Medical v Russo (the Louisiana TRAP law case that was identical to WWH v. Hellerstedt) is the last abortion case SCOTUS rules on for a while.

        If Dobbs was heard under a 5-4 SCOTUS, obviously the opinion is written by Roberts and not Alito. It’s still a disastrous ruling as Roberts would uphold the 15 week ban and would nuke the undue burden standard in Casey (which he hinted at wanting to do in his concurrence in June Medical v Russo) to the point where any and every restriction would get upheld by the court, the only things you’d see tossed out at the courts are probably 6 week bans (TRAP laws across the south would get reinstated and abortion access is eliminated that way). IMO Roberts definitely wanted to eliminate Roe but wanted to be more subtle about it, he’d go with death by a thousand cuts and overturn Roe without saying he overturned it, such as not putting “Roe is overturned” on the opinion in big bold letters, the way Alito and Thomas effectively overturned it. Question is if a diet Dobbs opinion by Roberts causes political headaches for Republicans the same way the Alito Dobbs opinion did.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Ryan J's avatar

        I was of the view that overturning Roe would be better than the Roberts’ version of shadow overturning of Roe until I learned about the Comstock Act, which Project 2025 wants to use to create a de facto national abortion ban without having to pass anything through Congress.

        Liked by 1 person

  37. Joe's avatar

    Regarding Breyer, I suspect he always planned on retiring the next time Democrats controlled the Presidency and Senate.

    When that happened in 2021 he likely just opted to wait a year so that his decision wouldn’t look too obviously political and also so his protege KBJ would be in line for his seat. This was strongly rumored in several places in 2021. Haven’t heard anything like that with Sotomayor

    Liked by 2 people

  38. keystone's avatar

    The CDIL names came really fast. The application deadline was March 4th and the list was released on April 12th.

    The nominee announcement for NDIL (the 1st one from that batch) and WDVA came ~ 2months after the list announcement.

    Just a reminder that the CDIL search had the last application deadline of the current searches.

    • Maryland – Nov 13
    • EDPA/MDPA – Nov 27
    • VT – Dec 1 **
    • Mass – Dec 11 *
    • Maine – Dec 15
    • EDPA (Lehigh) – Jan 2
    • Minn – Feb 29
    • CDIL – Mar 4**

    *nominee named

    **list of names provided

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      I hope with the application deadline closed for all blue states, this past week will be the last one we miss a new batch & subsequent hearing a month later. With the number of weeks (And in some cases months) that the senate is out on recess, there is no reason we can’t get four straight batches to fill the 20 vacancies that don’t require a Republican blue slip. The key will be if we can get 5 – 10 red state district court nominees to fill one or toe more hearing slots.

      The WHC really needs to negotiate the vacancies on the 1st, 4th, 6th & 11th to fill some or all of those 8 red state district court vacancies to go along with them. Then we would only need a few more from states that don’t have a circuit court vacancy. That in addition to any remaining vacancies to come would give us six more batches of an average of five new nominees each for the rest of this year.

      Liked by 1 person

  41. tsb1991's avatar

    One thing the Senate may have to grapple with after the trial is the FISA re-authorization, which the House has had trouble passing with. Question is does that get fast-tracked or does Lee make the Senate vote on every procedural matter after the trial. Maybe a bone can be tossed to them and give them some pre-dismissal votes that would all be killed on party lines anyway?

    Liked by 1 person

  42. Dequan's avatar

    Ann Marie Mcliff Allen received her commission yesterday. That just leaves Eumi Lee & Robert White for seats that are currently vacant. The other confirmed nominees will have to wait for the judges for their seats to leave the bench.

    Liked by 1 person

  46. tsb1991's avatar

    Sounds like the Senate schedule this week will be that the articles will be delivered at 2PM tomorrow, so I’d expect Manglona to be confirmed (re-confirmed?) tomorrow morning. Senators will be sworn in for the trial around 1PM Wednesday after convening at noon. Wouldn’t expect any cloture motions sent out today in that regard but it sounds like Thursday would be free.

    Liked by 1 person

  48. tsb1991's avatar

    Another thing looming on the Senate horizon is if the House passes their own Israel/Ukraine/etc aid. Obviously the best case for the Senate would be if the House passed the Senate-passed supplemental as that would be the quickest and easiest way to get something to the President’s desk. If the House cobbles something together does the Senate stick around at the end of the week like they did in February and eat into their break?

    Liked by 1 person

  49. tsb1991's avatar

    Schumer wrapped up. Manglona will be confirmed tomorrow morning. Schumer said to expect two votes at 11:30AM tomorrow, not sure what the other one would be. He did get UC to proceed to executive session to vote on Manglona tomorrow, so it’s not related to that.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a reply to tsb1991 Cancel reply